6 ms·

Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

33 points by ccoop 16y ago

drKarl 16y ago
I don't see why that should be a problem. There is also a clear correlation between scientists and religion (or lack of belief).
- araneae 16y ago
  I think he was trying to point out that it's a credibility problem. For instance, where science aligns with political belief, it makes it harder for scientists to argue that they're impartial when they generally share the same political beliefs with eachother.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    where science aligns with political belief What if it's more an issue of political belief aligning itself against science? We've all seen the numbers on which Americans believe the earth is 5,000 years old, right?
    - araneae 16y ago
      Well clearly that's problematic too.
      - jbooth 16y ago
        I agree, and furthermore I'd say that if the one preceded the other (i.e. the Republican Party became anti-science first), it's sort of blaming the victim to say scientists should be more balanced. More balanced with what? We'll average 5k and 12 billion and posit that the universe is 6 billion + 2500 years old?
  - drKarl 16y ago
    Science is based on facts, not in belief. Proving a scientific theory using a flawed logic to support a political belief would be fatal to the reputation of a scientific. Therefore, scientific credibility has nothing to do with political affiliation, religion beliefs (or lack thereof), colour of skin or any other personal treat. There were brilliant scientists amongst the nazis and amongst the soviet communists, so it has nothing to do with that. Political belief is a very personal choice and everyone has the right to choose, and also everyone has the choice to become a scientist. In my opinion this article is a poor defense of republican party.
    - araneae 16y ago
      "Science is based on facts" is a nonsensical statement. Science is a method by which one tries to establish facts. The problem is that it is a process run by humans which have biases. Bias can influence many things in science, not least of which is hypothesis selection. Through no fault of their own, scientists who have beliefs may not come up with hypotheses that contradict them, and therefore fail to test them. They will select the better of the two hypotheses they have, but they may miss something. This is a flaw in the scientific process that goes way beyond bias, by the way. It's the part that not anyone can do: that requires creative thinking, and is limited by it. To emulate Churchill, science is the worst way to discover truth, except for all those other ways that have been tried from time to time.
- verysimple 16y ago
  "In God we trust; all others must bring data." -- W. Edwards Deming, Physicist
- hugh3 16y ago
  Science and religion are about what is, while politics is about what ought to happen. There's no reason why your views about whether Jesus rode a dinosaur or whether global warming will kill us all should be correlated with your views on issues like "Should taxes be lowered?" and "Should the Government subsidize health care?" and "Should [whatever random complicated policy issue you like]?" And yet, they so often are. In a two-party system, people who don't spend all that much time thinking about politics often seem to wind up buying their political opinions in job lots. Part of this is due to the success which the Democrats have been having with their "If you don't believe that Jesus rode a dinosaur then you need to support all our left-wing economic policies" line, but this is a serious problem both for Republicans and for Science. (And as a Republican scientist, it's a doubly important issue for me.)
verysimple 16y ago
This kind of rhetoric disturbs me. The burden doesn't lie with the scientific community, but rather the republican party. Science is not a movement, it's a set of practices that emphasize observation and empirical analysis to interpret the world around us. Science is there for anybody who wants to open their mind to it to enjoy. I'm sure some republicans have and assuming those numbers are correct, 1 of 3 things happened: 1) they've changed their affiliation over time (becoming either democrat or unaffiliated), 2) they didn't find what they were looking for in science and stopped practicing, 3) they're in the current minority.
- Jun8 16y ago
  Although it is true that the scientific method cannot be thought of as "political" in any sense, I think it's a big mistake to see science as deriving, almost mechanically from observations. It is done by scientists and in all ages scientists are affected by non-scientific aspects of their societies, i.e. traditions, commonly held beliefs, and politics. Also, not all science is as abstract as, say, mathematics or hunting for dark matter. Some questions, e.g.: should we perform stem cell research on embryos, should we eradicate mosquitoes, should we try to affect human sexual patterns leading to AIDS, etc. are scientific but also contain a large dose of ethics, i.e. they cannot be approached by handling equations alone in an objective matter.
  - verysimple 16y ago
    "I think it's a big mistake to see science as deriving, almost mechanically from observations [...] scientists are affected by non-scientific aspects of their societies, i.e. traditions, commonly held beliefs, and politics" It's neither a mistake nor inaccurate. Once you've observed, measured, calculated and concluded, you can involve all form of non-empirical disciplines you want, after all we are morally and emotionally bound beings. One thing we can't do however is hide from the truth the data has spoken. Those are usually very profound paradigm shifts, a crossroad between being comfortable with what was revealed, or choosing to be more at peace with one's oblivion and folkloric truths. "Some questions, e.g.: should we perform stem cell research on embryos, should we eradicate mosquitoes, should we try to affect human sexual patterns leading to AIDS, etc. are scientific [...] i.e. they cannot be approached by handling equations alone in an objective matter." If the approach can't be objective then the question isn't scientific. Granted, those are science related questions and have a dose of moral and ethics involved, but that's not what science is about. Science isn't there to answer what you should or shouldn't do. It's there to provide you with facts on what would happen if you do it. Change your question should we eradicate mosquitoes into what would happen if we eradicate mosquitoes and we can talk science. Lets take out the tools, dust off old books, go in the nature, observe, measure, extrapolate, calculate and conclude. Then based on those conclusions we'll look at each other and our moral fiber will tell us, nah we should probably let the little scoundrel be.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
