scientists who have political opinions are leftists by a 28:1 ratio
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/07/if…
I am not one of those who subscribe to the belief that this is evidence that leftism is scientifically justified; I am one of those who subscribe to the belief that most scientists don’t know jack shit about economics, freedom, or philosophy.
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:16 pm
This would explain AGW and the desire of scientists to have the government fork over 100s of millions for embryonic stem cell research which the private sector finds worthless.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Not to mention that most “science” is publically funded. These dudes know where their paycheck comes from, of course they’re going to support stealing from us^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H the progressive political viewpoint.
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Those that can’t learn, pursue government make work.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I thought that was a survey of members of the AAAS. In other words, one particular organization leans left by a 28-1 ratio.
This might be a special case of the generalization that prestigious organizations with vague goals tend to lean left.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:58 pm
What is a ‘scientist’? Can they be de-lab-coated like lawyers can be disbarred? Because until that’s true, they ain’t shit.
August 4th, 2009 at 1:27 am
Last week Steve McIntyre of the Climate Audit website cracked the walls of the fortress at Britain’s Climatic Research Unit. A “mole” sent him a sample of global temperature data that CRU Director Dr. Phil Jones had refused to share with the climate audit community. By Sunday Christopher Booker had reported the news in the Daily Telegraph.
For some reason government scientists like Dr. Jones that get millions in government research grants are considered to be disinterested experts. Yet anyone who has ever taken a dime from an oil company is bought and paid for.
Of course that is nonsense. To politicians, scientists are just another interest group competing for favors. It’s pay to play. To get their grant money scientists need to deliver science that helps argue for bigger government. And they do, especially in the climate sciences.
Climate scientists like Michael Mann of Penn State University and the “Hockey Stick,” James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies and Phil Jones of CRU are not disinterested experts. It’s perfectly obvious when you watch Steve McIntyre audit their work. The climate scientists don’t respond to McIntyre like disinterested experts. They act like politicians looking for a fight.
August 5th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
I think there’s two effects happening here.
1) Science gets a lot of government funding, largely because lots of scientific research is too open ended and the returns are too abstract and far off to be profitable for private entities. As a result scientists skew towards larger government because from their perspective that really does work a lot better.
2) Conservatism in the US has become very strongly aligned with religion, to the point where the conservative stance on scientific issues is often determined by religious or philosophical beliefs. In part because of 1) and partly because of religion there is a strong anti-scientific philosophy in US Conservatism which makes it unsurprising that scientists reject it.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
There is a lot of misrepresentation of conservative views towards science. Take stem cell research. Bill Clinton signed an order that said anything goes. But as president, he never signed a bill to fund embryonic stem cell research. We are told that Bush banned stem cell research. Bush signed an order to limit federal funding on embryonic stem cells to current lines (2001). He also signed funding bills (100s of millions) for embryonic stem cell research. A good question is whether his taxpayer funded research restriction were based on religion or science.
Unregulated private research was legal through both the Clinton and Bush years but the private sector didn’t put money in to embryonic stem cell research. The private sector considers embryonic stem cell research a dead end. So Bush’s restrictions could simply be based on hard science.
As to your first point, Einstein worked as a low wage patent clerk while developing relativity. A path many scientists have taken. Todays scientists are happy to enjoy the governments largesse while conducting pseudo science.
August 6th, 2009 at 9:39 am
[quote comment="210921"]There is a lot of misrepresentation of conservative views towards science. Take stem cell research. Bill Clinton signed an order that said anything goes. But as president, he never signed a bill to fund embryonic stem cell research. We are told that Bush banned stem cell research. Bush signed an order to limit federal funding on embryonic stem cells to current lines (2001). He also signed funding bills (100s of millions) for embryonic stem cell research.[/quote]
It was still pretty new when Clinton was around and it takes a while for people to warm up to ideas like that. I think gay marriage is a good example, here in Canada is was supported by the leftmost parties first and slowly took hold until all the parties supported it. I think it’s pretty clear that a Democratic president would have removed the restrictions on lines during Bush’s first term. As it is he held it back so long that even the Republicans started to sound like they were supporting it.
[quote comment="210921"]A good question is whether his taxpayer funded research restriction were based on religion or science.[/quote]
Really? I never heard any real objections that weren’t religious. You can’t make a scientific decision at the Presidents office, that’s just not where science occurs.
[quote comment="210921"]Unregulated private research was legal through both the Clinton and Bush years but the private sector didn’t put money in to embryonic stem cell research. The private sector considers embryonic stem cell research a dead end. So Bush’s restrictions could simply be based on hard science.[/quote]
You mean the that private research, that is done by companies who are used to lots of federal funding, and that is done in labs that get lots of federal funding, didn’t do much with embryonic stem cells? (If I recall they couldn’t even do the research in a lab with federal funding).
You can’t cripple the research than claim it’s baseless because it hasn’t shown results.
BTW. Given that there are still a lot of scientists who think embryonic stem cells are the way to go, and this has been going on for 8 years, there is NO WAY Bush’s restrictions were based on hard science because the hard science claiming embryonic is a dead end didn’t, and still doesn’t exist.
Honestly I think the whole “embryonic stem cells” are useless claim is just a justification for a decision made on other grounds.
[quote comment="210921"]As to your first point, Einstein worked as a low wage patent clerk while developing relativity. A path many scientists have taken. Todays scientists are happy to enjoy the governments largesse while conducting pseudo science.[/quote]
Yes Einstein did so. 100 years ago in a discipline requiring no big teams or fancy equipment. Now, even if you ignore the big science like the LHC which would never get private funding, and biology and chemistry where you need fancy labs that an individual probably can’t fund, and just look at theoretical physics there’s the simple fact that the bar is now a lot higher. There’s so much knowledge, so many details. it’s not really feasible for someone to make a breakthough on their own, they need funding to study full time, people to collaborate with and bounce ideas off of.
The next Einstein showing up in anywhere besides a University just isn’t feasible.
August 8th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Bush authorized 100s of millions to be spent of embryonic stem cell research. That’s hardly crippling the research. But this all is nothing more than government throwing around a bunch of taxpayer money to the education lobby under the pretext of the “I care too” banner. Real researchers looking for real treatments have moved away from embryonic stem cells because 1) they act like cancer, 2) any treatment created will be attacked by the patients body as an infection.
Government needs to get out of research since any research authorized will be for political purpose only.