Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« The Avastin Decision: A Reality Check | Main | Jobs Roundtable Recap »

December 17, 2010

Politics in the Lab

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Man, have I been avoiding this topic. But I think it's time. Slate recently published this piece on the political affiliations of scientists, with the provocative sub-head: "Most scientists in this country are Democrats. That's a problem."

Is it? Is that even true? The piece is based on this survey by the Pew Foundation, which was conducted in 2009 by surveying over 2000 members of the AAAS. Now, I'm trying to come up with the figures, but my strong impression is that the organization skews pretty strongly academic, which might account for some of the numbers. (Science, for example, runs articles like this one, explaining the mysterious world of industry to job-seekers.

So I'm not sure if the Pew numbers are accurate. Still. . .for what it's worth, they come out like this: for self-described party affiliation, Dem/Rep/Ind, the general public was 35/23/34, and the sample of scientists was 55/6/32. And in more philosophical terms, as self-identified liberal/moderate/conservative, the general public was 20/38/37, and the scientists were 52/35/9. Those are some pretty stark differences - correcting for sample bias would probably even things out some, but I can't imagine it would be enough to take care of a gap that large.

The Slate piece says that this is indeed a problem:

During the Bush administration, Democrats discovered that they could score political points by accusing Bush of being anti-science. In the process, they seem to have convinced themselves that they are the keepers of the Enlightenment spirit, and that those who disagree with them on issues like climate change are fundamentally irrational. Meanwhile, many Republicans have come to believe that mainstream science is corrupted by ideology and amounts to no more than politics by another name. Attracted to fringe scientists like the small and vocal group of climate skeptics, Republicans appear to be alienated from a mainstream scientific community that by and large doesn't share their political beliefs. The climate debacle is only the most conspicuous example of these debilitating tendencies, which play out in issues as diverse as nuclear waste disposal, protection of endangered species, and regulation of pharmaceuticals.

I think that's a reasonable summary, especially if you're the sort of person who thinks about politics all the time. But that's a key consideration: not everyone does. It's hard to remember this if you're interested in politics yourself, and if you spend a lot of time following current events and world affairs. Politics, and political ideology, is just one template people use to view the world. Everything can be fit into it one way or another, and it's fun to keep score. I imagine the point-totaling sound as being like a pre-digital pinball machine: chunk-chunk-chunk-ding! This side scores, that side scores.

But how much of this overlaps with what goes on in the labs? The examples in the quoted paragraph certainly do, but there are many less politically contentious issues that are scientifically important. It's hard to fit disagreements over dark matter or RNA's role in early life forms into a left/right framework, much less intramural spats like the structure of the norbornyl cation, the usefulness of total synthesis, or how much palladium you really need to do a metal-catalyzed coupling.

In the end, I think the "it's a problem" conclusion of the Slate article should be amended to "it's a problem if you measure everything by politics". That's a temptation that should be avoided, as far as I'm concerned. Orwell was right to consider a world where everything was subordinate to political concerns as a nightmare. And while I have strong political opinions myself, and follow the whole business much more than I follow any traditional sport, I still would like to have some areas free of it.
.

Comments (63) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: General Scientific News


COMMENTS

1. Hasufin on December 17, 2010 11:05 AM writes...

Several chemists I knew in the EPA were alienated very much by the Bush administration's funding and treatment of science. Being rational people, I think that this affected their overall view of the Republican party, but they'd be willing to reconsider if it were demonstrated that the acts which alienated them weren't representative of Republicans as a whole.

In other words, the scientists I've known personally are neither Democrats nor Republicans - they are *scientists*, and their concerns are related to science.

Permalink to Comment

2. Hap on December 17, 2010 11:05 AM writes...

It wouldn't necessarily be a problem in lab, but science requires funding, and sometimes its conclusions require people and governments to do things. If most people (who don't do science or are acting as ordinary citizens) think that scientific outcomes are politically determined, then the results that people don't like become easier to ignore and people's support for science education and funding would likely decrease. Eventually, that would be a problem. Asking people to use logic to evaluate political questions would be out of character, and exceedingly unlikely, but the only real way out of our messes. If people can't generally evaluate the truth of scientific claims, then perceived bias is going to affect how they view such claims.

Political bias might just be part of our education or funding systems, but one might also worry that scientists do have systemic biases. As someone on Pharyngula put it (or quoted it), science is supposed to be a process that makes it hard for us to fool ourselves. If that method doesn't work, well, we also have a problem. (A recent New Yorker article (12/13?, pp. 52-57) also brought up issues of what we can believe in science - again, how well the method works to keep us from fooling ourselves, and concludes that somehow, it doesn't work as well as we'd hope.)

Permalink to Comment

3. passionlessDrone on December 17, 2010 11:22 AM writes...

Hello friends -

One wonders how many of those people have decided to identify as Democratic or Indepdendent precisely because identifying as Republican mandated supporting some positions that are simply undefendable from a rationalist standpoint?