I would claim that there are two factors that lead to the fact that most scientists are Democrats: the overall lean of universities, and the source of funding. First, scientists tend to work in academia. It's well documented that universities are strongly slanted to the left. It seems reasonable to expect that when the left-leaning universities are looking to hire, they will tend to (possibly not intentionally) favor others like themselves. Second, the government is the largest funder of scientific research. However, to the extent that the GOP favors a smaller government (and though they say this, they don't actually do so, but that's a different discussion), this would make one expect that those against such governmental funding would be morally bound to find other means of employment. asking how the guy who prohibited stem-cell research This isn't what happened. It's incredibly frustrating to me that people continually read a ban on federal funding to be a ban on research itself. But it does reinforce my point that the governmental force behind science is now perceived as the sole force behind science. reinforce the idea that Democrats are the party of science and rationality In the science of economics the opposite is true. For example, Democratic support of minimum wages and other price controls, and especially their opposition to free trade, fly against the wind of economic science.
- araneae 16y ago
  to the extent that the GOP favors a smaller government (and though they say this, they don't actually do so, but that's a different discussion), this would make one expect that those against such governmental funding would be morally bound to find other means of employment. I can support this with anecdotal evidence. I have a friend who got his Ph.D. in physics, but decided to work outside of academia. His primary reason for this was that he felt that as a libertarian it would be immoral for him to take government money. He currently works at Intel.
  - evgen 16y ago
    Yeah, but it wasn't too immoral for him to take advantage of government funded university research labs in order to get that Ph.D. in the first place, right? Once he no longer needed the government's money he was free to let his strong moral position take over, but up until that point I am sure the cognitive dissonance was keeping him up at night...
trotsky 16y ago
I think the article makes a good point, and the obvious solution is to make a fair percentage of those conducting research switch party affiliation.
- Trey-Jackson 16y ago
  Ha, funny.
jonstewart 16y ago
The real problem is that there aren't enough scientists to vote out Republicans.
Trey-Jackson 16y ago
"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert
rbranson 16y ago
I think this is largely because of the overwhelming number of fundamentalists in the Republican party. When there are polling figures like 46% of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim and 67% believe he's a socialist, this picture starts to become clear. If you believe something so strongly that your opinion cannot be changed despite astronomical amounts of evidence to the contrary, then you will not many friends in science.
hristov 16y ago
That is a problem. But it is not a problem for science, it is a problem for the republican party. For the last ten years they have been so aggressively pro stupidity that intelligent people are embarrassed to be affiliated with them, even if their general political beliefs are closer to the republican than to the democrat side.
- jobeirne 16y ago
  The Democratic party has exhibited a ``pro-stupidity'' attitude on the same order of magnitude, just in more subtle ways. Instead of damning stem cell research, the Dems champion Keynesian economics, seek to implement entitlement programs, and push protectionism (``buy local''). Which is more harmful?
  - sandipc 16y ago
    "Which is more harmful?" As a scientist, the damning of stem cell research.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Under other circumstances, democrats tend to be just as opposed to performing experiments which they feel are immoral. An example: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/nyregion/09placebo.html?ref=nyregion http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/nyregion/09placebo.html?re... (I'm speculating that the opposition are democrats, but in NYC it's a good guess.) Or, to take a bipartisan example, people of pretty much any party would be opposed to repeating the Tuskegee experiment (or many others). It's not anti-scientific to oppose a particular experiment because you believe conducting it involves immoral acts. You might disagree with the morality involved, but that's not the same thing.
      - joe_the_user 16y ago
        Oddly enough, I think most scientist are opposed to immoral experiments as well. The question is whether or not one is using rational criteria to determine what's moral.
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
This is a problem, and it really has nothing to do with specific policies or parties. Any democracy will evolve into a multi-party system. In the U.S. we've basically went with two parties, and it looks like we are stuck with it. So in a two party system, any group that completely affiliates with one party, either by membership or just tradition, both damages that party and the group itself. What I love about politics is that it shows humans at their most irrational: from the Nobel Laureate to the rocket scientist, when you get them talking about politics it's the emotional brain first, the logical brain second. People are like this in all areas of reasoning, it's just politics is the easiest to observe. So, for instance, watching somebody bullshit themselves about politics is a pretty good quick and dirty indicator of how they're going to bullshit themselves about whether or not you need a new server rack. I don't think every issue naturally has two sides to it, but because politics is emotion-based and not reason-based, I don't think it matters. There should be as many scientists roughly in each party. It's a very interesting observation that there are not. I believe journalism is similarly skewed. So when story X comes in over the transom from NGO group advocating some cause, the reporter picks up the phone and consults with several experts. If the odds hold, everybody in that little scenario is a member of the same party, with the same prejudices towards how the story should be told. Not a good thing. I imagine -- without looking at any other comments on this thread -- that there will be a lot of "but the scientists are actually scientifically choosing to be Dems, because it's not logical to do otherwise" or perhaps blaming the Rs for being so bad that no decent scientist would support them. