Who is more anti-science ? Liberals or Conservatives ? Fellow Radical Centrists: Because I have often enough run up against charges that the Left is pro-science and the Right consists of nothing but Neanderthal knuckle-draggers who despise science, I have looked into this matter in the past by doing some actual reading of reputable journals. The record is as I have described it months ago, and even years ago: Each political party hates some kinds of science but loves other kinds of science. There are plenty of Rightists who are experts in chemistry and physics, for example, even if not very many in the evolutionary sciences. Meanwhile on the Left, simultaneously as the Left blasts away at "stupid anti-evolutionists" in Kansas, etc, there are anti-sociobiologists galore at Harvard, as the Larry Sommers stink demonstrated a few years ago. Sociobiology is, of course, at the leading edge of evolutionary thought, and feminists HATE it with a purple passion and their male colleagues (if they want any pussy from feminists) go along with feminist rants on the issue reflexively. Not that people who only read the literature of the Left will see the obvious truth for what it is. The Left-wing (or 'liberal') press, and blogs, chants the same garbage over and over, "the Left is pro-science, the Right is anti-science," and most Left-wingers, and this includes most Democrats, automatically take this to mean that, yes, this is true, it is an objective fact. Except that it is -objectively- a distortion of the facts Here is the question to ask of anyone who repeats the mantra about science-minded Democrats vs. anti-science Republicans: What are your sources? If all of your sources are "liberal" or "progressive" then the stuff in your brain is guaranteed to consist of falsehoods from beginning to end. And, it may be added, what you are doing is no different than what a religious fanatic does who only reads stuff that he agrees with, produced by other true believers of his faith. That is, for many Democrats -maybe most- the Democratic Party is their religion and all views that contravene the party are rejected thoughtlessly, as a matter of doctrine. Needless to say, pretty much the same thing exists on the Right, although because more Republicans follow an actual religion, it is less of a problem. In any case, about anyone who only reads stuff that they agree with, then what they say about topics like science can only consist of, at best, half truths, and more often, of collected falsehoods and distortions. Here is some of the available evidence- Billy ---------- Scientific American The Liberals' War on Science How politics distorts science on both ends of the spectrum Jan 15, 2013 |By _Michael Shermer_ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/author/michael-shermer)
Believe it or not—and I suspect most readers will not—there's a liberal war on science. Say what? We are well aware of the Republican war on science from the eponymous 2006 book (Basic Books) by Chris Mooney, and I have castigated conservatives myself in my 2006 book Why Darwin Matters (Henry Holt) for their erroneous belief that the theory of evolution leads to a breakdown of morality. A 2012 Gallup poll found that “58 percent of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,” compared with 41 percent of Democrats. A 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 81 percent of Democrats but only 49 percent of Republicans believe that Earth is getting warmer. Many conservatives seem to grant early-stage embryos a moral standing that is higher than that of adults suffering from debilitating diseases potentially curable through stem cells. And most recently, Missouri Republican senatorial candidate Todd Akin gaffed on the ability of women's bodies to avoid pregnancy in the event of a “ legitimate rape.” It gets worse. The left's war on science begins with the stats cited above: 41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists, and 19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer. These numbers do not exactly bolster the common belief that liberals are the people of the science book. In addition, consider “ cognitive creationists”—whom I define as those who accept the theory of evolution for the human body but not the brain. As Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker documents in his 2002 book The Blank Slate (Viking), belief in the mind as a tabula rasa shaped almost entirely by culture has been mostly the mantra of liberal intellectuals, who in the 1980s and 1990s led an all-out assault against evolutionary psychology via such Orwellian-named far-left groups as Science for the People, for proffering the now uncontroversial idea that human thought and behavior are at least partially the result of our evolutionary past. There is more, and recent, antiscience fare from far-left progressives, documented in the 2012 book Science Left Behind (PublicAffairs) by science journalists Alex B. Berezow and Hank Campbell, who note that “if it is true that conservatives have declared a war on science, then progressives have declared Armageddon.” On energy issues, for example, the authors contend that progressive liberals tend to be antinuclear because of the waste-disposal problem, anti–fossil fuels because of global warming, antihydroelectric because dams disrupt river ecosystems, and anti–wind power because of avian fatalities. The underlying current is “everything natural is good” and “ everything unnatural