6% of AAAS scientists are republican - is this survey credible?

[Simfish]

http://www.slate.com/id/2277104/

AAAS is definitely a left-leaning organization, so many Republican scientists probably wouldn't like it very much.

So what are your thoughts? And why is Physics Forums so right-leaning compared to the rest of the scientific community?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

http://www.slate.com/id/2277104/

AAAS is definitely a left-leaning organization, so many Republican scientists probably wouldn't like it very much.

So what are your thoughts? And why is Physics Forums so right-leaning compared to the rest of the scientific community?

Firstly, I wouldn't assume that the posts in P&WA are representitive of the view of PFers generally. They are only representitive of those posting in P&WA. This probably only accounts for 100 people or less in a [listed] community of almost 250,000.

Next, not all PFers are scientists or even people with a BS in science like me. The PF community is a collection of people from all walks of life who have an interest in science and engineering, in addition to working scientists.

Additionally, I would bet heavily that engineers tend to be right leaning. In fact, in my personal and professional life, I am at a loss to think of one example otherwise.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have been shouted down for making this point before, but one reason I left the Republican party is that they always seem to be on the wrong side of critical, science-based issues. In my view, generally speaking, they are the anti-science party.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

It's interesting that Slate is writing a story on this survey data that is almost 1.5 years old. We discussed the results of this survey on PF previously (https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=328262).

One criticism of the AAAS sample is that it likely over represents scientists in academia (who tend to be more liberal) and under represents those in industry. Indeed, here's the breakdown of the sample by employment sector:

Academic - 1209 (63%)
Government - 191 (9%)
Industry - 308 (15%)
Non-profit - 162 (8%)
Other - 116 (5%)

The breakdown for party affiliation is 60% Democrat, 5% Republican, and 30% independent for those in academia, versus 47% Democrat, 10% Republican, and 37% independent for those in industry.

Also keep in mind that the data for this survey were collected between May 1 - June 14, 2009. Back then, attitudes towards the Democratic and Republican parties were considerably different than they are now.

 

[theunbubba]

In 2003 there were 21,647,000 scientists in the US.
In 2006 there were 22,630,000 scientists in the US according to this website:

http://www.netnewspublisher.com/number-of-scientists-and-engineers-in-the-united-states-grew-by-almost-1-million-between-2003-and-2006/

The membership of the AAAS was 138,000 in 2000
http://www.aaas.org/publications/annual_report/2000/membership.html

Thus establishing the FACT that membership in the AAAS is a very tiny fraction of the total number of scientists in America. This is even worse than trying to say that the AMA speaks for most Doctors.

This makes a mockery of that survey. I personally believe the AAAS to be mainly a political organization.

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.slate.com/id/2277104/

AAAS is definitely a left-leaning organization, so many Republican scientists probably wouldn't like it very much.

So what are your thoughts? And why is Physics Forums so right-leaning compared to the rest of the scientific community?

I'm an engineer, not a scientist.

Additionally, I would bet heavily that engineers tend to be right leaning. In fact, in my personal and professional life, I am at a loss to think of one example otherwise.

I think there's a liberal on my floor, but I'm not certain...he doesn't talk much...

 

[Pengwuino]

In 2003 there were 21,647,000 scientists in the US.
In 2006 there were 22,630,000 scientists in the US according to this website:

http://www.netnewspublisher.com/numb...2003-and-2006/

The membership of the AAAS was 138,000 in 2000
http://www.aaas.org/publications/ann...embership.html

Thus establishing the FACT that membership in the AAAS is a very tiny fraction of the total number of scientists in America. This is even worse than trying to say that the AMA speaks for most Doctors.

This makes a mockery of that survey. I personally believe the AAAS to be mainly a political organization.

... but that's how surveys work! Hell, we get public opinion of all 300 million americans by asking 3000 people these days? Unless there is a reason why the AAAS would provide a systematic bias towards Democrats, there's no reason to think it can't be a legitimate gauge of scientific political affiliation.

Also, how in the world are almost 10% of Americans considered scientists? That even includes children! Fix your link so I can figure out what the hell they consider a scientist. Psychologists aren't scientists... *takes cover*

 

[Vanadium 50]

In 2003 there were 21,647,000 scientists in the US.
In 2006 there were 22,630,000 scientists in the US according to this website:

The link is broken, but that can't be right. That says that 7% of Americans are scientists. That means 1/3 of all college graduates are scientists. I'm not even sure there are that many science majors.