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about (and probably a good reason for the post to be considered of dubious merit for HN) It's a shame, because the larger issue causes all sorts of other problems.
- Jun8 16y ago
  Very well put! What keeps amazing me about US politics is that (as in other places) there is a small number, n, of top issues, e.g. gay marriage, abortion, off-shoring work, gun control. I think n~10. Assuming the simplistic approach that your stance on of these issues are binary valued, there are 2^n ~ 1000 different positions available. Since these are highly correlated, the real value is much lower than this, though. The thing is: we are trying to cram all those different stances into two parties! Your vote is in essence binary valued. Why should I be shoehorned? I am a gnostic, against excessive off-shoring, pro-choice, against gun banning and so on. It's a curious mix. Yet, I have to choose between two packages.
danilocampos 16y ago
When you've got a party that's tied to a 6000-year-old earth and early man walking beside dinosaurs, how can anyone with a third grade or higher science education be excited to join? The overwhelming sentiment among the Right in the United States is a perverse anti-intellectualism. Stupidity and lack of education have been enshrined as the height of authenticity. If you need proof, look at John McCain's running mate. No one with a scientific mind can feel welcome among people who are tied to policies that consider common sense contraception as somehow morally reprehensible.
ThomPete 16y ago
It's interesting. Compared to most of Europe to many people in Europe the entire political scene in the US looks like a Republican scene. I fail to see how that is a problem anymore than saying that most people who work on wall street are republicans. The actual political position is only relevant in context not from an absolute point of view.
scelerat 16y ago
I'm no scientist, but do place a premium on inquiry, falsifiability, and rationality in most endeavors. IMO the Republican party is run by people who are openly theocratic, anti-intellectual, and anti-rational. It is no surprise to me that so few scientists are registered as Republican. I see this as a problem for Republicans specifically, and the United States generally. FWIW, last time I affiliated myself with any party was in 2000, when I was a Republican.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
iwr 16y ago
What does it mean to be a "scientist" in the US? Is it strictly a person in academia who is in the pursuit of research grants? Does it also include private sector researchers and engineers?
- hugh3 16y ago
  Private sector scientists, yes. Private sector engineers, no. Of course it's hard to draw a hard-and-fast line between the two, so let's just consider scientists as people who would say they're a scientist, and engineers people who would say that they're an engineer.
danielford 16y ago
In graduate school, I was once tangentially involved in a group conversation regarding whether or not another grad student was a dick. A few things were mentioned, and then one of my coworkers said, "Yeah, and he's a republican". Everyone nodded, the question having been resolved to their satisfaction. I still remember thinking how ugly that sounded. How out of keeping it was with the spirit of inquiry that should guide science. This wasn't an isolated incident. I've watched political debates with coworkers where I was shocked at the number of emotional outbursts and lack of charity for the other side. I've had a student complain to me that they couldn't stand an otherwise good biology professor because of their snide political comments about conservatives. Do you think that republican student was more or less likely to go into biology as a result of hearing Bush jokes once a week? I'm one of the 32% that are independent, and grant that the republican party is part of the problem. Having taught evolution, it's completely bizarre to see republican candidates attempting to weasel around questions about its validity every election cycle. It's equally bizarre to listen to my republican parents' evidence-free opinions on climate change and science funding. But the people here who are trying to pretend that science doesn't occur within a social context and that the republicans are 100% responsible for this problem are just as baffling to me.
ramanujan 16y ago
An interesting question is whether this has always been so. Anecdotally, scientists like Galton, Fisher, and Pearson were on the right (from today's perspective, the far right) in their work on the nature/nurture question. What do historical polls look like? The R/D flip around 1965 will complicate tracking polls, but it'd be interesting to see the data if it exists...
wonderzombie 16y ago
As others have pointed out, it's funny how this is a problem for Democrats and/or scientists. Shouldn't _Republicans_ be worried about that? I guess this presupposes that you believe in all that "scientific method" nonsense as opposed to, say, Intelligent Design. I should also point out that, if anything, an inquisitive, questioning turn of mind would indicate _more_ willingness to explore alternative ideas, not less! The assumption here appears to be just the opposite: scientists are, for whatever reason, categorically unwilling or incapable of considering alternative political ideas. It takes a special kind of chutzpah to suggest that an entire class of people that disagrees with you is guilty of dishonesty or shenanigans. Bonus hilarity: he won't come right out and say it, but this sure does sound like he's asking for Republican affirmative action in science and universities. lol, as the kids say.