is bad.” Whereas conservatives obsess over the purity and sanctity of sex, the left's sacred values seem fixated on the environment, leading to an almost religious fervor over the purity and sanctity of air, water and especially food. Try having a conversation with a liberal progressive about GMOs— genetically modified organisms—in which the words “Monsanto” and “profit” are not dropped like syllogistic bombs. Comedian Bill Maher, for example, on his HBO Real Time show on October 19, 2012, asked Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg if he would rate Monsanto as a 10 (“evil”) or an 11 (“f—ing evil”)? The fact is that we've been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years through breeding and selection. It's the only way to feed billions of people. Surveys show that moderate liberals and conservatives embrace science roughly equally (varying across domains), which is why scientists like E. O. Wilson and organizations like the National Center for Science Education are reaching out to moderates in both parties to rein in the extremists on evolution and climate change. Pace Barry Goldwater, extremism in the defense of liberty may not be a vice, but it is in defense of science, where facts matter more than faith—whether it comes in a religious or secular form—and where moderation in the pursuit of truth is a virtue. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic magazine (_www.skeptic.com_ (http://www.skeptic.com/) ). His book The Believing Brain is now out in paperback. ==================================== _Democrats Have a Problem With Science, Too - Tara Haelle ..._ (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/democrats- have-a-problem-with-science-too-107270.html&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=Hh kjVZq_NYOuogSLrICQBw&ved=0CDoQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNF21DCyd8BMY0a5AVn5GFhjrTv3Kg) www.politico.com/.../democrats-have-a-problem-with-science-too-107270. html Jun 1, 2014 ... Long the punching bag of moderate and liberal pundits, conservatives might finally be learning not to make themselves such easy anti-science ------------------------------- _Five Ways Liberals Ignore Science - The Federalist_ (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/04/five-ways-liberals-ignore-scien ce/&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=HhkjVZq_NYOuogSLrICQBw&ved=0CCcQFjAD&usg=A FQjCNF9-63oJATnZgTC6Yj2MT1Happ5sA) thefederalist.com/2015/02/04/five-ways-liberals-ignore-science/ Feb 4, 2015 ... For some conservatives, harmonizing issues of faith and science can be tricky. ... where anti-vaxxers cluster are also among the most liberal. ------------------------------ _Stephen Jay Gould's pseudoscience attacks sociobiology and ..._ (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Scien ce&Forteana/+Doc-Science-Evolution/CritiqueOfStephenJayGould.htm&rct=j&frm=1 &q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=Kh4jVab_OIL9oQTtuIHIAw&ved=0CC8QFjAGOBQ&usg=AFQjCNEYpq5eG 4hmhDAIbldEZRlrl9oy1w) www.thebirdman.org/Index/.../CritiqueOfStephenJayGould.htm ... colleges and universities and constituted 30 percent of the "most liberal" faculty . ... Like many of the other prominent critics of sociobiology (e.g., J. Hirsch, ... of the historical prevalence of anti-Semitism (see SAID, Ch. 6), and Gould's sense of ----------------------------------- _Gene Expression..._ (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/06/happy-4th-birthday-gnxp.php&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=sh4jVYCzG s7uoASK7oCQDw&ved=0CEgQFjAJOCg&usg=AFQjCNGc_OjOiVgvdIRHUdTcDFxq44Ju4g) www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/06/happy-4th-birthday-gnxp.php Jun 2, 2006 ... ... obvious and increasingly obvious, that the anti-sociobiologists had been ... Since sociobiology has so many implications for politics and society, and yet many liberals are hostile, indifferent or baffled by sociobiology, and ... ---------------------------------------- _15:01 Who is More Phobic About Science--Conservatives or Liberals?_ (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9kJkuuedw0&rct=j&fr m=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=sh4jVYCzGs7uoASK7oCQDw&ved=0CB8QtwIwAjgo&usg=AFQjCNFHe EIMPHTfoMZJbGj2Pgyr1-5Oog) www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9kJkuuedw0Apr 26, 2012 - 15 min - Uploaded by Evolution: This View of Life Denial of science by liberals is actually far worse and more destructive. ... The left is anti ... ---------------------------------- _Liberals Are as Anti-Science as Conservatives, Study Finds_ (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.christianpost.com/news/liberals-are-as-anti-scie nce-as-conservatives-study-finds-134614/&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa =U&ei=HhkjVZq_NYOuogSLrICQBw&ved=0CCEQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNEOKOL56_NDRNmz-qBYoqWyVcuMhg) www.christianpost.com/.../liberals-are-as-anti-science-as-conservatives-stud y- finds-134614/ Feb 23, 2015 ... Liberals can be just as anti-science as conservatives, a study finds, when the science challenges their politics. --------------------------------- _Liberals And Conservatives Are Anti-science, Just About Different Things_ (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.science20.com/news_articles/libera ls_and_conservatives_are_antiscience_just_about_different_things-153058&rct= j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=yRwjVfjPJoOvogSb0IHAAg&ved=0CBQQFjAAOAo&usg=AFQjCN