Most Scientists in the U.S. Are Democrats. That's a Problem

That is a problem. But it is not a problem for science, it is a problem for the republican party. For the last ten years they have been so aggressively pro stupidity that intelligent people are embarrassed to be affiliated with them, even if their general political beliefs are closer to the republican than to the democrat side.

I would claim that there are two factors that lead to the fact that most scientists are Democrats: the overall lean of universities, and the source of funding.<p>First, scientists tend to work in academia. It's well documented that universities are strongly slanted to the left. It seems reasonable to expect that when the left-leaning universities are looking to hire, they will tend to (possibly not intentionally) favor others like themselves.<p>Second, the government is the largest funder of scientific research. However, to the extent that the GOP favors a smaller government (and though they say this, they don't actually do so, but that's a different discussion), this would make one expect that those against such governmental funding would be morally bound to find other means of employment.<p><i>asking how the guy who prohibited stem-cell research</i><p>This isn't what happened. It's incredibly frustrating to me that people continually read a ban on <i>federal funding</i> to be a ban on research itself. But it does reinforce my point that the governmental force behind science is now perceived as <i>the sole</i> force behind science.<p><i>reinforce the idea that Democrats are the party of science and rationality</i><p>In the science of economics the opposite is true. For example, Democratic support of minimum wages and other price controls, and especially their opposition to free trade, fly against the wind of economic science.

This kind of rhetoric disturbs me. The burden doesn't lie with the scientific community, but rather the republican party. Science is not a movement, it's a set of practices that emphasize observation and empirical analysis to interpret the world around us.<p>Science is there for anybody who wants to open their mind to it to enjoy. I'm sure some republicans have and assuming those numbers are correct, 1 of 3 things happened: 1) they've changed their affiliation over time (becoming either democrat or unaffiliated), 2) they didn't find what they were looking for in science and stopped practicing, 3) they're in the current minority.

In graduate school, I was once tangentially involved in a group conversation regarding whether or not another grad student was a dick. A few things were mentioned, and then one of my coworkers said, "Yeah, and he's a republican". Everyone nodded, the question having been resolved to their satisfaction. I still remember thinking how ugly that sounded. How out of keeping it was with the spirit of inquiry that should guide science.<p>This wasn't an isolated incident. I've watched political debates with coworkers where I was shocked at the number of emotional outbursts and lack of charity for the other side. I've had a student complain to me that they couldn't stand an otherwise good biology professor because of their snide political comments about conservatives. Do you think that republican student was more or less likely to go into biology as a result of hearing Bush jokes once a week?<p>I'm one of the 32% that are independent, and grant that the republican party is part of the problem. Having taught evolution, it's completely bizarre to see republican candidates attempting to weasel around questions about its validity every election cycle. It's equally bizarre to listen to my republican parents' evidence-free opinions on climate change and science funding. But the people here who are trying to pretend that science doesn't occur within a social context and that the republicans are 100% responsible for this problem are just as baffling to me.

As others have pointed out, it's funny how this is a problem for Democrats and/or scientists. Shouldn't _Republicans_ be worried about that? I guess this presupposes that you believe in all that "scientific method" nonsense as opposed to, say, Intelligent Design.<p>I should also point out that, if anything, an inquisitive, questioning turn of mind would indicate _more_ willingness to explore alternative ideas, not less! The assumption here appears to be just the opposite: scientists are, for whatever reason, categorically unwilling or incapable of considering alternative political ideas. It takes a special kind of chutzpah to suggest that an entire class of people that disagrees with you is guilty of dishonesty or shenanigans.<p>Bonus hilarity: he won't come right out and say it, but this sure does sound like he's asking for Republican affirmative action in science and universities. lol, as the kids say.

I don't see why that should be a problem. There is also a clear correlation between scientists and religion (or lack of belief).

I think this is largely because of the overwhelming number of fundamentalists in the Republican party. When there are polling figures like 46% of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim and 67% believe he's a socialist, this picture starts to become clear. If you believe something so strongly that your opinion cannot be changed despite astronomical amounts of evidence to the contrary, then you will not many friends in science.

I think the article makes a good point, and the obvious solution is to make a fair percentage of those conducting research switch party affiliation.

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert

I'm no scientist, but do place a premium on inquiry, falsifiability, and rationality in most endeavors. IMO the Republican party is run by people who are openly theocratic, anti-intellectual, and anti-rational. It is no surprise to me that so few scientists are registered as Republican. I see this as a problem for Republicans specifically, and the United States generally. FWIW, last time I affiliated myself with any party was in 2000, when I was a Republican.

It's interesting. Compared to most of Europe to many people in Europe the entire political scene in the US looks like a Republican scene.<p>I fail to see how that is a problem anymore than saying that most people who work on wall street are republicans.<p>The actual political position is only relevant in context not from an absolute point of view.

This is a problem, and it really has nothing to do with specific policies or parties.<p>Any democracy will evolve into a multi-party system. In the U.S. we've basically went with two parties, and it looks like we are stuck with it.<p>So in a two party system, any group that completely affiliates with one party, either by membership or just tradition, both damages that party and the group itself.<p>What I love about politics is that it shows humans at their most irrational: from the Nobel Laureate to the rocket scientist, when you get them talking about politics it's the emotional brain first, the logical brain second. People are like this in all areas of reasoning, it's just politics is the easiest to observe. So, for instance, watching somebody bullshit themselves about politics is a pretty good quick and dirty indicator of how they're going to bullshit themselves about whether or not you need a new server rack.<p>I don't think every issue naturally has two sides to it, but because politics is emotion-based and not reason-based, I don't think it matters. There should be as many scientists roughly in each party. It's a very interesting observation that there are not. I believe journalism is similarly skewed. So when story X comes in over the transom from NGO group advocating some cause, the reporter picks up the phone and consults with several experts. If the odds hold, everybody in that little scenario is a member of the same party, with the same prejudices towards how the story should be told.<p>Not a good thing.<p>I imagine -- without looking at any other comments on this thread -- that there will be a lot of "but the scientists are actually <i>scientifically</i> choosing to be Dems, because it's not logical to do otherwise" or perhaps blaming the Rs for being so bad that no decent scientist would support them. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about (and probably a good reason for the post to be considered of dubious merit for HN) It's a shame, because the larger issue causes all sorts of other problems.

What does it mean to be a "scientist" in the US? Is it strictly a person in academia who is in the pursuit of research grants?<p>Does it also include private sector researchers and engineers?

An interesting question is whether this has always been so. Anecdotally, scientists like Galton, Fisher, and Pearson were on the right (from today's perspective, the far right) in their work on the nature/nurture question.<p>What do historical polls look like? The R/D flip around 1965 will complicate tracking polls, but it'd be interesting to see the data if it exists...

When you've got a party that's tied to a 6000-year-old earth and early man walking beside dinosaurs, how can anyone with a third grade or higher science education be excited to join?<p>The overwhelming sentiment among the Right in the United States is a perverse anti-intellectualism. Stupidity and lack of education have been enshrined as the height of authenticity. If you need proof, look at John McCain's running mate.<p>No one with a scientific mind can feel welcome among people who are tied to policies that consider common sense contraception as somehow morally reprehensible.