How come only 6% of scientists are Republican?

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Democrats make better bullshitters.

They don't believe in standard or moral, just ends and means at hand...

(as per Saul David Alinsky)
__________________
Few of us survived the Joe McCarthy holocaust of the early 1950s and of those there were even fewer whose understandings and insights had developed beyond the dialectical materialism of orthodox Marxism.
Saul David Alinsky
Rules for Radicals

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

this is true, but there is a lot of money to be made from fake medical conditions which are perpetuated by the big pharmacorps and developed and 'cured' by the scientists working for them.

Point being of course is that it is the scientists working for private companies who are just as likely (if not more so) as those getting paid by the taxpayer to scam the public and funding bodies, both public and private.

Absolutely. They're also far more likely to repress research that would hit the company profit margin. Tobacco companies, anyone?

 

[Sean]

You're still aware. It's called the Bradley Effect.

Now, when challenged, I went out and did some simple research. I suggest you might want to do the same. It says anonymous, but there's a world of difference between saying it and perception (being intimidated and paranoid about the motives of your fellows)...

When it comes to the Great "Educated" Science consensus.

We've seen them throughout history do some most egregious things to their fellow scientists turned "heretic."

I know all about the Bradley effect, there was a lot of talk about it before your last Presidential election. It turned out to be bollocks.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I wonder if the halls of tolerance and diversity are so skewed in some part by a hostile working environment...






Maybe we need some more civil "rights" laws...

 

[Saint Peter]

Absolutely. They're also far more likely to repress research that would hit the company profit margin. Tobacco companies, anyone?

They don't believe in standard or moral, just ends and means at hand...

True.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I know all about the Bradley effect, there was a lot of talk about it before your last Presidential election. It turned out to be bollocks.

Did it...?

How many people now regret voting for the first black President in order to PROVE they weren't prejudiced...

 

[Saint Peter]

Did it...?

How many people now regret voting for the first black President in order to PROVE they weren't prejudiced...

More than the number that voted for the first black President in order to PROVE they weren't Republican.

 

[Sean]

Did it...?

How many people now regret voting for the first black President in order to PROVE they weren't prejudiced...

I don't know. How about you provide us with some facts and figures about how many voted for Obama in a secret ballot to prove they weren't racist?

 

[where]

Show me the division between private sector and public sector when they are mostly competing for government largess.

32% of your sample picked the safe, "Independent."

Perhaps you have heard of the Bradley effect in which people polled tend to worry about the opinion of the pollster and if there is an aura of hostility in the scientific community towards "conservative" as there is in Hollywood, I can see that, too, easily affecting the answers to the pollsters on political leaning...

The term scientist does not automatically confer courage upon an individual who has been taught to keep quite and go along to get along.

the survey was online and anonymous so the so-called Bradley effect is not an issue.

Looking at all the responses, the assertion that only 6% are republicans is a bit of statistical cherry picking I think, but all the same, even picking 'independent' in an anonymous online survey would indicate the respondents do largely self identify as independent and not dem or repub.

and I don't get your first point. you either have public sector scientists who you are claiming are democrats because they are lazy and want to get on the gravy train of public funding, or you have the brave and valiant privately funded scientists who spend time creating drugs to cure us of 'female sexual dysfunction' and the like, or working on cancer treatments but refuse to share work with other collegues because it will dent company profits.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

55% of Scientists say they are Democrat...

There also is common ground between the public and scientists regarding the pivotal role of government in funding scientific research. Government institutions and agencies are the dominant funders of research, according to scientists: 84% list a government entity as an important source of funding for their specialty, with nearly half specifically citing the National Institutes of Health (49%) or the National Science Foundation (47%). Half of the scientists (50%) cite non-government funding sources as among the most important in their field.

Pew

I wonder why, when it comes to spending, that they would gravitate to one party over the other; science, or lucrative bedfellows?

Which party is most likely to not worry about how much they spend...

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Look how easy it was to gather them all up and stampede them into rubber stamping the giant fraud of global warming. Kinda like all those flower children prostrating themselves before Dr. Timothy Leary back in days of "heavy hallucination". Matter of fact a lot of them look like hippies on the verge of retirement...one big last hurrah..

Scare the politician's constituency and the politician will scare up the funding...

 

[unregistered]

 

[where]

You're still aware. It's called the Bradley Effect.