33 points by ccoop 16y ago

I don't see why that should be a problem. There is also a clear correlation between scientists and religion (or lack of belief).

araneae 16y ago
I think he was trying to point out that it's a credibility problem. For instance, where science aligns with political belief, it makes it harder for scientists to argue that they're impartial when they generally share the same political beliefs with eachother.
- jbooth 16y ago
  where science aligns with political belief What if it's more an issue of political belief aligning itself against science? We've all seen the numbers on which Americans believe the earth is 5,000 years old, right?
  - araneae 16y ago
    Well clearly that's problematic too.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      I agree, and furthermore I'd say that if the one preceded the other (i.e. the Republican Party became anti-science first), it's sort of blaming the victim to say scientists should be more balanced. More balanced with what? We'll average 5k and 12 billion and posit that the universe is 6 billion + 2500 years old?
- drKarl 16y ago
  Science is based on facts, not in belief. Proving a scientific theory using a flawed logic to support a political belief would be fatal to the reputation of a scientific. Therefore, scientific credibility has nothing to do with political affiliation, religion beliefs (or lack thereof), colour of skin or any other personal treat. There were brilliant scientists amongst the nazis and amongst the soviet communists, so it has nothing to do with that. Political belief is a very personal choice and everyone has the right to choose, and also everyone has the choice to become a scientist. In my opinion this article is a poor defense of republican party.
  - araneae 16y ago
    "Science is based on facts" is a nonsensical statement. Science is a method by which one tries to establish facts. The problem is that it is a process run by humans which have biases. Bias can influence many things in science, not least of which is hypothesis selection. Through no fault of their own, scientists who have beliefs may not come up with hypotheses that contradict them, and therefore fail to test them. They will select the better of the two hypotheses they have, but they may miss something. This is a flaw in the scientific process that goes way beyond bias, by the way. It's the part that not anyone can do: that requires creative thinking, and is limited by it. To emulate Churchill, science is the worst way to discover truth, except for all those other ways that have been tried from time to time.
verysimple 16y ago
"In God we trust; all others must bring data." -- W. Edwards Deming, Physicist
hugh3 16y ago
Science and religion are about what is, while politics is about what ought to happen. There's no reason why your views about whether Jesus rode a dinosaur or whether global warming will kill us all should be correlated with your views on issues like "Should taxes be lowered?" and "Should the Government subsidize health care?" and "Should [whatever random complicated policy issue you like]?" And yet, they so often are. In a two-party system, people who don't spend all that much time thinking about politics often seem to wind up buying their political opinions in job lots. Part of this is due to the success which the Democrats have been having with their "If you don't believe that Jesus rode a dinosaur then you need to support all our left-wing economic policies" line, but this is a serious problem both for Republicans and for Science. (And as a Republican scientist, it's a doubly important issue for me.)