This isn't about 'scoring political points by acusing Bush about being anti-science', it is about acknowledging reality. Young Earth Creationists, or people who do not believe in evolution, thought Terri Shaivo on a ventilator wasn't playing God, but taking her off one was, or don't seem to understand the difference between weather and climate are overwhelmingly Republcan. There is plenty of ignorance on the other sides of the aisle, but when it comes to actively arguing against science, including basic premises on which things like biology are founded, Republicans are the gold medalists.

It is one thing be friends with people like that, but the Republicans are attempting to craft policy based on foundational ignorance. They are dangers to what might be gained by application of the scientific method.

If more scientists identify as Democrats or Independent, good news. Great news.

- pD

Permalink to Comment

4. Neurosloth on December 17, 2010 11:25 AM writes...

What interests me more than the numbers (which seem accurate enough) is the direction, if any, of causality. Are scientifically-minded people more likely to develop a liberal worldview, or are liberal-minded people more likely to become scientists?

Permalink to Comment

5. LinearEquations on December 17, 2010 11:52 AM writes...

The breakdown of scientist polled is as follows

Govt Scientists -- 1200
Academia -- 933
Non-profit -- 267
Industry -- 133

(Solved a system of linear equations, numbers don't sum up exactly because the total percentages given did not equal 100)

Permalink to Comment

6. Adam on December 17, 2010 11:53 AM writes...

"It's hard to fit disagreements over dark matter or RNA's role in early life forms into a left/right framework"

Er.

Many on the right would disagree with you on that, on account of the absence of early life forms because God created everything in six days and faked the fossil record, and evolution being a liberal conspiracy and all.

Just sayin'.

Permalink to Comment

7. bad wolf on December 17, 2010 12:02 PM writes...

I certainly don't need more polarized debates in another sphere. But as you can see above some folks are quick to say that a self-described party member uncritically accepts every position offered by their party affiliation. This is hardly the case, as Blue-dog Democrats and Log Cabin Republicans could attest.

There is a good question of why this situation exists (scientists become democrats or democrats become scientists?) but i would suggest that there would be advantages to playing both sides of the political divide to your advantage--if you are perceived as being beholden to one party, that party will take you for granted and the other party will see no gain in doing things for your benefit.

Permalink to Comment

8. Ken Bob on December 17, 2010 12:08 PM writes...

As someone willing to admit to being a conservative Republican, those of you deriding the right are painting with a very broad brush. Conflating fundamentalism (i.e. strict creationism) with conservatism is not being intellectually honest. The same would be true if I conflated Michael Moore with all Democrats believing that Cuba has the best health care system in the world.

The AAAS tends to lean left, because many like me don't like to fund left leaning organizations with dues. That only exacerbates the leftward tilt, as membership in the AAAS is not a good statistical sampling of the population of scientists.

Permalink to Comment

9. Industry Guy on December 17, 2010 12:28 PM writes...

Assuming Comment #5 is correct, then why is this news? Do you think a survey of lawyers, or accountants, or educators, or janitors in which 95% of the respondents are from government/academia/non-profit and 5% from industry would look any different?

Permalink to Comment

10. RM on December 17, 2010 12:37 PM writes...

Ironically, I think it's Democrats' incompetence which nets them scientists' support.

Republicans have a better PR machine. (Something I've heard both Democrats and Republicans acknowledge.) We hear about Republicans' cause celebre - in excruciating detail, from both sides of the aisle. We therefore hear all of the stupid, anti-science things that Republicans believe in. As to what Democrats believe? It really doesn't get much airplay. There's probably a lot of woo/power-of-positive-thinking/etc. idiocy in the Democrat camp, but we never hear about it, so it really doesn't factor into peoples' opinions.

Additionally, Republicans (deliberately) present a united front, so it looks like the entire Republican camp is united behind the cause celebre. Democrats are less cohesive, so it's easier to dismiss the wack-jobs as being unrepresentative of the Democratic party as a whole.

Another issue is that Republicans attempt to style themselves as with the independent working man (think Joe the Plumber). It's all to easy to cultivate a pro-working-man image by being anti-intellectual (especially if the intellectuals are already viewed as liberal/Democratic).

So if your party is spouting non-science, bashing scientists, and belittling scientific research ("they're studying fruit flies?"), and especially if your PR machine keeps it in the press, you're going to drive away scientists.

That said, I agree with Derek in that political affiliations aren't a be-all-end-all. It only becomes an issue when people are so invested in their political identity that they try to influence experimental results to come out in accordance with their established position.

Permalink to Comment

11. fuelair on December 17, 2010 1:04 PM writes...

Re:Comment 10 by RM - last part. As a definite leftie (except on guns and explosives!!) I do find it fun that the most extreme cases of political bias forcing science/lab bias were the really leftie Socialists of Russia. Fortunately, I don't see much of that here. Hope I never do.


PPS to Derek - thanks greatly for Things I Will Not Work With and Max Gergel. Hunted up his 2nd volume and found an autographed copy(!) through Amazon.

Permalink to Comment

12. johnnyboy on December 17, 2010 1:13 PM writes...

