The lonely 6 percent

Most scientists in this country are Democrats. That's a problem. - By Daniel Sarewitz - Slate Magazine Lab Politics
Most scientists in this country are Democrats. That's a problem.
By Daniel SarewitzPosted Wednesday, Dec. 8, 2010, at 10:41 AM ET It is no secret that the ranks of scientists and engineers in the United States include dismal numbers of Hispanics and African-Americans, but few have remarked about another significantly underrepresented group: Republicans.

No, this is not the punch line of a joke. A Pew Research Center Poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans; 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest "don't know" their affiliation.

This immense imbalance has political consequences. When President Obama appears Wednesday on Discovery Channel's Mythbusters (9 p.m. ET), he will be there not just to encourage youngsters to do their science homework but also to reinforce the idea that Democrats are the party of science and rationality. And why not? Most scientists are already on his side. Imagine if George W. Bush had tried such a stunt?every major newspaper in the country would have run an op-ed piece by some Nobel Prize winner asking how the guy who prohibited stem-cell research and denied climate change could have the gall to appear on a program that extols the power of scientific thinking.

I hope this makes you feel better about yourself because I think it is ridiculous. Who cares if scientist are 6% Republicans? This is a troll post.

That's very interesting! I wonder what all the factors involved are that would influence that so predominantly. I would hazard to guess a couple...

1. Better educated then the general population.

2. More concern with facts as opposed to rhetoric.

3. Better funding, less interference with their work?

I hope this makes you feel better about yourself because I think it is ridiculous. Who cares if scientist are 6% Republicans? This is a troll post.

are you a republineck?

Clearly the 32% who identify as independents are the only "eggs in the batch" we should trust.

i trust the numbers, science threatens theocracy with logic

Doug, you made me laugh with your education typo.

I think the simplest answer is College and University professors force their liberal agendas on students. Scientists usually get a prolonged exposure to it. After awhile you start to believe the rhetoric of whatever bubble you're exposed to.

Doug, you made me laugh with your education typo.

I think the simplest answer is College and University professors force their liberal agendas on students. Scientists usually get a prolonged exposure to it. After awhile you start to believe the rhetoric of whatever bubble you're exposed to.

highly ironic you quote jefferson, he would have nothing to do with your thinking

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias"-

Stephen Colbert.

Ahh, I wasn't aware you two were friends. We most definitely would agree on a number of issues one notable example is big government is bad.

Hop on the love train Bob and promote good will here.

If one man is right,he is the majority-Abraham Lincoln

i trust the numbers, science threatens theocracy with logic

Ah, this is all about religious belief. You should have mentioned that in your original posts.

6 percent. read it , if you can and reload.

Part of it is that the Republicans are doing their absolute best to drive the scientists and scientifically-minded out of their party. The outgoing Congressman for my parents' district is one of the 6%- he's a Republican who was a tenured physics professor before he got involved in local politics and through a chain of events, ended up in Congress. My Dad's worked on multiple projects with the Member, and he knows Dad well enough that he'll be fairly open and honest with him.

And after they did their last tv show together this fall, they got to talking and the Congressman essentially said that he was becoming more and more certain all the time that his decision not to run again was the right one because the Republican Party that had been there when he started was pretty much gone and replaced by people who were so convinced that they were on the one true path that they'd utterly refuse to look at any evidence to the contrary, no matter how conclusive it was and how, while he'd always voted with his party 80-90% of the time, he was disgusted at the new standards of ideological purity that the current form of the party was insisting on and how if he had stayed, he was probably going to get himself branded a 'bad Republican'. He also couldn't stand the Republican nominee who was likely to (and did end up) replacing him- thought he had neither the experience nor the brains to do a competent job in looking after the interests of the people of his district.

And you can see his point in the bigger picture. The two loudest branches of the Republican party right now are the Christian fundamentalists who are actively hostile to a lot of major research going on in the biological sciences right now, and who also have issues with physicists and geologists who are inherently going to challenge the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story, and the populists who regard intellectual curiousity and true high academic standards and academic success as indicators of liberal elitism.

I suspect that a good majority of the 30% in the poll that describe themselves as independents actually do hold a lot of core Republican values. However, they refuse to identify with a group that seems to want to drive them away from the party, which is understandable.

Why bang your head against the wall like that, or go where you are told you're not wanted?

it's definitely a thought provoking issue with surprising data and interesting interpretations. I've never thought about scientists and their political leanings.

I am all for religious freedom but I do frown upon people taking shots at someone else's religious outlook and beliefs.If you think we came from an amino acid and a droplet of h20,then that is your perogative but don't judge others with differing views,it just shows shallowness and insecurity in ones self and ones values as a human being.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Science requires an openness to new ideas and is incompatible with rigid and dogmatic thinking. Religion certainly plays a role. It's safe to say that most scientists are atheists.

I am all for religious freedom but I do frown upon people taking shots at someone else's religious outlook and beliefs.If you think we came from an amino acid and a droplet of h20,then that is your perogative but don't judge others with differing views,it just shows shallowness and insecurity in ones self and ones values as a human being.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

I don't think there is anything at all wrong with critically evaluating any beliefs religious or otherwise. It's certainly going to involve judgement if it can be shown that a person's beliefs contradict reality and that person fails to admit it.

I don't think there is anything at all wrong with critically evaluating any beliefs religious or otherwise. It's certainly going to involve judgement if it can be shown that a person's beliefs contradict reality and that person fails to admit it.

Be sure to tell that to the media about Islam.Maybe Islam is immune to criticism and christianity is the sacrificial lamb for science and media outlets.Interesting.