verysimple 16y ago

This kind of rhetoric disturbs me. The burden doesn't lie with the scientific community, but rather the republican party. Science is not a movement, it's a set of practices that emphasize observation and empirical analysis to interpret the world around us. Science is there for anybody who wants to open their mind to it to enjoy. I'm sure some republicans have and assuming those numbers are correct, 1 of 3 things happened: 1) they've changed their affiliation over time (becoming either democrat or unaffiliated), 2) they didn't find what they were looking for in science and stopped practicing, 3) they're in the current minority.

Jun8 16y ago
Although it is true that the scientific method cannot be thought of as "political" in any sense, I think it's a big mistake to see science as deriving, almost mechanically from observations. It is done by scientists and in all ages scientists are affected by non-scientific aspects of their societies, i.e. traditions, commonly held beliefs, and politics. Also, not all science is as abstract as, say, mathematics or hunting for dark matter. Some questions, e.g.: should we perform stem cell research on embryos, should we eradicate mosquitoes, should we try to affect human sexual patterns leading to AIDS, etc. are scientific but also contain a large dose of ethics, i.e. they cannot be approached by handling equations alone in an objective matter.
- verysimple 16y ago
  "I think it's a big mistake to see science as deriving, almost mechanically from observations [...] scientists are affected by non-scientific aspects of their societies, i.e. traditions, commonly held beliefs, and politics" It's neither a mistake nor inaccurate. Once you've observed, measured, calculated and concluded, you can involve all form of non-empirical disciplines you want, after all we are morally and emotionally bound beings. One thing we can't do however is hide from the truth the data has spoken. Those are usually very profound paradigm shifts, a crossroad between being comfortable with what was revealed, or choosing to be more at peace with one's oblivion and folkloric truths. "Some questions, e.g.: should we perform stem cell research on embryos, should we eradicate mosquitoes, should we try to affect human sexual patterns leading to AIDS, etc. are scientific [...] i.e. they cannot be approached by handling equations alone in an objective matter." If the approach can't be objective then the question isn't scientific. Granted, those are science related questions and have a dose of moral and ethics involved, but that's not what science is about. Science isn't there to answer what you should or shouldn't do. It's there to provide you with facts on what would happen if you do it. Change your question should we eradicate mosquitoes into what would happen if we eradicate mosquitoes and we can talk science. Lets take out the tools, dust off old books, go in the nature, observe, measure, extrapolate, calculate and conclude. Then based on those conclusions we'll look at each other and our moral fiber will tell us, nah we should probably let the little scoundrel be.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

I would claim that there are two factors that lead to the fact that most scientists are Democrats: the overall lean of universities, and the source of funding. First, scientists tend to work in academia. It's well documented that universities are strongly slanted to the left. It seems reasonable to expect that when the left-leaning universities are looking to hire, they will tend to (possibly not intentionally) favor others like themselves. Second, the government is the largest funder of scientific research. However, to the extent that the GOP favors a smaller government (and though they say this, they don't actually do so, but that's a different discussion), this would make one expect that those against such governmental funding would be morally bound to find other means of employment. asking how the guy who prohibited stem-cell research This isn't what happened. It's incredibly frustrating to me that people continually read a ban on federal funding to be a ban on research itself. But it does reinforce my point that the governmental force behind science is now perceived as the sole force behind science. reinforce the idea that Democrats are the party of science and rationality In the science of economics the opposite is true. For example, Democratic support of minimum wages and other price controls, and especially their opposition to free trade, fly against the wind of economic science.