H-FoLLgqbkNUG-tVyK-nd8s-yd9Q) www.science20.com/.../liberals_and_conservatives_are_antiscience_just_ about_different_things-153058 Feb 10, 2015 ... Yet science media doesn't note that anti-agriculture, anti-medicine and anti-energy views correspond to liberal voting, even though the public ... ------------------------- _The Anti-Vaccine Movement Is The Left's Intellectual Problem With Science_ (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.forwardprogressives.com/the-anti-vaccine-movement-is-the-lefts-intellectual-problem-with-science/&rct=j&frm=1 &q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=yRwjVfjPJoOvogSb0IHAAg&ved=0CCAQFjACOAo&usg=AFQjCNF3QxyeT sH4BQaeQ2YpRbvR2sOEHA) www.forwardprogressives.com/the-anti-vaccine-movement-is-the-lefts- intellectual-problem-with-science/ Jan 21, 2014 ... I have previously called out the anti-science hysteria that has completely ... Look, if we want to claim that we as liberals or progressives are ... ----------------------------------------- _Study: Liberals Anti-Science When It Disagrees With Them_ (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.newsmax.com/US/liberals-conservatives-science-bias /2015/02/26/id/627173/&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=yRwjVfjPJoOvogSb0IHAAg& ved=0CCcQFjADOAo&usg=AFQjCNGN_jMk41YKJB23vvG4_vq4MAz8jQ) www.newsmax.com/US/liberals-conservatives-science.../627173/ Feb 26, 2015 ... Tags: liberals | conservatives | science | bias | study. Study: Liberals Anti-Science When It Disagrees With Them. Thursday, 26 Feb 2015 07:14 ---------------------------------- _Steven Rose & the Anti-Sociobiology Marxists - Paul Austin ..._ (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.com/2014/07/steven- rose-anti-sociobiology-marxists.html&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=nR0jVaLhJ Y33oATMooBA&ved=0CDgQFjAH&usg=AFQjCNGCvqviB_WnakbB3KafEbcOsgFEBw) paulaustinmurphypam.blogspot.com/.../steven-rose-anti-sociobiology- marxists.html Jul 16, 2014 ... Ad Hominems against the Anti-Sociobiology Marxists ..... a keen warmist and environmentalist and he once described himself as a “ liberal”.). ----------------------------- _Sociobiology_ (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://psy2.ucsd.edu/~dmacleod/141/localcopies/konner.htm&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ei=nR0jVaLhJY33oATMoo BA&ved=0CBwQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNEdm5UuM32AGkvqpzGoXhwWjl8v4Q) psy2.ucsd.edu/~dmacleod/141/localcopies/konner.htm As a result, liberal opinion about sociobiology has increasingly diverged from .... though, is that the “anti” position may become so congenial for liberals that they ... ====================================== The Atlantic The Republican Party Isn't Really the Anti-Science Party Conservative conflict with science on evolution and global warming has been exaggerated—while liberals get a free pass for their own failings. _Mischa Fisher_ (http://www.theatlantic.com/mischa-fisher/) Nov 11 2013 ( the author is a self-proclaimed Atheist ) In his first State of the Union Address in 1790, George Washington told Congress, “There is nothing which can better deserve your patronage, than the promotion of science and literature.” He went on to call science “essential ” to our nation. Two hundred and twenty years later, in his first inaugural address, Barack Obama vowed to “restore science to its rightful place.” The president’s insinuation plays into the common perception in the media, electorate, and research community that Republicans are “anti-science.” I encountered that sentiment routinely in nearly a decade working for Republicans on Capitol Hill, and it has become more commonplace in the broader political discussion. Frequent offenders include _Slate_ (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/10/06/the_us_congress_anti_science_committee.html) _'s Phil Plait_ (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/10/06/the_us_congress_anti_science_committee.html) , _Mother Jones_ (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/10/06/the_us_congress_anti_science_committee.htm l) _' Chris Mooney_ (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/10/06/the_us_congress_anti_science_committee.html) , HBO's Bill Maher, a host of contributors at _The Huffington Post_ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-barrett/the-science-of-republican_b_3743901.html) , and _MSNBC's Chris Matthews_ (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036697/ns/msnbc-hardball_with_chris_matthews/vp/48757006) . I'm the first to admit that there are elected Republicans with a terrible understanding of science—Representative Paul Broun of Georgia, an M.D. _who claims evolution and the Big Bang are “lies straight from the pit of hell_ (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/06/republican-congressman-paul-bro un-evolution-video) ” is one rather obvious example—and many more with substantial room for improvement. But Republicans, conservatives, and the religious are no more uniquely “anti-science” than any other demographic or political group. It’s just that “anti-science” has been defined using a limited set of issues that make the right wing and religious look relatively worse. (As a politically centrist atheist, this claim is not meant to be self-serving.) Republicans, and members of the traditionally Republican coalition like conservatives and the religious, are criticized for rejecting two main areas of science: evolution and global warming. But even those critiques are overblown. Believing in God is not the same as rejecting science, contrary to an all-too-frequent caricature propagated by the secular community. Members of all faiths have contributed to our collective scientific understanding, and Christians from Gregor Mendel to Francis Collins have been intellectual leaders in their fields. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and an evangelical Christian, wrote a New York Times bestseller reconciling his faith with his understanding of evolution and genetics. Numerically speaking, _according to Gallup,_ (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx) only a marginally higher percentage of Republicans reject evolution completely than do Democrats. Yes, an embarrassing half of Republicans believe the earth is only 10,000 years old—but so do more than a third of Democrats. And a slightly higher percentage of Democrats believe God was the guiding factor in evolution than Republicans. On global warming, conservative policy positions often seem to be conflated or confused with rejection of the consensus that the planet has been warming due to human carbon emissions. The climate trend over the last several hundred years is not one anybody credible disputes—despite the impression you might get from GOP presidential primary debates. Of the many Republican members of Congress I know personally, the vast majority do not reject the underlying science of global warming (though, embarrassingly, some still do). Even Senator Jim Inhofe, perhaps the green community’s greatest antagonist in Congress, explicitly endorses environmental regulation. The catch: Conservatives believe many of the policies put forward to address the problem will lead to unacceptable levels of economic hardship. It's not inherently anti-scientific to oppose cap and trade or carbon taxes. What most Republicans object to are policies that unilaterally make it more expensive in the United States to produce energy, grow food, and transport people and goods but are unlikely to make much long-term difference in the world’s climate, given that other major world economies emit more carbon than the United States or have much faster growth rates of carbon emissions (China, India, Russia, and Brazil all come to mind). The more important question on climate change is not “how do we eliminate carbon immediately?” but “how best do we secure a cleaner environment and more prosperous world for future generations?” It is on this subject that many on the political left deeply hold some serious anti-scientific beliefs. Set aside the fact that _twice as many Democrats_ (http://www.pewforum.org/Other-Beliefs-and-Practices/Many-Americans-Mix-Multiple-Faiths.aspx#3) as Republicans believe in astrology, a pseudoscientific medieval farce. Left-wing ideologues also frequently espouse an irrational fear of nuclear power, genetic modification, and industrial and agricultural chemistry—even though all of these scientific breakthroughs have enriched lives, lengthened lifespans, and produced substantial economic growth over the last century. Examining greenhouse-gas emissions in exact terms, three of our biggest sources of emissions are electricity generation, transportation, and agriculture. With widespread adoption of nuclear technology, we could conceivably cut out more than 70 percent of our total emissions by eliminating the pollution from burning petroleum for transportation and coal for electricity generation (Nobel Prize-winning physicist Burton Richter explains this in his slightly technical but readable _Beyond Smoke and Mirrors_ (http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Smoke-Mirrors-Climate-Century/dp/0521747813/ref=sr_1_1/185-6468 436-0821064?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1378757871&sr=1-1) ). Nuclear power is the only energy source that can actually meet base-load power requirements for a cost competitive KW/h price with almost zero carbon emissions. One of the largest hurdles to nuclear energy is storage of byproduct waste, something _Obama dealt a huge blow_ (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/165759-report-nrc-chief-withheld-information-in-effort-to-aba ndon-yucca-mountain) when he halted the development of Yucca Mountain for what the Government Accountability Office called _strictly political reasons_ (http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/05/10/10greenwire-gao-death-of-yucca-mountain-caused-by-politica-36298.html?pagewanted=all) . Republicans in Congress have _repeatedly_ (http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/alexander-ties-filibuster-debate-to-yucca-mountain/) _supported_ (http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/political-eye/boehner-gop-ready-revive-yucca?ref=388) moving forward with Yucca Mountain. As for agricultural emissions, the purpose of GMOs is to use less area, less energy, less pesticide, and less maintenance than conventional crops. They also mean we can grow food in new areas around the globe. With the tools to feed the world with viable crops closer to the poles, we can preserve the more _biodiverse regions close to the equatorial zones._ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitudinal_gradients_in_species_diversity) Stewart Brand, the 1960s environmental activist, has bemoaned opposition to genetically modified organisms as “irrational, anti-scientific, and very harmful.” The anti-GMO movement, _largely a product of the political left_ (http://www.boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/042413.cfm) , has _reached levels_ (http://front.moveon.org/tag/gmo/#.Ui4uidK-1Bk) _of delusion_ (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-e ngineering/) , _paranoia_ (http://www.alternet.org/food/how-monsanto-using-cronies-congress-take-away-states-rights-label-genetically-modified-foods) _and anti-intellectualism_ (http://www.progressivecaucuscdp.org/?p=1955) _worthy_ (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/23/1211190/-Which-Democrats-Just-Voted-Against-GMO-Labeling) of _Michele_ (http://progressive.org/anti-gmo-activists-regroup-after-defeat-in-california) _Bachmann and young-earth creationists_ (http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/legislation/296201-lawmakers-push-for-labeling-of-genetically-engineered-foods) . Matters are more nuanced—or just plain favorable to Republicans—when it comes to the business of actually governing. Comparing the two parties' proposed funding levels for the major scientific research agencies doesn't lend itself well to narratives about who's “pro” or “anti” science. For every cheap shot a Republican member of Congress like Senator Tom Coburn has taken at National Science Foundation grants (_see the unfairly maligned robo-squirrel_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robosquirrel#Response_to_Criticism) ), there are areas where Obama has undercut American leadership in basic science by favoring loan guarantees and industrial subsidies to the alternative-energy industry at the expense of science elsewhere. We've seen this in his proposed cuts to high-energy physics, nuclear physics, planetary science, and other areas of research. Even in the much-maligned “Tea Party-dominated” House of Representatives, the GOP budget proposals provided more funding for the NSF than those of the Senate Democrats for the current 2013 fiscal year. My point is not to help Republicans shed the “anti-science” label and simply apply it to the Democrats. It's more important that we collectively recognize that reason and critical thought, the joy and excitement of discovery, the connection between research and economic growth, and the beauty and awe of science are accessible to people of all religious and political stripes—just as people of all stripes are capable of rejecting them. That's critically important for two reasons. First, one result of caricaturing Republicans as the “bad guys” on science is that the science-advocacy community gives Obama and the Democratic Party a free pass on bad decisions that undermine long-term basic research. Take the NASA portfolio, for example, where the president unceremoniously cancelled the Constellation plan over the objections of both parties and both chambers of Congress. Astronauts Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan, hardly partisan bomb throwers, highlighted this in testimony before the House Science Committee _on multiple occasions_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/science/space/13nasa.html?_r=0) , pleading, “_now is the time to overrule this Administration's pledge to mediocrity._ (http://democrats.science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/documents/Cernan%20FINAL%209-19-11. pdf) ” Over at the Department of Energy, the president's FY13 budget request made basic research the second-lowest priority of all the department's science spending. The Office of Science, which focuses on long-term basic research, saw a meager 2.4 percent increase, while technology development and deployment—both very much not basic research—received nearly 30 percent proposed single-year increases. In 2011, Obama denied a request to extend the operating life of the Tevatron—the nation’s most powerful particle accelerator and preeminent tool for high-energy physicists—a field of research that eventually led to revolutionary advances like MRI machines. The administration said there wasn't enough money to go around. Yet at the same time, billions of stimulus dollars were being lost on failed investments in the alternative-energy sector. Just the failed loans to Solyndra and Abound Solar would have kept the Tevatron operating for a decade. Nonetheless, Obama has avoided mainstream criticism by hiding behind the commonly held dogma that it's Republicans who are “ anti-science.” This point briefly snuck into the 2012 presidential debates. During the foreign-policy debate, Obama offered a false choice between himself as the pro-science candidate and Mitt Romney as the anti-science candidate, claiming his opponent wouldn't invest in basic research. Romney replied, correctly, that a loan guarantee to a corporation “isn't basic research. I want to invest in research. Research is great. Providing funding to universities and think tanks is great. But investing in companies? Absolutely not.” My own experience on Capitol Hill suggests that when anyone mentions GOP advocacy for science spending, the reply is that Republicans are hypocrites about government spending—that they only support science when it’s pork for their own district. But leaders can be consistent as advocates for basic scientific research but also deficit hawks. Federal science funding as a fraction of GDP has declined nearly 60 percent from 1967 to 2007. The growth in entitlements and mandatory spending, wasteful discretionary