I think surveying "scientists" at large will not give you any meaningful results, unless you consider the results into government, academic, and industry. And the democrat vs republican divide might not tell the whole story. My immediate colleagues in the big pharma company where I used to work were pretty much all social liberals or moderates, but a lot of them voted republican nonetheless because they thought that a republican administration would be more favorable to pharma.

Permalink to Comment

13. Phil on December 17, 2010 1:20 PM writes...

I am a slightly liberal Democrat who was and will be an industry scientist. I agree with the previous posts that the survey is overwhelmingly skewed away from scientists in private industry, and therefore the Republican count is unrealistically small. There are plenty of conservative scientists, my guess is that the count is really about 50/50 Democrat/Republican.

@RM: I hadn't thought of many of the things you wrote, but you are right about some of them. There are tons of Democrats who are totally clueless about science, and there are plenty of Republicans who are well aware of its importance (Bill Frist comes to mind).

But the bottom line is this: the Democratic party line is to support scientific research, and the Republican party line is that lots of science research is wasteful and should be cut. And apparently Eric Cantor and Adrian Smith think the public can better choose the scientific programs that deserve funding than the NSF review boards.

http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/12/06/nsf-the-first-youcut-citizen

Whether they're better about communicating their position or not, it's wrong in this case.

Permalink to Comment

14. Sigivald on December 17, 2010 1:30 PM writes...

Passionless: I can't think of a single position "mandated" by self-identification as a Republican, let alone one that is contrary to Reason or Science.

So, no, I don't think that's real likely at all. Comforting if you're a Democrat or Green, of course, but not likely true.

You perhaps confuse the fact that people like YECs are very, very likely to not-be-Democrats* (and are thus likely, if they pick a mainstream party identification, to be Republicans) with the idea that that's somehow a part of the fact of self-identifying as a Republican for anyone else.

(* Because being a YEC is part of a specific subset of religious beliefs, which are also strongly correlated with other religious beliefs that are less laughable, and correlated strongly with not-being-a-Democrat.)

This is as ridiculous as asserting that people self-identify as Democrats because they're really Communists who want to avoid the label Communist; there are non-zero such people, but they're irrelevant to "Democrat" as a political identity in general.

(Full disclosure: I don't identify as any party, or as a "liberal" or "conservative".

Well, actually, I do identify as a liberal, just not the kind that they mean there, or the kind that has any relation to a "progressive".)

Permalink to Comment

15. wwjd on December 17, 2010 1:37 PM writes...

I remember during my college and grad school days being one of the most conservative people around. Then I entered industry and realized I was a moderate (change of comparison set, not beliefs). I think the set of people surveyed here (mostly govt & academics) caused the outcome. It would be interesting to see what the ACS would come out with using the same survey, since it has a much larger industrial participation than AAAS.

Permalink to Comment

16. passionlessDrone on December 17, 2010 1:58 PM writes...

Hi Sigvald -

I believe that what I said that being a Reuplican, 'mandated supporting some positions that are simply undefendable from a rationalist standpoint'. (perhaps I should have said, 'voting Republican')

If you voted for a Tea Party candidate, you acted to put people in policy making positions that don't believe the Earth is warming. You helped them achieve that position of power; whatever other reasons you might have had for voting Republican, the end game is the same; people with disrepsect or ignorance for the scientific method are taking decision making positions regarding funding for pure research on issues that affect everyone.

Regarding YEC, what if I find all religouns more or less equally laughable? YEC makes a good example, but really they all have about the same amount of evidence in their favor. Again, unfortunately, there is one set of politicians who consistently question the evidence of evolution, Repulicans. This is largely driven by either actual belief in the bible, or pandering towards those that do, but whatever the cause, it is absolutely the opposite of a dispassionate evaluation of the facts. These people are going to be shaping the way the department of education is funded.

I'd like to get more money at the end of the day, and the problems of large entities like government are real, but my soul isn't worth another 3%.

- pD

Permalink to Comment

17. Phil on December 17, 2010 2:15 PM writes...

The Slate excerpt Derek posted doesn't sit right with me. The implication is that Democrats only support science because it scores them points. That's like saying Republicans support fundamental Christians because it scores them points.

While the issue is complicated, it's a more true statement to say that Democratic votes supporting scientific research come from genuine belief in it, just like Republicans who side with the Christian right also believe in what they vote for. I don't buy into the cynical argument that politicians are ONLY doing what gets them votes. Positions are rooted at least partly in honest belief, but of course politicians do compromise their own beliefs in order to get elected, on both sides.

Permalink to Comment

18. hn on December 17, 2010 2:17 PM writes...

I think a major factor why scientists don't identify with conservatives is that there are far fewer "actively" religious scientists than in the general population.

Permalink to Comment

19. luysii on December 17, 2010 3:24 PM writes...

The sample is incredibly skewed toward academia. You are as likely to find out what the mass of practicing scientists and engineers, industrial chemists etc. think politically as you are to find out who won the last congressional election from reading the letters to the New York Times (before or after 2 November)

For a few useful antidotes to the notion that all scientists are objective pursuers of the truth read "Defenders of the Truth" by Segerstrale about the birth of sociobiology, or "The Linguistic Wars" by Harris about the basis of language. Chomsky comes across as he does when outside his field of 'expertise'.