araneae 16y ago
to the extent that the GOP favors a smaller government (and though they say this, they don't actually do so, but that's a different discussion), this would make one expect that those against such governmental funding would be morally bound to find other means of employment. I can support this with anecdotal evidence. I have a friend who got his Ph.D. in physics, but decided to work outside of academia. His primary reason for this was that he felt that as a libertarian it would be immoral for him to take government money. He currently works at Intel.
- evgen 16y ago
  Yeah, but it wasn't too immoral for him to take advantage of government funded university research labs in order to get that Ph.D. in the first place, right? Once he no longer needed the government's money he was free to let his strong moral position take over, but up until that point I am sure the cognitive dissonance was keeping him up at night...

trotsky 16y ago

I think the article makes a good point, and the obvious solution is to make a fair percentage of those conducting research switch party affiliation.

Trey-Jackson 16y ago
Ha, funny.

jonstewart 16y ago

The real problem is that there aren't enough scientists to vote out Republicans.

Trey-Jackson 16y ago

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert

rbranson 16y ago

I think this is largely because of the overwhelming number of fundamentalists in the Republican party. When there are polling figures like 46% of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim and 67% believe he's a socialist, this picture starts to become clear. If you believe something so strongly that your opinion cannot be changed despite astronomical amounts of evidence to the contrary, then you will not many friends in science.

hristov 16y ago

That is a problem. But it is not a problem for science, it is a problem for the republican party. For the last ten years they have been so aggressively pro stupidity that intelligent people are embarrassed to be affiliated with them, even if their general political beliefs are closer to the republican than to the democrat side.

jobeirne 16y ago
The Democratic party has exhibited a ``pro-stupidity'' attitude on the same order of magnitude, just in more subtle ways. Instead of damning stem cell research, the Dems champion Keynesian economics, seek to implement entitlement programs, and push protectionism (``buy local''). Which is more harmful?
- sandipc 16y ago
  "Which is more harmful?" As a scientist, the damning of stem cell research.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Under other circumstances, democrats tend to be just as opposed to performing experiments which they feel are immoral. An example: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/nyregion/09placebo.html?ref=nyregion http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/nyregion/09placebo.html?re... (I'm speculating that the opposition are democrats, but in NYC it's a good guess.) Or, to take a bipartisan example, people of pretty much any party would be opposed to repeating the Tuskegee experiment (or many others). It's not anti-scientific to oppose a particular experiment because you believe conducting it involves immoral acts. You might disagree with the morality involved, but that's not the same thing.
    - joe_the_user 16y ago
      Oddly enough, I think most scientist are opposed to immoral experiments as well. The question is whether or not one is using rational criteria to determine what's moral.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

This is a problem, and it really has nothing to do with specific policies or parties. Any democracy will evolve into a multi-party system. In the U.S. we've basically went with two parties, and it looks like we are stuck with it. So in a two party system, any group that completely affiliates with one party, either by membership or just tradition, both damages that party and the group itself. What I love about politics is that it shows humans at their most irrational: from the Nobel Laureate to the rocket scientist, when you get them talking about politics it's the emotional brain first, the logical brain second. People are like this in all areas of reasoning, it's just politics is the easiest to observe. So, for instance, watching somebody bullshit themselves about politics is a pretty good quick and dirty indicator of how they're going to bullshit themselves about whether or not you need a new server rack. I don't think every issue naturally has two sides to it, but because politics is emotion-based and not reason-based, I don't think it matters. There should be as many scientists roughly in each party. It's a very interesting observation that there are not. I believe journalism is similarly skewed. So when story X comes in over the transom from NGO group advocating some cause, the reporter picks up the phone and consults with several experts. If the odds hold, everybody in that little scenario is a member of the same party, with the same prejudices towards how the story should be told. Not a good thing. I imagine -- without looking at any other comments on this thread -- that there will be a lot of "but the scientists are actually scientifically choosing to be Dems, because it's not logical to do otherwise" or perhaps blaming the Rs for being so bad that no decent scientist would support them. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about (and probably a good reason for the post to be considered of dubious merit for HN) It's a shame, because the larger issue causes all sorts of other problems.

