55% of scientists are Democrats, 6% are Republicans

[shagdrum]

From here:

More than half of the scientists surveyed (55%) say they are Democrats, compared with 35% of the public. Fully 52% of the scientists call themselves liberals; among the public, just 20% describe themselves as liberals. Many of the scientists surveyed mentioned in their open-ended comments that they were optimistic about the Obama administration’s likely impact on science.

For its part, the public does not perceive scientists as a particularly liberal group. When asked whether they think of scientists as liberal, conservative or neither in particular, nearly two-thirds (64%) choose the latter option. Just 20% say they think of scientists as politically liberal. However, a majority of scientists (56%) do see members of their profession as liberal.​

 

[Calabrio]

Another interesting question is why?
Is it simply they way they identify and associate with religion?
Is it because of the culture that hails from the Universities?
Or does it stem from issues related to federal funding?

 

[foxpaws]

From alternet.com

Only 9% of the scientists, meanwhile, consider themselves conservative, while fewer still (6%) identified themselves as Republicans. It's just speculation, but the party's hostility towards the basics of modern biology, global warming, and evidence-based reasoning may have something to do with this. Call it a hunch.

Kevin Drum argued the results can serve multiple agendas: "Democrats now have quantitative backup for their sneers about Republicans being anti-science. Likewise, Republicans now have quantitative backup for their sneers about scientists just being a bunch of liberal shills who aren't to be trusted on questions like climate change and evolution. We all win!"

 

[shagdrum]

From alternet.com

Only 9% of the scientists, meanwhile, consider themselves conservative, while fewer still (6%) identified themselves as Republicans. It's just speculation, but the party's hostility towards the basics of modern biology, global warming, and evidence-based reasoning may have something to do with this. Call it a hunch.

The "hunch" is based largely on inaccurate speculation based in a inaccurate understanding of the views from the conservative side of the spectrum, as evidenced by the discussions on this forum.

It would seem to feed into the idea that the reason for the ideological split is based on the culture coming out of universities or the way they identify and associate with religion but not so much having to do with federal funding.

Kevin Drum argued the results can serve multiple agendas: "Democrats now have quantitative backup for their sneers about Republicans being anti-science. Likewise, Republicans now have quantitative backup for their sneers about scientists just being a bunch of liberal shills who aren't to be trusted on questions like climate change and evolution. We all win!"

Good point.

 

[foxpaws]

But shag - don't lots of conservatives graduate from college? How could this happen if the brain washing worked? Wouldn't you think that the scientists' party lines would break pretty much like the general population?

 

[shagdrum]

But shag - don't lots of conservatives graduate from college? How could this happen if the brain washing worked? Wouldn't you think that the scientists' party lines would break pretty much like the general population?

Not so much. As pointed out, the scientific community is rather liberal to say the least. While I cannot say that all science departments in colleges are very liberal, in my experience they tend to be (more so then the rest of the college). Other departments may not be as liberal as the rest of the college (econ departments come to mind). That is a possible factor.

And look at the difference is college from outside of college in most professions. Another possible factor.

And keep in mind the demographic breakdown as well. Conservatives are generally older then liberals. Further distance from college. But when you come from a very liberal subculture inside of a liberal subculture and go to another liberal subculture (as opposed to a more moderate, conservative or apolitical subculture as is the case in many other areas of study) the "brain washing" is re-enforced and becomes harder to "break" from over time.

This is all speculation, of course.

 

[foxpaws]

But, why is the scientific community liberal? There are plenty of old scientists, it certainly isn't an occupation that punishes those who are older... So, the older scientists should start to skew right. And many of those have to at least have graduate degrees, if not doctorates, so wouldn't one think, that in general, scientists would be older than other vocations? There really isn't a mandatory retirement age, it isn't physical work that would require them to retire because of those restrictions. I would imagine if you would look at the average age of scientists it would probably be on the 'old' end of the age spectrum.

 

[shagdrum]

But, why is the scientific community liberal? There are plenty of old scientists, it certainly isn't an occupation that punishes those who are older... So, the older scientists should start to skew right. And many of those have to at least have graduate degrees, if not doctorates, so wouldn't one think, that in general, scientists would be older than other vocations? There really isn't a mandatory retirement age, it isn't physical work that would require them to retire because of those restrictions. I would imagine if you would look at the average age of scientists it would probably be on the 'old' end of the age spectrum.

probably. But if the culture in the scientific community is highly liberal, then it would be harder to "break the brainwashing" over time then in communities that are not dominated by liberals. An analogous example would be journalism.