Permalink to Comment

20. lenin on December 17, 2010 3:25 PM writes...

Democrats? Let's be honest. Most scientists are communists (one step past a democrat). They all dip into the same pot of money to fund their personal research, whether govt or industrial.

The Republican scientists start their own companies.

Permalink to Comment

21. trrll on December 17, 2010 3:41 PM writes...

In the past, the Republican Party has been very supportive of funding of scientific research, although that has tended to fall by the wayside in recent years, as the reluctance of Republicans to support tax increases to fund the military adventures initiated by Republican administrations leaves little money to spare for science.

The Republican Party has further lost support from the scientific community by appearing to embrace politicians who espouse crank science like creationism or rejection of global warming.

Permalink to Comment

22. socialist scientist on December 17, 2010 3:53 PM writes...

It's a little off putting when vocal Republican mouth-pieces deride higher education, call us elitist and pander to the lowest common denominator. Bush did the party damage in the eyes of scientists with his environmental polices. I think the majority of scientists strive to solve humanities problems and add to the knowledge base which, in this day and age, are not Republican values Industry scientists are only Republicans for job-security and monetary reasons.

Permalink to Comment

23. Lester Freamon on December 17, 2010 5:41 PM writes...

I think the liberal lean of the scientific community is merely a result of its atheist/agnostic lean. If we look at the problem in light of religion, then the question becomes, did scientific experiences make scientists become areligious, or did a previously held atheism lead them into science. And in my case, it's both.

Permalink to Comment

24. Jumbo on December 17, 2010 6:23 PM writes...

As a conservative/libertarian leaning scientist who worked for 12 yr at NIH and subsequently in the pharma industry, I can confidently attest to the liberal/progressive biases in government and academic labs. And I believe this is a problem, because in the current environment, progressivism is associated with entitlement. Progressive biases yield boondoggles like the California stem cell initiative, which is building beautiful new labspace and giving scientific managers cushy new jobs, but what, in truth, has the $1B spent done to advance science? Leftward political biases create situations where government and academic scientists are persuaded that slowing the increase in science funding is equivalent to a 'cut' and that tenure is preferable to outcomes-based employment. I have found the business world more comfortable to work in because fiduciary responsibility brooks no patience for slovenly incompetence. Rather than sitting in your office churning out vacuous reviews with your tenure position, if you don't generate enough lead molecules you are sh*t canned in industry. Tough world, but you know what expectations are very clearly.

Permalink to Comment

25. Anonymous on December 17, 2010 6:41 PM writes...

I don't buy into the cynical argument that politicians are ONLY doing what gets them votes.

In his campaign to be governor of Florida, Rick Scott ran an ad that consisted of the following (paraphrased because I couldn't find a Youtube of the actual ad):

"Alex Sink is proud to be endorsed by the St. Petersburg Times. The St. Pete Times endorsed someone else. Obama. How's that working out for you?"

So while you make good points and I'm not trying to argue with you, this "I'm a Republican, vote for me if you are too!" type of trolling for votes is very real and it works. My mother is fanatically religious and votes Republican no matter what because they use the word "pray" enough to appease her. I used to think she was the only person that blindly unobjective, but I was wrong. I live in a state full of people that would be her best friend.

Permalink to Comment

26. Mutatis Mutandis on December 17, 2010 7:18 PM writes...

I would suspect cold, calculating politics plays a role here. If the Republican party doesn't attract that many scientists (and in my experience Republicans are a minority even among industry scientists) it may be because it does not really want to. Just look at the (depressing) poll figures. Who can muster more votes: Scientists, or committed creationists? Who can contribute more money: Large industries with a self-interested take on the climate change debate, or research scientists?

That the majority of the scientific community leans to the left make the scientific electorate even less attractive. If you happen to be a conservative and a scientist: Though luck. I don't believe the GOP is interested enough in your ideas or your votes to risk losing the votes from, err, the other end of the rational spectrum.

Permalink to Comment

27. D'arren on December 17, 2010 8:03 PM writes...

I'm quite surprised there are as many fundamentalist religious people (Christians & Muslims) in hardcore science as there are. I actually met a postdoc is a young Earth creationist and works on - wait for it - evolution mechanisms in cancer metastasis. Thats a mind blowing amount of cognitive dissonance going on right there!

Permalink to Comment

28. anon on December 17, 2010 9:09 PM writes...

It's pretty simple. The group sampled generally have a higher level of education and IQ than the general public. So they tend to have a more thoughtful and rational perspective, hence they are Democrats, not Republicans.

Lord, please help us if Sarah Palin gets in the running again.

Permalink to Comment

29. Curt F. on December 17, 2010 9:43 PM writes...

When it comes to politics, the first thing to do is choose a side and the second thing to do is feel good about the virtue and correctness of your chosen affiliation.

