Democracy in America

I can observe that as a science undergrad that there was very little discussion of political topics among my fellow science students, except in the rare cases when a science issue had become a political issue. When hanging out with other majors notably more.

Comparing conversations as a political science grad student are obviously meaningless for comparison due to the obvious selection bias.

What about religion? Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but belief in the literal word of the bible (not a majority christian opinion, but certainly popular among the Huckabee/Beck/Palin camp of the far right) cannot be reconciled with the scientific method. I don't have any numbers to prove that religious people are more likely to be republicans, but it certainly seems as if the more fundamentalist side of christianity leans (to the point of falling over) pretty far to the right.

If there is still some doubt, we can always just take a look at this:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/47122/
yikes. Not a whole lot of scientists involved in that project, I would bet.

Although scientists will not admit it, the profession basically boils down into prestige/reputation wars. And given that a large, vocal portion of the Republican base is proudly anti-science, it simply does not behoove a prestige-minded scientist to associate with them.

A lot of Democrats are essentially anti-science as well, but at least they don't boast about it.

Uryu ishida
I don't see what prestige has to do with scientists not wanting to hang around republicans. Nobody, prestigous or not, wants to hang around people who are against you and your chosen profession.

Clearly the answer is because scientists tend to be isolated inside their ivory towers and so are unaware of the way that the world actually works.

"I don't see what prestige has to do with scientists not wanting to hang around republicans. Nobody, prestigous or not, wants to hang around people who are against you and your chosen profession."

I did not intend for "anti-science" to mean against scientists, but rather, that they personally have no use for the concept. Except for most people, that signals a lack of intelligence.

Contrast this with the "anti-economics" of both Democrats and Republicans, where it's not yet anti-intellectual to completely ignore economic analysis, so you have Democratic-leaning economists (though there are not many Republican-leaning economists because the anti-science/anti-intellectual signal is not just anathema to scientists).

That damn book lurning!

Off the top of my head I'd observe that conservatives tend to self identify as Republicans. And that the concept of "conservatism" is one of maintaining the status quo.

Then I'd observe that progressives tend to self identify as Democrats. And that the concept of "progress" is one of changing the status quo towards something else.

Lastly, I'd observe that the practice of science is one of challenging our understanding of the status quo and "progressing" towards a more accurate mental model of reality (note: not necessarily a "true" model, but simply a more accurate model)

Thus, I'm entirely unsurprised that a group of people who don't like change decide not to practice a discipline devoted to it.

I'd expect mirror image results in a discipline violently opposed to change, such as theology. Anyone have any data on political affiliation among the clergy?

It might have to do with the smart republican minded going into professions that match their world view, business, free market solutions. Whereas the more liberal minded going into professions that match the more social solutions to problems mindset. Their isn't nearly as much money in science as business, so, if you bleeive you can better change the world through professions that pay well, thne I can imagine you would take that route

As a scientist in Virginia, I can give you one good reason why I won't be a Republican: Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican Attorney General, will come after me if he doesn't like what I study.

I love the invitation to produce a, or a series of, RWAG(s) - R for ridiculous.

1. Their immoral ivory tower elitists.
2. They believe in problems.
3. They believe in solutions.
4. They live outside the market - in a very narrow sense.
5. They see, Republican sectors - i.e. business - as a necessary evil that either creates problems, slows progress via patent protection, and/or mis-use science.
6. They're fed up with being spoken of as immoral ivory towered elitists.
7. They're disconnected from the political process, and society - awaiting love potion number 9 to bring them out of their shell.
8. They're all immigrants with roots in socialist cultures
9. For a significant number of them, the Republicans are a bunch of corporatist hacks who say one thing but do another - i.e. they're libertarians.
10. The study is flawed

Being a scientist requires using your brain.

Being a Republican requires turning it off and parroting the party line.

They are mutually exclusive.

Problem solved.

MS, you linked to the wrong poll.

Don't know why it has to be limited to scientists. Any profession where most have advanced degrees will be more liberal. Medicine, law, academia, and even religion. Conservative self-ordained ministers get a lot of publicity but your local clergyman who went to a top-tier seminary probably voted for Obama.

M.S., you linked to the wrong web site in your article. Clicking on "only 6% of scientists self-identify as Republicans" goes to a website that is nothing about this fact but rather is about global warming. What you probably meant to link to was the web site cited by the Slate article as the source of its information:

http://people-press.org/report/528/

In high school, I learned (via textbook) that education has a "liberalizing" effect. The more education one has, the more likely one is a Democrat. Even within the subset of professors, the more time one has spent in an academic environment, the more likely one is a Democrat. I am sure there is a wealth of data on the subject, and while "education" is not necessarily "science education", they are not independent.

Thanks Uryu Ishida
That clarifies the matter.
BTW, how's the Hollow-hunting going? :)

though there are not many Republican-leaning economists because the anti-science/anti-intellectual signal is not just anathema to scientists

Republicans like to adopt (convert?) their economists as a posthumous act. I think it was adapted from the Mormons.

@Heimdall, the idea that a liberal predisposition is more conducive to advancing fields of study is a popular idea and it may be true insofar as the field requires abandoning treasured traditions. But how often does a scientist need to abandon a treasured tradition? Maybe if he were a Creationist, he'd have a hard time being an evolutionary biologist. Otherwise, there's no reason why conservatives can't abandon the status quo. In fact, they're notorious contrarians. Milton Friedman, Justice Scalia, Irving Kristol, and William F. Buckley fought the prevailing winds to establish new conservative norms.

Meh. There aren't very many Political Scientists who identify as Republicans either. Or people with graduate degrees for that matter. For scientists this effect may be more profound, as it could have something to do with the thinly veiled contempt for science that Republicans in power seem to express, and their distaste for funding scientific projects.

Or it could be as I view it that reality has a liberal bias...

That's easy. What party is always trying to force science teachers to stop teaching science and replace it with religion ?