How come only 6% of scientists are Republican?

[JamesSD]

Oooh, I'm a scientist! I can answer this question!

Looking at the data, it seems 12% would be a more reasonable number for Republican scientists, which includes "leaners". This seems more accurate to those I have encountered. Also, this survey was conducted during the Bush years. Bush did a lot to drive away rational people.

Demographically Scientists fit extremely poorly into the Republican tent. As a whole we tend to be liberal or libertarian on social issues. Even those scientists who don't really like gay people much tend to have more of a "let them do what they in their houses as long as I don't have to see it" attitude. The scientific consensus on evolution is even stronger than on climate change. When you had President Bush espousing ideas about Evolution that were at best poorly informed and at worst intentionally wrong, it certainly ruined his credibility on other issues.

Scientists also as a whole don't make enough money to be republican just for tax reasons. The length of schooling and level of difficulty tends to shake out those who are just in it to make a good living.

As long as the Republican party is the party for poorly informed social conservatives, I don't see this changing anytime in the future.

 

[busybody..]

Oooh, I'm a scientist! I can answer this question!

.

http://www.mentalfloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/435freud.jpg

 

[JohnnySavage]

http://www.mentalfloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/435freud.jpg

You don't believe in albino scientists?

 

[islandman]

Open minded, but not very perceptive, apparently. There are threads like you allude to here, but not with those people. You could look it up.

But maybe they all look alike to you?

What does that even mean?

 

[Jackotheshadows]

Because there's no money in research?

*ducks*

 

[cebalrai]

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

Sure, that could be true. But 6% is such an extreme number that it still says a lot.

Also, scientists deal in knowledge. And when you look at issues such as gay marriage, knowledge is key. Polls say about 40%-45% of Americans support allowing homosexuals to marry. But when people who know gays in real life are polled, it jumps up to 65% support. (Gallup)

Same thing with evolution. A huge chunk of the republican base thinks the world is 3000 years old and that the prophet Jeremiah rode a triceratops.

And then you have the Tea Partyers and Sarah Palin deriding our leaders for being educated. We need uneducated Joe Sixpacks running the country??!?! Um, no, we need smart people.

There's really not much the republican party can offer scientists.

 

[cebalrai]

Only 38% of Republicans support stem cell research:

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1550

Republicans leaders have been assailing this issue for years, despite facts that say they don't even know what they're talking about.

To be fair, a significant number of Republicans cross party lines here.

 

[where]

Only 38% of Republicans support embryonic stem cell research:

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1550

Republicans leaders have been assailing this issue for years, despite facts that say they don't even know what they're talking about.

To be fair, a significant number of Republicans cross party lines here.

FYP. it's an important distinction.

I'm more amazed that there are 3% of scientists who don't believe in any form of evolution!

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Only 38% of Republicans support stem cell research:

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1550

Republicans leaders have been assailing this issue for years, despite facts that say they don't even know what they're talking about.

To be fair, a significant number of Republicans cross party lines here.

What I oppose about stem cell research is harvesting fetuses and embryos for it. There is a study out showing that there's an increased cancer risk from that, too. I'm not at all opposed to using adult stem cells.

It goes right along with my opposition to humans preying on each other in general, which is part of why I support a social democracy (i.e., Europe) over runaway capitalism, and oppose the unjustified invasion of Iraq, etc.