Remember, at all costs, to view things along a singular axis of us vs. them. They are bad and we are good. That's all there is to it!

Permalink to Comment

30. Anonymous BMS Researcher on December 17, 2010 10:26 PM writes...

A few years ago during lunch in meeting at Cold Spring Harbor Labs a fellow from Canada asked me, "how did Bush get elected, most of the Americans I know dislike him just as much as I do?"

I replied, "well, think about which US citizens you know. First, you're a scientist so probably many of them are scientists. Second, you come from Eastern Canada so the closest part of the US for you is the Northeast. If you were a plumber from Manitoba you'd probably meet a rather different subset of the US population."

I do highly recommend the book Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State in which the authors use demographic data to describe the main political alignments of the US. Scientists, by and large, tend to have high educational levels and live in large metro areas. More of us live on the coasts than in the middle of the country. With these factors alone one could predict a fairly liberal perspective among scientists. Whether we're more or less liberal than can be explained by such demographic data, I dunno, but it does seem clear to me that demography can explain a lot.

Furthermore, scientists by and large are the offspring of college-educated parents. My parents are retired college faculty, so I basically grew up on campus, and then of course I spent more time on various campuses as a student and postdoc before moving to industry. It was very noticeable to me that students from working-class backgrounds rarely chose "academic" subjects like English, History, or Science. Students who were the first in their families to attend college mostly chose "practical" fields like Business or Engineering.

While I don't know where all of my colleagues at BMS stand politically, since I spend most of my time talking about science rather than about politics, those whose views I know best mostly have a very negative view of the Republican Party. Perhaps those more on the business side have different views, but among those doing actual science here I think Republicans are a minority.

Permalink to Comment

31. Greg Hlatky on December 17, 2010 11:12 PM writes...

"It's pretty simple. The group sampled generally have a higher level of education and IQ than the general public. So they tend to have a more thoughtful and rational perspective, hence they are Democrats, not Republicans."

"The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican." - Luke 18:11

Permalink to Comment

32. luysii on December 18, 2010 1:51 PM writes...

Look no further than comments here for why the Palinistas (of which I'm NOT a member) regard educated elites as smug and condescending. They pay academia's salaries (at least until 2011). Time to make nice with them.

Permalink to Comment

33. Phil on December 18, 2010 3:17 PM writes...

@32

So being able to voice a reasoned argument makes you smug and condescending, while a vague one-liner followed by unsolicited advice doesn't?

Permalink to Comment

34. Anonymous BMS Researcher on December 18, 2010 6:05 PM writes...

@33: actually, I don't think Palin lacks intelligence, she is not stupid even though she sometimes says dumb things. The reason I deeply fear the prospect of her ever becoming President is because she seems deeply uninterested in learning about the rest of world (or even this country outside a small slice of it). There is zero evidence she gave much thought to anything beyond Alaska until she landed on the national stage. She could have become well-informed by now, but she just does not CARE.

Permalink to Comment

35. John Harrold on December 18, 2010 6:54 PM writes...

I can say that one area where democrats/liberals tend to reject science more than republicans/conservatives is in the alternative medicine front. From acupuncture to the whole vaccines cause autism (with a good helping of "pharmaceutical companies want to keep you sick to make money" thrown in on the side), this attitude seems to be dominated by liberals and democrats. However, I will say that the politicians who represent them do not seem as willing to cater to this nuttiness as the average republican is to pander to the anti-evolution folks.

Permalink to Comment

36. Kismet from Austria on December 18, 2010 7:12 PM writes...

Well, they do say the truth has a strong liberal bias, don't they?

Perhaps I really am reading too much pharyngula and scienceblogs with their liberal bias but I got the impression most reasonable and intelligent americans, esp. scientists, would indeed vote Dem?!
Are there any counter-examples of what the republicans have done right?

I almost thought everyone would dutifully echo what anon said
"It's pretty simple. The group sampled generally have a higher level of education and IQ than the general public. So they tend to have a more thoughtful and rational perspective, hence they are Democrats, not Republicans."

(btw: Greg Hlatky, you response is incredibly unfair, anon's wording is consistent with a differentiated view that "Dems are the lesser evil", which is what I regularly read)

Permalink to Comment

37. Anonymous on December 18, 2010 8:12 PM writes...

Most of the great scientists that we could name from history (Kepler, Newton, Darwin, etc...) were fairly liberal by the standards of their day. I think a good scientist should be a good sceptic. Scepticism, and an unwillingness to accept classical dogma are not usually thought of as typical "conservative" ways of thinking.

As long as we keep our politics separate from our professional work, it shouldn't matter what our political persuasion. The problems come when (i.e. Al Gore) politics and science attempt to form unholy alliances.

I consider myself quite conservative politically, by the way.

Permalink to Comment

38. bad wolf on December 18, 2010 11:22 PM writes...