 

[Astronuc]

The link was parsed -

http://www.netnewspublisher.com/number-of-scientists-and-engineers-in-the-united-states-grew-by-almost-1-million-between-2003-and-2006/

The 21+ - 22+ million includes scientists and engineers.

 

[Vanadium 50]

OK, so they are defining "scientist" as someone who has a STEM BS, irrespective of field, or someone who works in STEM or a STEM-related field, irrespective of degree. STEM-related includes dental hygienists, high school teachers, draftsmen, surveyors, etc.

They say there are ~4M scientists and engineers. I seem to recall that 1% , or 3M, of the US population are engineers, which leaves 1M scientists. So they're off by a factor of ~20.

 

[theunbubba]

... but that's how surveys work! Hell, we get public opinion of all 300 million americans by asking 3000 people these days? Unless there is a reason why the AAAS would provide a systematic bias towards Democrats, there's no reason to think it can't be a legitimate gauge of scientific political affiliation.

Also, how in the world are almost 10% of Americans considered scientists? That even includes children! Fix your link so I can figure out what the hell they consider a scientist. Psychologists aren't scientists... *takes cover*

I went back and fixed those links. Thanks for pointing that out. I posted this to multiple forums trying to beat back this joke of a survey. The point being that these people are smart enough to have graduated from some REAL form of scientific training regimen. For the AAAS to pose as representative of the vast majority of scientists is simply hubris.

 

[theunbubba]

The AAAS Mission Statement says it all:

AAAS MISSION STATEMENT:

• Provide a voice for science on societal issues;
• Promote the responsible use of science in public policy;
• Strengthen and diversify the science and technology workforce;
• Increase public engagement with science and technology; and
• Advance international cooperation in science.

The parts in red are typical liberal buzzwords.
Have any of the people here ever read anything by Saul Alinsky?

 

[theunbubba]

Just in case somebody comes up with that old argument about how republicans/conservatives are somehow biased against science because of their religion:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/17275/onethird-americans-believe-dearly-may-departed.aspx

The belief in ghosts:
liberals-42%
moderates-35%
conservatives-25%

Kinda puts a huge hole in that argument.

 

[nismaratwork]

I would just add, party affiliation does not a liberal or conservative make. Democrats and Repubicans are neither liberal nor conservative... they're just professional politicians.

 

[Al68]

Unless there is a reason why the AAAS would provide a systematic bias towards Democrats, there's no reason to think it can't be a legitimate gauge of scientific political affiliation.

LOL. You say that as if the AAAS is a randomly selected group of scientists instead of a left-wing political group.

 

[Alex_Sanders]

I have been shouted down for making this point before, but one reason I left the Republican party is that they always seem to be on the wrong side of critical, science-based issues. In my view, generally speaking, they are the anti-science party.

LOL, just lol.

 

[Alex_Sanders]

Just in case somebody comes up with that old argument about how republicans/conservatives are somehow biased against science because of their religion:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/17275/onethird-americans-believe-dearly-may-departed.aspx

The belief in ghosts:
liberals-42%
moderates-35%
conservatives-25%

Kinda puts a huge hole in that argument.

I hate to do this but I still have to say those conservatives just do not believe a more earthly-bound ghost, but a holy ghost, who talk to ppl thru random events from time to time, promised will come back someday and can not be verified using any known scientific method.

 

[Pengwuino]

LOL. You say that as if the AAAS is a randomly selected group of scientists instead of a left-wing political group.

Actually I may have my acronyms mixed up here. I'm thinking of the astronomical equivalent to APS which I think has a similar acronym.

 

[Pengwuino]

LOL, just lol.

You sure got him there...

 

[nismaratwork]

I hate to do this but I still have to say those conservatives just do not believe a more earthly-bound ghost, but a holy ghost, who talk to ppl thru random events from time to time, promised will come back someday and can not be verified using any known scientific method.

You know, this isn't a text message, please make some effort to type like a functional person. Your point however, is valid, if poorly worded... although it certainly declares your beliefs fairly quickly and loudly.

 

[nismaratwork]

You sure got him there...

