Daniel Sarewitz demands scientists somehow make Republicans want to be scientists

[meegbear]

Daniel Sarewitz is the co-director of the "Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes at Arizona State University." He has written a piece in Slate asking why there are no Republican scientists, answering that question, and then for some reason demanding that Republican scientists be somehow created.

The piece is subtitled "Most scientists in this country are Democrats. That's a problem."

It is no secret that the ranks of scientists and engineers in the United States include dismal numbers of Hispanics and African-Americans, but few have remarked about another significantly underrepresented group: Republicans.

OK, but is this a joke?

No, this is not the punch line of a joke.

Oh, OK. Well, this one seems pretty easy! The problem is either that Republicans are not interested in becoming scientists or scientists are not interested in becoming Republicans, and either way, it seems incumbent on the Republicans, not the scientists, to do something about that. If they care. Which they don't.

But Sarewitz doesn't seem to actually understand that it is the responsibility of a political party to make itself attractive to a constituency, and not the other way around.

He seems to be arguing that the fact that scientists are mostly Democrats is the reason that Republicans refuse to accept the scientific consensus on, say, climate change. In fact, these horrible liberal scientists have only themselves to blame for the fact that Republicans are hostile to their research:

Or could it be that disagreements over climate change are essentially political -- and that science is just carried along for the ride? For 20 years, evidence about global warming has been directly and explicitly linked to a set of policy responses demanding international governance regimes, large-scale social engineering, and the redistribution of wealth. These are the sort of things that most Democrats welcome, and most Republicans hate. No wonder the Republicans are suspicious of the science.

Think about it: The results of climate science, delivered by scientists who are overwhelmingly Democratic, are used over a period of decades to advance a political agenda that happens to align precisely with the ideological preferences of Democrats. Coincidence -- or causation? Now this would be a good case for Mythbusters.

Ugh, if only scientists would stop demanding that anyone do anything about climate change, then maybe Republicans would take climate change a little more seriously! In other words, I think the answer he seeks is "causation," but also I think Sarewitz has the direction of the causation completely backward. (Also this would make a bad episode of "Mythbusters" because it doesn't involve a provable hypothesis and nothing would blow up.)

Sarewitz honestly seems to think that scientists are all liberals because of ... some unknown reason, and the fact that they are liberals led them to decide that "redistributing wealth" was the solution to global warming, and that is why Republicans don't trust climate science.

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/news/global_warming/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2010/12/09/no_republican_scientists

[SpiralHawk]

1. Could it have something to do with Republicons 'problem' with facts and truth?

Fer sure.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. Scientists need intellectual curiosity. Republicans and science don't go together -

since for them, it's about authoritarianism and belief systems; science is highly threatening to them, because you must be able to question, test, and change your mind when data suggests something different - that's my take (and yes, I am a scientist!).

[rucky]

7. they also need to be objective

so that's two strikes against 'em

[NRaleighLiberal]

8. Indeed....well stated. n/t

[PVnRT]

3. Huh? There are few Republican engineers? Wrong.

Most of the engineers I've worked with are overwhelmingly conservative, or at least moderate Republican. There are few exceptions, such as myself, that sit on the left, and we tend to just stay quiet and roll our eyes a lot.

[CJCRANE]

4. For Republicans everything is about "perception".

They start with the perception they want then go about creating it.

Science and reason just get in the way of this drive for "creating reality".

[Pholus]

5. How cute. So Republicans support "the right kinds" of Affirmative Action?

Perhaps, as was my experience, Republican proto-scientists should stick out the full
program instead of heading off for a fat paycheck in industry the moment they can.

It's a selection effect. Scientists study these things all the time.

[rucky]

6. I think he answered his own question. n/t

[Generic Other]

9. Certainly explains our dismal test scores

willful ignorance.

[Zoeisright]

10. Well, since science is based on logical reasoning, it makes sense that there are

no repuke scientists. And you also need intelligence, common sense, a curiosity about the world, and a mind that isn't closed and locked shut to be a scientist. The exact opposite of the definition of repuke.

[CRK7376]

11. My father was

a Professor of Biology at a liberal arts college in the South, a Christian and taught evolution. He would be howling with laughter at the Kentucky Creation Museum and it's new Ark project....It was always fun to watch and listen to his discussions on evolution, creation, and religion.