@Phil: i don't see why the YouCut site freaks people out so much. The things it is targeting by asking for "...keywords such as "success, culture, media, games, social norm, lawyers, museum, leisure, stimulus"" seems to be aimed at some of the (to a chemist) bizarre social science queries that would be nominated for an igNobel, or made fun of on this very blog. Likewise the peer review process that supports them was also criticized...on this very blog about two days ago! And as for the source, they make a point that the money spent on grants comes from somewhere (someone), and a scientist that can't or won't make the case for his or her research to the layperson paying for it doesn't get any sympathy from me.

Permalink to Comment

39. Joseph Hertzlinger on December 19, 2010 2:31 PM writes...

The Pew poll showed clearly that people who join pretentious organizations with vague goals are on the left.

Tell me something I didn't know.

As for the more substantive issues, if you really do think global warming is some kind of crisis, you should vote for pro-nuclear candidates.

Permalink to Comment

40. peej on December 19, 2010 3:02 PM writes...

@kenbob-
There is a difference between the parties in terms of science. I agree Michael Moore is not mainstream Democrat at all, and fundamentalist Christians are not necessarily mainstream Republicans, but the person who made fun of fruit fly research was the former VP nominee of the party, and the person who believes that the data regarding temperatures rising throughout the globe is a senior Senator from OK.

Democrats ignore their antiscience loons. Republicans, increasingly, seem to embrace them.

Permalink to Comment

41. coprolite on December 19, 2010 3:17 PM writes...

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Permalink to Comment

42. cliffintokyo on December 19, 2010 7:39 PM writes...

I like your commentary on this topic, Derek.
Many of the comments on the thread seem overweight (politically dogma?)
Good you pointed out that politics is only one of the many prisms through which most people view the *world* (people?) around them.
I suspect that most scientists are basically liberal humanitarian and believe in individual freedoms, in a broad sense, not only in the sense of freedom to prosper and make money, or not, which is, sadly, what the Tea Party Dream seems to narrowly focus on, to outsiders.
Scientists are nothing if not intelligent, so it is hardly surprising if we too indulge in a degree of politiking and flattery; we all need our research to be funded after all.
Aside: a survey report I read recently suggests that there is no upper limit to the amount of flattery that the average credulous receiver is willing to believe and accept at face value; food for funding thought...how far removed is flattery from bribery?
Human beings often appear to be such pathetic self-serving creatures....
A true scientist would only pause for an instant before dismissing the idea of taking flattery into consideration in evaluating their own work...you know in your heart when you have done a good piece of work, or not, often involving a new intellectual insight which needs explaining, even to fellow experts.
Which brings me back to another recent, or more accurately oft repeated, thread. Results fakers are no scientists and should be cast out of the *guild* without ceremony or publicity, if they won't go *voluntarily*.
Science is indeed a type of religion, in the best sense, and there should be no place for non-believers in *the creed* (i.e. scientific ethics), even at the level of grade school science teachers.
Something of a ramble, but in conclusion, in my opinion there should be no place for politics in the core scientific method: 'Experiment - Observation - Results - Conclusions',
with a generous dose of deliberate 'Plan - Do - Check - Review/ Revise', in the reporting of studies, to help accelerate the development of communication skills of all research scientists, in academia and industry.

Permalink to Comment

43. Vader on December 20, 2010 10:23 AM writes...

Neurosloth,

"What interests me more than the numbers (which seem accurate enough) is the direction, if any, of causality. Are scientifically-minded people more likely to develop a liberal worldview, or are liberal-minded people more likely to become scientists?"

My own experience is a variant on your second option: I left academia because I found the relentlessly leftist political environment oppressive.

Permalink to Comment

44. virgil on December 20, 2010 1:20 PM writes...

Haven't seen it mentioned here, but "The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney is a good read on this topic (if a little boring/over-indulgent in places).

I guess what it really boils down to, is who we want making the decisions - a group of people who believe in magic sky fairies, or people with Nobel prizes. There appear to be more of the latter in Democratic governments, and more of the former in Republican governments. If you want to call them "scientists" and "religious types", that's OK, but for me its all about the basis for their decisions. I just can't take seriously a politician who cites the magic sky fairy as the basis for anything. That includes Obama.

Permalink to Comment

45. gilmorch on December 20, 2010 4:05 PM writes...

If nothing else, the comments have illustrated that the scientific community is just as capable of labeling and denigrating their differently-minded opponents as the less-educated/over-entitled (depending on your political affiliation) that we all seem to look down on.

I think that these results are closer to reality than we are giving them credit for, but we're losing sight of possible explanations for that by falling into the same shallow political discourse that pervades everything these days. That being said, I'll readily admit that Slate's a left-leaning publication and the data are heavily biased toward academic/government labs. But, as a younger member of the community, I think I can provide a unique insight as to why scientists seem to be fleeing conservatism/republicans.

Many of the students who have graduated in the last decade don't really know of a republican party where the party platform isn't hand-in-hand with social conservatism aligned strongly with the Christian Coalition types. Thus, religious or not, conservatives are often put in a position of deciding whether or not they need to vote for an economic policy they like with a social policy they are skeptical of. This association started ~30 years ago with the libertarian party and has crept into the republican dialogue. Through the '90s and into this last decade it's been everywhere, as you see this constant drumbeat of a culture war between 'godly' conservatives and 'elite' liberals.