Now, when challenged, I went out and did some simple research. I suggest you might want to do the same. It says anonymous, but there's a world of difference between saying it and perception (being intimidated and paranoid about the motives of your fellows)...

When it comes to the Great "Educated" Science consensus.

We've seen them throughout history do some most egregious things to their fellow scientists turned "heretic."

and it's used to describe face to face questioning. I've never seen or heard of it used in any other situation. Interviewer effect hasn't been demonstrated in anonymous surveys.

 

[unregistered]

 

[firespin]

the survey was online and anonymous so the so-called Bradley effect is not an issue.

Looking at all the responses, the assertion that only 6% are republicans is a bit of statistical cherry picking I think, but all the same, even picking 'independent' in an anonymous online survey would indicate the respondents do largely self identify as independent and not dem or repub.

and I don't get your first point. you either have public sector scientists who you are claiming are democrats because they are lazy and want to get on the gravy train of public funding, or you have the brave and valiant privately funded scientists who spend time creating drugs to cure us of 'female sexual dysfunction' and the like, or working on cancer treatments but refuse to share work with other collegues because it will dent company profits.

The Bradley effect is clearly non-existent, but the sample bias is introduced by using AAAS members. The desire to be a member of a scientific society is greater for people in certain fields of science, particularly those whose work has few practical applications and so rely on the reputation of their peers. (That's not to say that pure research is bad, just that if you are doing science that e.g. produces new drugs for a private company, then publishing your work is secondary to making money for the people who pay you.)

 

[Ishmael]

And we are assured, without any links, that the "deniers" were an insignificant minority of the Science community...

The lees and dregs of the politics of science are still firmly in place long after the hoax has been outed...

Does that make the smallest percentage the only "smart" scientists?



Think about that one all you Glow-Ball Warning worshipers!

Just a general observation. The AAAS is an organization made up of individuals who have voluntarily joined, and paid dues. Pew has assumed that the organization is homogenous in it's constituency.

The AMA, as an organization, has endorsed universal healthcare. It is not unreasonable to conclude that that endorsement is a reflection of the views of the majority of the membership. The reality is that the overwhelming number of doctors DO NOT belong to the AMA, nor do they subscribe to the notion of universal healthcare. Obviously the AMA does not represent a homogenous cross section of the medical community.

It's easy to see how Pew went astray here. Scientists, unlike doctors, do not advertise in the yellow pages. Trying to put together a truly random sample of scientists would be a daunting, and extremely expensive, task. So Pew went to an organization with a membership list containing contact information. I would suggest that the results of the poll regarding the scientific community reflect the policy statements of the AAAS significantly more than they reflect the views of the scientific community at large.

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

Thanks bro. I needed that!

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I'll bet most of those who believe in UFOs are Democrats too. What say you?

AND Angels...



K, if you're brutally conditioned to keep your affiliation secret lest you be ruined too, then it's going to carry over in everything you do...

 

[Saint Peter]

brother from another mother

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

brother from another mother

Ish has a patent in parthenogenesis.

 

[where]

The Bradley effect is clearly non-existent, but the sample bias is introduced by using AAAS members. The desire to be a member of a scientific society is greater for people in certain fields of science, particularly those whose work has few practical applications and so rely on the reputation of their peers. (That's not to say that pure research is bad, just that if you are doing science that e.g. produces new drugs for a private company, then publishing your work is secondary to making money for the people who pay you.)

that's a valid point, but whilst I can't talk about the american science journals, in the UK privately funded scientists publish in peer reviewed journals all the time, especially on findings from new drugs and treatments. and I would imagine it is the same for US scientists because a lot of countries, the UK included, won't license new drugs without published research. Don't drugs have to be licensed in the USA? If so, what are the criteria?

 

[firespin]

that's a valid point, but whilst I can't talk about the american science journals, in the UK privately funded scientists publish in peer reviewed journals all the time, especially on findings from new drugs and treatments. and I would imagine it is the same for US scientists because a lot of countries, the UK included, won't license new drugs without published research. Don't drugs have to be licensed in the USA? If so, what are the criteria?

All that is true, and yes, drugs have to be licensed (after lengthy clinical trials), and some people who work for drug companies publish. But the percentage of total number of scientists publishing in private, applied science is much lower, since not everybody needs to publish to keep their job.