Yes indeed, our own little Oscar Wilde, with a dash of minimalism and hydrocephalus.

 

[Vanadium 50]

LOL. You say that as if the AAAS is a randomly selected group of scientists instead of a left-wing political group.

Are you sure that you aren't thinking of the Union of Concerned Scientists? The AAAS seems to me to be no more left-leaning than a typical university campus. They are most famous for publishing Science.

 

[ThomasT]

http://www.slate.com/id/2277104/

AAAS is definitely a left-leaning organization, so many Republican scientists probably wouldn't like it very much.

So what are your thoughts? And why is Physics Forums so right-leaning compared to the rest of the scientific community?

Maybe scientists tend to vote Democrat because they view the Democratic party as more likely to fund scientific research.

I don't see PF as being, politically, "so right-leaning compared to the rest of the scientific community". To me it seems, politically, mostly 'left-leaning'. But that's just my impression from my limited experience regarding PF.

The posting rules are somewhat conservative, which is, I would suppose, in the interest of garnering and preserving respectability.

 

[Alex_Sanders]

You know, this isn't a text message, please make some effort to type like a functional person. Your point however, is valid, if poorly worded... although it certainly declares your beliefs fairly quickly and loudly.

Me functional sinor, me mown your lawn for 50 cents or housekeeping for 5 bucks.

You see, this is why I said I hate to write that post, I share great many ideas with conservatives, and some of those ideas are just breathtakingly complicated, while at the same time, those conservatives just couldn't stop hogging on the stupid idea of an imaginary buddie. And every time I criticize them on this, I upset them really bad.

Ever seen someone who can lift an sand buggy with utter ease but couldn't hold a cup of water?

Like Ayn Rand accurately pointed out, conservatives hook up ideas that are not "right", but "old" or "traditional". Calling them anti-science really isn't an overstatement. Science, after all, is all about progress and moving forward.

 

[nismaratwork]

Me functional sinor, me mown your lawn for 50 cents or housekeeping for 5 bucks.

You see, this is why I said I hate to write that post, I share great many ideas with conservatives, and some of those ideas are just breathtakingly complicated, while at the same time, those conservatives just couldn't stop hogging on the stupid idea of an imaginary buddie. And every time I criticize them on this, I upset them really bad.

Ever seen someone who can lift an sand buggy with utter ease but couldn't hold a cup of water?

Like Ayn Rand accurately pointed out, conservatives hook up ideas that are not "right", but "old" or "traditional". Calling them anti-science really isn't an overstatement. Science, after all, is all about progress and moving forward.

I didn't realize that, "ppl" and "thru" were Espanol! Oh, curse my lack of linguistic prowess. ¡Lo siento! No realicé que era español, yo pensé que era apenas... mierda. Nice try though.

Oh yeah, and um... ask russ, or mheslp or Al... I think they'll confirm that whatever I am, conservative isn't it. We argue far too much for that to be the case.

edit: Oh, and I'm an atheist, so you didn't upset me. You actually upset me with , "thru" and "ppl".

 

[ThomasT]

Just in case somebody comes up with that old argument about how republicans/conservatives are somehow biased against science because of their religion:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/17275/onethird-americans-believe-dearly-may-departed.aspx

The belief in ghosts:
liberals-42%
moderates-35%
conservatives-25%

Kinda puts a huge hole in that argument.

You cited a poll that's about political orientation and belief in ghosts.

Here's one about voting registration and churchgoing behavior:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/24319/religion-powerful-predictor-vote-midterm-elections.aspx

If it's true that the Republican party is populated by significantly more religious wingnuts than the Democratic party, then it shouldn't be surprising that Republicans tend to be "anti-science", as Ivan Seeking suggested.

 

[Ygggdrasil]

With respect to which party is more favorable to science, the Pew study cited by Slate also examines the public's opinion toward science. Here are some interesting results:

"Even as overall public views have remained fairly stable, partisan differences over spending on scientific research have widened considerably. This mirrors a wider partisan gap in views about federal spending in other areas as well.

In April 2001, there was little difference in partisan opinions about spending on science. Roughly four-in-ten independents (43%), Democrats (38%) and Republicans (37%) favored increased spending. Today, about half (51%) of Democrats favor increasing spending on science, up 13 points from 2001; among Republicans, just 25% support increasing the budget for scientific research, down 12 points over the same period. Opinion among independents has changed little (40% favor increased spending today, 43 % in 2001)."​

Obviously, these changes may not reflect changes in pro-science and anti-science issues but instead be a larger part of the debate on the size of government, government spending, and the deficit.