Jun8 16y ago
Very well put! What keeps amazing me about US politics is that (as in other places) there is a small number, n, of top issues, e.g. gay marriage, abortion, off-shoring work, gun control. I think n~10. Assuming the simplistic approach that your stance on of these issues are binary valued, there are 2^n ~ 1000 different positions available. Since these are highly correlated, the real value is much lower than this, though. The thing is: we are trying to cram all those different stances into two parties! Your vote is in essence binary valued. Why should I be shoehorned? I am a gnostic, against excessive off-shoring, pro-choice, against gun banning and so on. It's a curious mix. Yet, I have to choose between two packages.

danilocampos 16y ago

When you've got a party that's tied to a 6000-year-old earth and early man walking beside dinosaurs, how can anyone with a third grade or higher science education be excited to join? The overwhelming sentiment among the Right in the United States is a perverse anti-intellectualism. Stupidity and lack of education have been enshrined as the height of authenticity. If you need proof, look at John McCain's running mate. No one with a scientific mind can feel welcome among people who are tied to policies that consider common sense contraception as somehow morally reprehensible.

ThomPete 16y ago

It's interesting. Compared to most of Europe to many people in Europe the entire political scene in the US looks like a Republican scene. I fail to see how that is a problem anymore than saying that most people who work on wall street are republicans. The actual political position is only relevant in context not from an absolute point of view.

scelerat 16y ago

I'm no scientist, but do place a premium on inquiry, falsifiability, and rationality in most endeavors. IMO the Republican party is run by people who are openly theocratic, anti-intellectual, and anti-rational. It is no surprise to me that so few scientists are registered as Republican. I see this as a problem for Republicans specifically, and the United States generally. FWIW, last time I affiliated myself with any party was in 2000, when I was a Republican.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

iwr 16y ago

What does it mean to be a "scientist" in the US? Is it strictly a person in academia who is in the pursuit of research grants? Does it also include private sector researchers and engineers?

hugh3 16y ago
Private sector scientists, yes. Private sector engineers, no. Of course it's hard to draw a hard-and-fast line between the two, so let's just consider scientists as people who would say they're a scientist, and engineers people who would say that they're an engineer.

danielford 16y ago

In graduate school, I was once tangentially involved in a group conversation regarding whether or not another grad student was a dick. A few things were mentioned, and then one of my coworkers said, "Yeah, and he's a republican". Everyone nodded, the question having been resolved to their satisfaction. I still remember thinking how ugly that sounded. How out of keeping it was with the spirit of inquiry that should guide science. This wasn't an isolated incident. I've watched political debates with coworkers where I was shocked at the number of emotional outbursts and lack of charity for the other side. I've had a student complain to me that they couldn't stand an otherwise good biology professor because of their snide political comments about conservatives. Do you think that republican student was more or less likely to go into biology as a result of hearing Bush jokes once a week? I'm one of the 32% that are independent, and grant that the republican party is part of the problem. Having taught evolution, it's completely bizarre to see republican candidates attempting to weasel around questions about its validity every election cycle. It's equally bizarre to listen to my republican parents' evidence-free opinions on climate change and science funding. But the people here who are trying to pretend that science doesn't occur within a social context and that the republicans are 100% responsible for this problem are just as baffling to me.

ramanujan 16y ago

An interesting question is whether this has always been so. Anecdotally, scientists like Galton, Fisher, and Pearson were on the right (from today's perspective, the far right) in their work on the nature/nurture question. What do historical polls look like? The R/D flip around 1965 will complicate tracking polls, but it'd be interesting to see the data if it exists...

wonderzombie 16y ago

As others have pointed out, it's funny how this is a problem for Democrats and/or scientists. Shouldn't _Republicans_ be worried about that? I guess this presupposes that you believe in all that "scientific method" nonsense as opposed to, say, Intelligent Design. I should also point out that, if anything, an inquisitive, questioning turn of mind would indicate _more_ willingness to explore alternative ideas, not less! The assumption here appears to be just the opposite: scientists are, for whatever reason, categorically unwilling or incapable of considering alternative political ideas. It takes a special kind of chutzpah to suggest that an entire class of people that disagrees with you is guilty of dishonesty or shenanigans. Bonus hilarity: he won't come right out and say it, but this sure does sound like he's asking for Republican affirmative action in science and universities. lol, as the kids say.