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

[russ_watters]

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.

As was pointed out earlier, there are other types of anti-science fanaticism that are favored by liberals, the most obvious being various types of environmental fanaticism, anti-technology fanaticism and anti-corporate fanaticism. For example, religious fanatics keep down stem cell research, but environmental fanatics keep down clean energy research and exploitation (perversely). Which one is actually more widespread, I don't know, but both are substantial problems.

 

[Al68]

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.

Yep, that was my point.

 

[nismaratwork]

As was pointed out earlier, there are other types of anti-science fanaticism that are favored by liberals, the most obvious being various types of environmental fanaticism, anti-technology fanaticism and anti-corporate fanaticism. For example, religious fanatics keep down stem cell research, but environmental fanatics keep down clean energy research and exploitation (perversely). Which one is actually more widespread, I don't know, but both are substantial problems.

This is true... annoying, but true. I think if one side or the other relented we'd have some space to prove the other side's fears real, but manageable. A decade or two ago I'd have said the conservatives and their tolerance of law influenced by religion... now... no new nuclear reactors in that time... kinda hard to blame this on one side or the other. In fact, the problem of paralysis when it comes to major steps forward in science strikes me as being utterly non-partisan.

I didn't notice a political affiliation when people were convinced that the LHC was going to suck us all into a portal to hell, just like Doom! It seems to me that as long as there's ignorance, we're going to burn coal and think we're saving ourselves from doom of nuclear power... *sigh*.

 

[theunbubba]

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.

That's kind of like saying they are a little pregnant.

 

[theunbubba]

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.

Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly. Most liberals I know are in liberal arts courses, that have about as much to do with understanding science, as throwing a rock through a window has with a cyclotron.
In my experience liberals cling to their bongs, welfare checks and JFK photo's, singing kumbaya and dreaming of rainbows.
Unless they are in some lecture hall, with some other snoots trying to look intellectua,l while not knowing how to work a simple pythagorean equation.

 

[theunbubba]

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?

Yeah, they don't realize they just told on themselves. libs...

 

[Char. Limit]

Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly. Most liberals I know are in liberal arts courses, that have about as much to do with understanding science, as throwing a rock through a window has with a cyclotron.
In my experience liberals cling to their bongs, welfare checks and JFK photo's, singing kumbaya and dreaming of rainbows.
Unless they are in some lecture hall, with some other snoots trying to look intellectua,l while not knowing how to work a simple pythagorean equation.

You'll find a lot of liberals on this board ready to prove you wrong, you know.

 

[theunbubba]

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%).

The drop in support for these studies among republicans, is because of studies like the one in Africa studying genital washing. Things like that pure waste of money are why you get the result you did.

 

[theunbubba]

You'll find a lot of liberals on this board ready to prove you wrong, you know.

There are always exceptions to societal rules.

 

[nismaratwork]

There are always exceptions to societal rules.

...Especially when you make up those rules from whole cloth!

 

[nismaratwork]

The drop in support for these studies among republicans, is because of studies like the one in Africa studying genital washing. Things like that pure waste of money are why you get the result you did.

Cite and support, please.

 

[theunbubba]

Cite and support, please.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/sep/stimulus-funds-african-genital-washing-study

And it's not just that. It's a study to prepare the ground for another study, both of which are blatantly stupid on the face of them.

edit:
Here's a link to more:
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=054487a3-ff6e-4df9-a025-48de764abe55

It's intermixed with other pork spending, but you get the idea.

 

[nismaratwork]

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/sep/stimulus-funds-african-genital-washing-study

And it's not just that. It's a study to prepare the ground for another study, both of which are blatantly stupid on the face of them.

edit:
Here's a link to more:
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=054487a3-ff6e-4df9-a025-48de764abe55

It's intermixed with other pork spending, but you get the idea.

I do, thanks very much.