Also characterizing one party as anti-science and the other as pro-science is probably a bit too broad, and the situation can break down when you examine specific issues. For example, on the topic of federal funding for stem cell research (which 93% of scientists favor), Democrats (71%) are much more likely to take the "pro-science" stance than Republicans (38%). However, on the issue of using animals for scientific research (a practice supported by 93% of scientists), Republicans (62%) are more likely to take the "pro-science" stance than Democrats (48%).

 

[DBTS]

You see, this is why I said I hate to write that post, I share great many ideas with conservatives, and some of those ideas are just breathtakingly complicated, while at the same time, those conservatives just couldn't stop hogging on the stupid idea of an imaginary buddie. And every time I criticize them on this, I upset them really bad.

Choice in words and a lofty viewpoint on what is real and what is not, because if you knew, we'd all know.

I do not consider myself a scientist as I am still learning, however, my political ideologies are just that, nothing. I never aligned myself with a political party, I just vote for the candidate that will have a more positive impact on my life for their 4 year term...

 

[Alex_Sanders]

Choice in words and a lofty viewpoint on what is real and what is not, because if you knew, we'd all know.

If you were talking about the characters in the bible, the I believe everyone can assume a lofty posture.

 

[Al68]

The AAAS seems to me to be no more left-leaning than a typical university campus.

LOL, now that's funny.

I don't know which is more left-leaning, honestly. According to the article reference in the OP, the AAAS has a 9 to 1 ratio of (self-identified) Democrats to Republicans. What's the ratio for typical university campuses?

 

[Jasongreat]

Like Ayn Rand accurately pointed out, conservatives hook up ideas that are not "right", but "old" or "traditional". Calling them anti-science really isn't an overstatement. Science, after all, is all about progress and moving forward.

It might help to look at history, the enlightenment was a conservative movement. Although in those days they were considered liberal(classical liberal), the players were very conservative when it came to the scope of government. Imo, they believed freedom of science, or any other freedom for that matter, came from restricting the size and scope of government, how can we have scientific freedom when government controls what science does or can do? Today the descriptions of conservative(republican) and liberal(democrat) have been convoluted. Both parties believe in big government, the right feels that government should control our morality, the left feels government should control everything else, even our freedom. If government is big, our freedoms are small, if our freedoms are small, our chances of discovery are also small. As you pointed out conservatives stand for old or traditional, but that is only true as far as government goes, there are plenty of conservatives who look for scientific advancement, they just don't believe that government is the way to get there. Belief in " an invisible buddy" has nothing to do with it. I would say that belief in an all powerful and overreaching government is far more detrimental to scientific advancement, than belief in a god. As I pointed out earlier though, neither party is conservative any more, heck the republican party claims their roots came from the reconstruction period. That is definitely not a party stuck on old and traditional, that is a party that reformed the old and traditional, into the new all powerful central government. There are plenty of truly conservative 'republican' scientists and laymen, as there are truly conservative 'democrat' scientists and laymen, the problem is there are more pro government (non-conservative) 'republican' and 'democrats', who get in the way of discovery. Once 94% of AAAS scientists are conservative, we might actually go some where, imo.

 

[nismaratwork]

It might help to look at history, the enlightenment was a conservative movement. Although in those days they were considered liberal(classical liberal), the players were very conservative when it came to the scope of government. Imo, they believed freedom of science, or any other freedom for that matter, came from restricting the size and scope of government, how can we have scientific freedom when government controls what science does or can do? Today the descriptions of conservative(republican) and liberal(democrat) have been convoluted. Both parties believe in big government, the right feels that government should control our morality, the left feels government should control everything else, even our freedom. If government is big, our freedoms are small, if our freedoms are small, our chances of discovery are also small. As you pointed out conservatives stand for old or traditional, but that is only true as far as government goes, there are plenty of conservatives who look for scientific advancement, they just don't believe that government is the way to get there. Belief in " an invisible buddy" has nothing to do with it. I would say that belief in an all powerful and overreaching government is far more detrimental to scientific advancement, than belief in a god. As I pointed out earlier though, neither party is conservative any more, heck the republican party claims their roots came from the reconstruction period. That is definitely not a party stuck on old and traditional, that is a party that reformed the old and traditional, into the new all powerful central government. There are plenty of truly conservative 'republican' scientists and laymen, as there are truly conservative 'democrat' scientists and laymen, the problem is there are more pro government (non-conservative) 'republican' and 'democrats', who get in the way of discovery. Once 94% of AAAS scientists are conservative, we might actually go some where, imo.