programs, and the unnecessary invasion of Iraq have been the leading contributors to deficit spending. There is a second, larger reason why it's important to keep science bipartisan—and why cheap shots about Republicans and science are dangerous. The politics of the immediate will always trump the politics of the long term. So actions like the sequester, which left entitlements untouched but caused furloughs at NASA and the Office of Science, stalled research at the National Institutes of Health, and reduced grants from the NSF and other _federally supported research agencie_ (http://www. theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-sequester-is-going-to-devastate-us-science-research-for-decades/2 73925/) _s_ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/the-sequester-is-going-to-devastate-us-science-research-for-decades/273925/) —will happen again and again absent tax and spending reform. If the sequester taught us anything, it's that science will always lose to Social Security, Medicare, and defense when budgets are being cut. Science's political constituency is too small and the coalition supporting it is not powerful enough to protect research budgets against other priorities. Supporters of federal science funding, a group of which I am a card-carrying member, can ill afford to lose Republican support for science. But if it is perceived as a partisan litmus test, it will not continue to exist in its current state as the government's other financial obligations continue to grow. This may be stupid or petty and perhaps it ought not to matter whether or not it's perceived as a partisan issue, but I've been on the Hill and this is how politics works. If we do not expand the pro-science coalition, instead of shrinking it, it will be the death knell for American leadership in science. Every American will be worse off as a result. Science funding will not just shrink as a percentage—it will shrink in absolute terms, as it did under the sequester. So if you count yourself a supporter of NASA, a supporter of the National Science Foundation, a supporter of the NIH, or a supporter of the Department of Energy's science facilities and particle accelerators, don’t be goaded into a false dichotomy between those who support science and who oppose it. As Thomas Huxley said, “Science commits suicide when it adopts a creed.” ======================================== Reason Are Republicans or Democrats More Anti-Science? Comparing the scientific ignorance of our mainstream parties _Ronald Bailey_ (http://reason.com/people/ronald-bailey/all) | October 4, 2011 The battle of the blogs was joined when Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, denounced Berezow’s column as “_classic false equivalence on political abuse of science_ (http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/22/326556/classic-false-equivalence-on-political-abuse-of-science/) ,” over at the Climate Progress blog at the Center for American Progress. He accused Berezow of trying “to show that liberals do the same thing” by “finding a few relatively fringe things that some progressives cling to that might be labeled anti-scientific.” Berezow acknowledged that a lot prominent Republican politicians including— would-be presidential candidates—deny biological evolution, are skeptical of the scientific consensus on man-made global warming, and oppose research using human embryonic stem cells. As evidence for Democratic anti-science intransigence, Berezow argued that progressives tend to be more anti-vaccine, anti-biotechnology when it comes to food, anti-biomedical research involving tests on animals, and anti-nuclear power. In support of his claims, Berezow cited some polling data from a _2009 survey_ (http://people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/) done by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. In fact that survey identified a number of partisan divides on scientific questions. On biological evolution, the survey reported that 97 percent of scientists agree that living things, including human beings, evolved over time and that 87 percent of them think that this was an entirely natural process not guided by a supreme being. Some 36 percent of Democrats believe that humans naturally evolved; 22 percent believe that evolution was guided by a supreme being; and 30 percent don’t believe humans have evolved over time. The corresponding figures for Republicans are 23 percent, 26 percent, and 39 percent, respectively. On climate change, the Pew survey reported that 84 percent of scientists believe that the recent warming is the result of human activity. Among Democrats, 64 percent responded that the Earth is getting warming mostly due to human activity, whereas only 30 percent of Republicans thought so. That is truly a deep divide on this scientific issue. The Pew survey next asked about federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. Democrats favored such funding by 71 percent compared to only 38 percent among Republicans. The Republican response is likely tied to two issues here: (1) the belief that embryos have the same moral status as adult people; and (2) less general support for spending taxpayer dollars on research. With regard to the latter, the Pew survey reports that 48 percent of conservative Republicans believe that private investment in research is enough, whereas 44 percent believe government “investment” in research is essential. As Mooney might say, the partisan