Personally, I think as well-educated and analytical people, scientists are by their very nature at least seeking to become elite, if they aren't already. But, I also don't think that precludes us from embracing conservative beliefs. It's just that for a lot of us, there's a party and a group that ostracizes us and our goals, and one that much more outwardly supports us.

Something that is also worth mentioning is that the definition of "moderate" has been dragged to the right, as a result of the factors RM mentioned in comment #10. Considering the training and exposure to new ideas that is required for professional scientists, I would venture to say that as a result of this paradigm shift, previously self-identified conservatives have shifted their classification to 'moderate,' and some former moderates have shifted their appellation to 'liberal.'

My parents (both industry scientists) would be, by the textbook definition of things, conservatives. But they self-identify as independent moderates because of some of the dialogue coming from the right.

So, while I don't think the numbers are entirely accurate at 55/6/32 Dem/Rep/Ind, a 45/20/35 split seems completely reasonable to me.

Finally, I have a personal philosophical reading of the situation. I became a scientist because I wanted to understand and improve the world by creating something new. And in my time I've found that scientists by and large want to first understand the world, and then change it, often by altering the way in which society looks at a problem (a fine tradition carried from Galileo and Copernicus to Darwin and Einstein). This idea that everything is subject to a new interpretation when new evidence arises fundamentally maps on to a philosophical system of beliefs that is liberal in nature. We're led to believe that few things are absolute, which is precisely why we seek the cracks in the facade of absolutism. I don't think that the usual paradigm of conservative/liberal is easily defined in these terms, but I am certain that the absolutist zeal from the modern right that seeks to drown out the opposition is contributing to drive the liberal-minded (if not politcally liberal) away.

Permalink to Comment

46. RKN on December 20, 2010 5:28 PM writes...

I just can't take seriously a politician who cites the magic sky fairy as the basis for anything.

I'm assuming this attitude extends to anyone, not merely politicians? If so, I don't see why. For example, Francis Collins evidently is very qualified is his role as NIH director. I would daresay that if people didn't know of his supernatural belief they would be unable to detect it any of his work or statements in the realm of science. And I personally know of other examples like Collins.

Dismissing people out of hand with respect to what they say or do in the context of science, merely because they hold a supernatural belief, is a kind of confirmation bias.

Permalink to Comment

47. Anonymous on December 20, 2010 9:49 PM writes...

Just reading through these erudite and non-patronizing comments reminds me why the only time I see other conservatives in the academic world is when I walk in on them reading Drudge in the morning...

Permalink to Comment

48. Myma on December 20, 2010 9:50 PM writes...

Gee, when I was in grad school, I was the only one in the lab who could vote, and that included my (Canadian) professor.

Permalink to Comment

49. Kismet on December 21, 2010 12:34 PM writes...

Collins is a perfect example indeed. All else being equal, his irrational, anti-scientific beliefs do make him a worse candidate for the job.

Biolgos. Yuck.

If he manages to do a good job despite his handicap, fair enough.

Permalink to Comment

50. DH on December 21, 2010 6:46 PM writes...

I am a scientist, an atheist, and a Republican. It's not that the Republicans are so great, but that the Democrats are a complete disaster, being openly hostile to freedom and fiscal responsibility. Note, by the way, that in the recent elections, religious kooks like O'Donnell lost while limited government advocates like Rand Paul won. So not all Repubicans are religious nuts, and (at least for the moment), it seems the ones who are more secular and more focused on rolling back the government power grab of the past few years have a better chance of being elected.

Permalink to Comment

51. luysii on December 21, 2010 7:33 PM writes...

Well, I guess poor Isaac Newton would have been a Republican. Half his writings were concerned theology. Shall we remove him from the canon?

The arrogance and smugness of some of these comments is amusing. Hopefully, they all feel better now, having vented.

Philosopher kings all, this takes me right back to the fall of '56 and philosophy 101 where we started right in with Plato's dialogs concerning the Sophists.

As I recall, he thought that you should always go to the man who knows (something I agree with in matters medical) while the Sophists (who lost the argument as Plato wrote the dialog) said that there was no such thing as an expert on virtue.

One could argue that those wanting more government power think that wise men should rule those less intellectually fortunate, and that their superior knowledge would produce a better outcome.

Democracy is inherently Sophist. The rabble is allowed to vote.

Permalink to Comment

52. pipetodevnull on December 22, 2010 1:16 PM writes...

@luysii (as one of many, I haven't the time) "arrogance and smugness of some of these comments is amusing"..."Democracy is inherently Sophist. The rabble is allowed to vote"

When you hear "arrogance" "smugness" or "elitist", it's usually an Ad Hom from a particular perspective.

I often thank my lucky stars that I work in two fields (research and IT) where most of the people are curious, open-minded, and at least somewhat liberal. (I'm guessing that even the conservatives here are generally liberal on social issues.)

