Science versus Politics

I knew an article entitled "The GOP vs. the pursuit of knowledge: Inside the Republican crusade against science", would be chuck full of bias, and I wasn't disappointed by this Salon contribution to stupidity.

Let's start with the editorial's main question: "Why are scientists so much more likely to identify as Democrats?" I would propose an answer that has something to do with the fact most scientists today are likely coming from college environments which discourage any form of anti-Democratic Party thought. However, the writers take a slightly different direction:

Scientists have views that better line up with the Democratic party and Republicans have taken positions that are increasingly damaging to human scientific progress. Our research finds that people who have negative feelings about scientists are more likely to identify as Republican, raising concerns about the future of science.

Remember, here are their 2 points:

1. Scientists have views that align with Democratic Party positions better.
2. The Republican Party and it's supporters hate science and scientists.

To the first point:

A 2009 Pew study finds scientists are more likely to disagree that government is wasteful and agree the government should take care of those who can’t support themselves.

Considering how many scientists rely on government or government funding for their jobs, this makes perfect sense. It would be kind of stupid to believe government spending is wasteful if you have government funding to pay for your study on the effect of Swedish massages on rabbits.

The writers add:

In addition, there is some evidence that those with high levels of education, particularly graduate degrees, are more likely to be progressive on many core issues, and to be more tolerant of social change.

 They link to a study whose abstract states they utilized previous studies which:

Results indicate that professors are more liberal than other Americans because a higher proportion possess advanced educational credentials, exhibit a disparity between their levels of education and income, identify as Jewish, non-religious, or non-theologically conservative Protestant, and express greater tolerance for controversial ideas. 

That last part is especially humorous when you consider what conservative professors have to do to get by in academia. This is from the Wall Street Journal:

One [conservative] professor who has “been in the closet for the better part of a decade” was interviewed in a “secluded spot” a mile from his university. He “was edgy and spoke softly” and “stopped talking altogether, his eyes darting about” when he heard footsteps. Another “prominent full professor” has been in hiding for his entire career. When his liberal colleagues disparage conservatives, he will “join in softly” if he has to speak, or “join in aggressively” if his colleagues seem particularly frenzied. A philosophy professor keeps her socially conservative husband away from work events because he “would be viewed as a fascist.” She tells her colleagues that he is at home tending the children. “How progressive,” they respond.

On the other hand:

But these closeted professors are not the norm. Even pre-tenure, not quite a third of those surveyed said they kept their politics under wraps. Since the fear of not earning tenure causes the risk-averse to hide anything that might offend anybody, that percentage is surprisingly low. It could be an artifact of the sample—conservatives who aren’t “out” are, after all, hard to track down.

Being a conservative on a college campus might be comparable to being a black man pulled over by a cop: You might not get shot, but do you really want to take the chance?

Back to the article's second point about how Republicans hate science and scientists, the authors put up this lovely infographic to prove their point:

Maybe I am reading this wrong, but it looks like across all political demographics, a majority of the people are in favor of government funding for both basic science and engineering and technology? Even a majority of the most conservative Republicans are in favor.

Then they pull out this one infographic:

Yes, because we want scientists who choose the profession for that "warm fuzzy feeling" they get from people, because they are scientists!

Although to be serious, aren't the Democrats the party of warm fuzzy feelings? Anything positive to them must leave them with warm fuzzies: Free healthcare, welfare, global warming, etc. So naturally they get the warm fuzzies from science too.

Next, the article quotes this Politico article about how the Republican Congress is damaging the future of science:

“GOP House members have had little success reining in research agencies so far, but, emboldened by their growing majorities, they’re hoping for better luck next year. They plan to push proposals to cut funding for global warming and social science research, put strict new rules on the National Science Foundation’s grant-making process and overhaul how science informs policy making at the EPA.” 

The National Science Foundation? You mean the group who "spent $856,000 to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills as part of a research project whose aim was to better understand mountain lions’ instincts."?

Don't even get me started on global warming, that wonderful scientific theory which wants to blame mankind for global warming instead of the sun, completely ignoring the obvious fact of "the daily high temperatures always happen when the sun is up". Stick that in your bunsen burner.

Sticking the label "science" on something does NOT make it gospel. Non-scientists need to remember that even a scientific theory can be wrong. This doesn't make scientists or science good or bad. But when you hear a politician like Al Gore espousing a scientific theory, watch out! Politics is NOT science!

The article goes on to point out how groups like the Koch brothers and Exxon fund anti-science stuff, while ignoring Al Gore's green energy investments, which have amazingly benefited from all his efforts to promote the global warming theory, even as he enjoys his "high carbon" lifestyle.

To be honest, political efforts like Al Gore's to promote global warming, also place an undue burden on science to reach politically palatable conclusions. This puts scientists in an awkward situation: They can support Democrats, but they will have to make sure their studies get politically correct results, or support Republicans who will cut funding for absurd science.
 
Even though this article is decidedly biased against Republicans, my takeaway is we need to to get politics out of science. Even Galileo learned the hard way what happens to good science in the face of politics: He was forced to recant heliocentrism by the Pope, and also forced to live under house arrest for the duration of his life. Between Republicans and Democrats, if there is a scientist looking up at the sun and considering it as the source of global warming, he may as well stay at home too: The Republicans won't fund him, and the Democrats don't want to hear what he has to say.