Ehhh... At that time most art and the like was funded by seemingly "private" moves, but really a lot of it came about as a function of each of those private entities being their own little government or city-state. The landscape has changed so radically, that I'm not sure it's a valid comparison. All you've really said here is that things you like are conservative, being good in the first place, then defined what conservative means to you... and? Your conclusion is that if you literally reversed places in the AAAS would suddenly overcome the limitations you percieve? Frankly, I don't think the AAAS has a lot to do with individual discovery and progress anyway, but let's take this:

Your view of conservative = less government interference -> DISCOVERY! *jazz hands*
ok...
What about stem cell research? You have the government keeping us from "going some where," for years and hindering research on an admitted issue of religious crisis. I must have also missed the huge conservative push to fund programs that by their very definition are hit-or-miss... scientific research and education. Maybe you want to cite something to support your last statement... the part about the enlightenment is just... who cares. I don't care to get into detail about the nature of patronage at that time which simply doesn't exist in the same way, and can't work given the population.

Or, to put it screamingly obviously: It's a few years since the enlightenment, and the world has changed.

 

[Vanadium 50]

LOL, now that's funny.

We aim to please.

It's an important point, though. There is a difference in my view between organizations with a political agenda, like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and ones that have a political slant purely because of their demographic makeup: the Berkeley Chess Club.

I don't know which is more left-leaning, honestly. According to the article reference in the OP, the AAAS has a 9 to 1 ratio of (self-identified) Democrats to Republicans. What's the ratio for typical university campuses?

Klein and Western claim it's 8 to 1 at Stanford and 10 to 1 at Berkeley. The 1999 NAASS study claims it's a bit more than 5 to 1 nationwide.

 

[nismaratwork]

We aim to please.

It's an important point, though. There is a difference in my view between organizations with a political agenda, like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and ones that have a political slant purely because of their demographic makeup: the Berkeley Chess Club.



Klein and Western claim it's 8 to 1 at Stanford and 10 to 1 at Berkeley. The 1999 NAASS study claims it's a bit more than 5 to 1 nationwide.

So... 9-1 is smack in the middle of the collegiate norm. Huh... I didn't know that.

 

[ThomasT]

Also characterizing one party as anti-science and the other as pro-science is probably a bit too broad, ...

Possibly so. It's just a guess, an impression.

... and the situation can break down when you examine specific issues. For example, on the topic of federal funding for stem cell research (which 93% of scientists favor), Democrats (71%) are much more likely to take the "pro-science" stance than Republicans (38%). However, on the issue of using animals for scientific research (a practice supported by 93% of scientists), Republicans (62%) are more likely to take the "pro-science" stance than Democrats (48%).

Regarding the former (stem cell research), I would guess that the apparent pro-life (due to religious fanaticism??) orientation of a majority of Republicans is the determining factor. Wrt the latter (using animals for research), I would guess that the apparent egalitarian (due to secular fanaticism??) orientation of a majority of Democrats is the determining factor (ie., are, say, chimps really so different from us that we can justify subjecting them to torturous pain and imprisonment simply because they're technologically challenged and communicate nonverbally?).

I'm supposing that those particular statistics have less to do with the extent of either Republicans' or Democrats' affinity toward science than with their affinity toward certain 'moral' values.

So, I still agree with Ivan Seeking that the Republican party can be characterized as, effectively, the anti-science party -- assuming that it is, in fact, populated by significantly more religious wingnuts than the Democratic party, and also assuming that religious fanaticism (or wingnuttiness) is generally incompatible with scientific fanaticism.

This situation seems to me to have changed during my lifetime. When I was younger, if I recall correctly, I think that the Democratic party was looked on as a bit more religiously wingnutty than the Republican party. But I could be mistaken about that.