Permalink to Comment

53. Anonymous on December 22, 2010 1:25 PM writes...

All of the above comments boil down to one thought:

Either we are, or we aren't as smart as we think we are.

Permalink to Comment

54. Anon on December 22, 2010 4:58 PM writes...

@RKN: "Dismissing people out of hand with respect to what they say or do in the context of science, merely because they hold a supernatural belief, is a kind of confirmation bias."

That's a nice way to put it. I call it bigotry. There are several good examples of religous bigotry in the above posts.

For example: "Collins is a perfect example indeed. All else being equal, his irrational, anti-scientific beliefs do make him a worse candidate for the job." To paraphrase: because Collins is religous, he is unqualified for a federal job. Sounds like bigotry to me.

Permalink to Comment

55. Anon on December 22, 2010 5:00 PM writes...

By the way: Merry Christmas! (I hope that's not lost on all you taking Friday off).

Permalink to Comment

56. luysii on December 22, 2010 10:10 PM writes...

#52 -- PIPETODEVNUL ––"Democracy is inherently Sophist. The rabble is allowed to vote" -- I was attempting to be ironic.

Permalink to Comment

57. Fred on December 22, 2010 11:01 PM writes...

I'm a liberal scientist and I really get the impression MOST conservatives are either ideologues, unwilling to be swayed by evidence, or at least cynical opportunists, willing to cater to dimwits for the sake of votes. The GOP positions on stem cells (stem cells ain't "babies" guys); climate change, evolution, and sex ed may have something to do with my opinion. I'm not impressed with the almighty wisdom of the so-called "free market", either, so I find GOP economics pretty suspect. I think the Gov't can do a more effective job of guiding the economy, in principle, than leaving it up to thieves and scoundrels (Enron; Goldman Sachs).

Permalink to Comment

58. Kismet on December 23, 2010 2:21 PM writes...

@anon54
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Are you seriously telling me that your curriculum vitae, even if it shows that you made blatant, irratioinal anti-scientific statements, matters nothing as a director of the NIH to decide about SCIENCE funding or research directions?

No impact at all? No possible conflict of interest for a prosetylizing Christian? None?

If he is qualified enough despite this issue, fair enough - as I said. Everyone has done stupid things at times.

However...

Bigotry, you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Permalink to Comment

59. Kismet on December 23, 2010 2:26 PM writes...

Oops, I forgot to add:
You erected a massive strawman. No one said "unqualified". Just a little LESS qualified than a person who has never run a naively anti-scientific web page or voiced such opinions or done something along those lines.
And only all else being equal.

Permalink to Comment

60. anon on December 23, 2010 2:35 PM writes...

Not deliberately obtuse. I think it is accurate. Definition below. I'll stand by it. Why do Christian religous beliefs disqualify one for heading up the NIH? Are faith and reason entirely separate realms where never the twain shall meet? If he were a conservative orthodox Jew, would that also disqualify him? I think not.

Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Synonyms: narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

Permalink to Comment

61. Anonymous on December 23, 2010 8:14 PM writes...

Funny how this same old debate never gets any better. Our descendents three or four generations from now will still be doing it, with the same results...

Permalink to Comment

62. ReadTheArticle on December 24, 2010 4:42 AM writes...

By and large, I agree with Derek's comments. The article by Daniel Sarewitz that he's referring to, on the other hand (www.slate.com/id/2277104/), is deeply silly.

First off, as Derek and others have said, the Pew poll is likely to be non-representative, but this is not noted by Sarewitz, who's supposed to be an expert on science policy.

And the article says things like:
"When President Obama appears Wednesday on Discovery Channel's Mythbusters (9 p.m. ET), he will be there not just to encourage youngsters to do their science homework but also to reinforce the idea that Democrats are the party of science and rationality."

I'm sure the administration has considered that aspect of the TV appearance. But maybe Obama decided to use his appearance to reinforce the value of science and inquiry for their own sakes. And really, is there any show on TV that's less partisan or ideological than Mythbusters?

The article goes on to say:
"During the Bush administration, Democrats discovered that they could score political points by accusing Bush of being anti-science."

The important point here is not the political tit-for-tat, but the well-documented fact that the Bush administration *was* anti-science. And there's nothing that scientists can do about that. Sarewitz appears to be blaming that bias on the composition of the scientific community. I think that is, at best, avoiding the problem.

Permalink to Comment

63. rightwingchemist on December 24, 2010 6:20 PM writes...

Democrat scientists are the very reason for the recent demise of pharma. Allowing bleeding heart socialists to "manage" a business, even if it is science based, will never work.
Oh well, at least everyone was happy within their little collegiate environments they created as the bus headed over the edge of the cliff. The majority of go getters and ass kickers soon realize that science based business is a contradiction in terms and move on to areas where their efforts will be rewarded.

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Scripps Update
What If Drug Patents Were Written Like Software Patents?
Stem Cells: The Center of "Right to Try"
Speaking of Polyphenols. . .
Dark Biology And Small Molecules
How Polyphenols Work, Perhaps?
More On Automated Medicinal Chemistry
Scripps Merging With USC?