differences over stem cell research might be considered a “science-related policy disagreement” that should not be “confused with cases of science rejection.” But what about Berezow’s examples of alleged left-wing anti-science? Mooney’ s basic response is that some groups on the left are in fact anti-science with regard to those issues, but he asserts that they are fringe groups with no power, unlike the Tea Party activists who are driving Republican politics. For example, Mooney argues that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) “is not a liberal group commanding wide assent for its views on the left, doesn’t drive mainstream Democratic policy, etc.” Fair enough. But the Pew survey does report that Democrats are split right down the middle on using animals in scientific research, with 48 percent opposing it and 48 percent favoring it. Republicans divide up 62 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed. Like stem cells, using animals in research is often framed as a moral issue. With regard to nuclear power, the Pew survey found 70 percent of scientists in favor of building more nuclear power plants. For their part, 62 percent of Republicans favored more nuclear power plants, compared to 45 percent of Democrats. This difference is likely related to views on nuclear safety. For instance, a 2009 Gallup poll _reported_ (http://www.gallup.com/poll/117025/support-nuclear-energy-inches-new-high.aspx) that while 73 percent of Republicans are confident in the safety of nuclear power plants, only 46 percent of Democrats agree. Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm chimed in to Mooney’s column, arguing that the nuclear power industry was done in by commercial considerations rather than leftwing opposition. And that’s true because coal and gas-fired electricity generation plants are considerably cheaper to build. However, if policies limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels are adopted, nuclear becomes _more commercially attractive_ (http://205.254.135.24/oiaf/aeo/electricity_generation.html) . In fact, much more attractive than the solar power alternatives pushed by Democrats like Romm. But that is not a scientific argument; it’s an economic one. What about partisan attitudes toward genetically enhanced crops and animals? A _2006 survey_ (http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Public_Opinion/Food_and_Biotechnology/2006summary.pdf) [PDF] by the Pew Trusts found that 48 percent of Republicans believe that biotech foods are safe compared to 28 percent who did not. Democrats at 42 percent are just slightly less likely to think biotech foods are safe while 29 percent think they are not. Back in 2004, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report on the _safety of biotech crops_ (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=8) that noted: “To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.” That is still the case today. In 2010, the NAS issued another _report_ (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12804) that found that biotech crops offer substantial environmental and economic benefits. Mooney in his response to Berezow allows with regard to genetically enhanced crops and animals that “there’s some progressive resistance and some misuse of science in this area—no doubt.” But he waves that resistance off and asserts, “it is not a mainstream position, not a significant part of the liberal agenda, etc.” But that only holds true if groups that oppose biotech foods such as the _Sierra Club_ (http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/biotech.aspx) , the _Consumers Union_ (http://politicsoftheplate.com/?p=631) , and _Greenpeace_ (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/) can be considered to be on the fringe of Democratic Party politics. Mooney does however acknowledge that he doesn’t know if Democratic congressional resistance to allowing the Food and Drug Administration to go forward with its process for evaluating a biotech salmon variety that grows faster than conventional ones should count as a “misuse of science.” He suspects that it is a mere “policy disagreement.” Maybe. But consider that a bunch of mostly Democratic lawmakers sent _a letter opposing_ (http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/07/a-bipartisan-group-of-lawmakers/) FDA approval this summer. One signer of the letter, Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), asserted, "We don't need Frankenfish threatening our fish populations and the coastal communities that rely on them.” Actually a formal _environmental assessment_ (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/ VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224760.pdf) [PDF] submitted to the FDA last year concluded that producing the biotech salmon would be “highly unlikely to cause any significant effects on the environment, inclusive of the global commons, foreign nations not a party to this action, and stocks of wild Atlantic salmon.” What about vaccines? Berezow mentions data showing that vaccine refusals are highest in notoriously Blue states like Washington, Vermont, and Oregon. However, he could have cited the Pew poll that shows that 71 percent of both Republicans and Democrats would require childhood vaccination. Scientists favored mandatory childhood vaccinations by 84 percent. However, the vaccine/autism scare was fueled in part by _prominent lefties_ (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0616-31.htm) like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. writing in popular publications like Rolling Stone and Salon. In fact, such fringey characters as then-Sen. Barack Obama lent further credence to the vaccine scare when in 2008 _he declared_ (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/dr_obama_and_dr_mccain.html) , "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included. The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it." Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) made similar statements. Mooney modestly asserts that “liberal journalists like myself… have pretty much chased vaccine denial out of the realm of polite discourse.” And good on him. With similar modesty, I note that some of us who are not left-leaning have been _working to do_ (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0616-31.htm) the same thing for _some years_ (http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/02/the-lancet-finally-withdraws-i) now. Over at the DeSmogBlog, Mooney continues his _rousing defense_ (http://www.desmogblog.com/unequivocal-today-s-right-overwhemingly-more-anti-science-tod ay-s-left) of liberal scientific probity. The left doesn’t abuse science; it merely has policy disagreements about what it all means. As an example of how policy disagreements can arise over scientific data, Mooney cites the left’s affection for the precautionary principle. “There is always much scientific uncertainty, and industry claims it’s safe, but environmentalists always want to be more cautious—e.g., adopting the precautionary principle, ” he notes. Then he adds, “The precautionary principle is not an anti-science view, it is a policy view about how to minimize risk.” Really? As University of Chicago law professor and current administrator of the White House Office Information and Regulatory Affairs Cass Sunstein noted in 2003, the _precautionary principle_ (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/38.crs_.precautionary.pl-lt.pdf) [PDF] “imposes a burden of proof on those who create potential risks, and it requires regulation of activities even if it cannot be shown that those activities are likely to produce significant harms.” Note specifically the latter point. Furthermore, Sunstein observed, the precautionary principle has become pervasive, being applied to areas such as “arsenic regulation, global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, nuclear power, pharmaceutical regulation, cloning, pesticide regulation, and genetic modification of food." The precautionary principle is unscientific in the sense that it demands the impossible: Researchers can never show that any technological or scientific activity will never produce significant harm. As law professor Dan Kahan and his colleagues at the _Yale Cultural Cognition Project_ (http://www.culturalcognition.net/) have shown, the strong urge to avoid scientific and technological risk is far more characteristic of people who have egalitarian and communitarian values, that is to say, left-leaning folks. As I _reported_ (http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/23/everyone-who-knows-what-they-a) earlier, according to research by Kahan and his colleagues individualists tend to dismiss claims of environmental risks because they fear such claims will be used to fetter markets and other arenas of individual achievement. Hierarchicalists tend to see claims of environmental risk as a subversive tactic aiming to undermine a stable social order. In contrast, Egalitarians and Communitarians dislike markets and industry for creating disparities in wealth and power. In fact, they readily believe that such disparities generate environmental risks that must be regulated. In other words, everybody has values that they are anxious to protect and everybody, including liberals, struggles with confirmation bias. The operation of the scientific process is the only truly effective way humanity has developed for overcoming confirmation bias and figuring out reality. In most cases it can reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainties, and correct mistakes as we go along. Unfortunately, as the autism/vaccine incident shows, unscientific approaches like the precautionary principle _actually feed into_ (http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/vaccine-autism-panic-debunked) the confirmation biases associated with a specific ideological tendency. Lest anyone think that I’m defending Republicans, I will point to my various critiques of Republican views with regard to _stem cell research_ (http://reason.com/archives/2001/07/11/are-stem-cells-babies) , _biological evolution_ (http://reason.com/archives/1997/07/01/origin-of-the-specious) , and _climate change_ (http://reason.com/archives/2006/09/22/confessions-of-an-alleged-exxo) . Finally, the question recurs: Who is more anti-science, Democrats or Republicans? On the specific issues discussed above, I conclude that the Republicans are more anti-science. However, I do also agree with Berezow that scientific “ignorance has reached epidemic proportions inside the Beltway.” _Ronald Bailey_ (mailto:[email protected]) is Reason magazine's science correspondent. His book _Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for_ (http://www.reason.com/lb/) _the Biotech Revolution_ (http://www.reason.com/lb/) is now available from Prometheus Books -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
