Can you find a Republican Scientist?
I'd be interested in seeing an interview or reading an article about a scientists who is recognized as a Republican, anything out there?
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$11 Answers
I find the polls a little wider apart than I would think but certainly not a big surprise. For reference I work at a company with 35 scientists. 4 true republicans and the remainder are democrats or lean liberal. Many are heavily liberal.
The scientific Republicans I know fall into two camps.
1. Fiscal conservatives- We have two middle age guys who like to reference trickle-down economics and flat taxes. They try not to discuss Iraq or social issues and actually dislike the Republican moniker. Global warming, gay-rights, etc. are either non-issues or they lean liberal. They would have voted for Ron Paul's sister's cousin's former roommate over Obama.
2. Social conservatives- We have one bible thumper and one Ted Nugent. The Uber-Christian is a solid chemist and believes in sound scientific principles but if something comes up that is in conflict with the bible he can compartmentalize and fall back on the "everything is a theory/ there is contrary evidence" line. Global warning and Carbon Dating are a major no go. There is nothing liberal about these guys.
Some Republican scientist that weren't noted by Onek and Philipy
Fred Joesph Agnich - Geophysicist Texas state rep
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/utarl/00002/arl-00002.html
Leroy George Augenstein - Biophysiicist Michigan State Board of Education
Louis Henri Aymé -Ethnologist
Samuel Byron Dicker- Statistician
James Arthur Gibbons - Geologist Nevada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gibbons_(United_States_politician)
Ernest William Gibson - mathematician
Clint Moore - Geologist Texas delegate
Russell Wilber Peterson - duPont Researcher, Delaware Governor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_W._Peterson
Alexander Hamilton Phillips- Geologist
Henry Salvatori - Geologist California Delgate
George Otis Smith - Geologist Maine Delegate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Otis_Smith
Larry Stevens - Research Scientist Texas delegate
But I don't think that religions or business or fundamentally anti-science.
Here is an article discussing a cardinal urging for religion ot take a more moderate view of science.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9913712/
I think that the field of science has gotten very politicized.(This is one of it's larger problems, maybe second only to its latent misogyny but that would be an entirely different question) It really takes a Republican with a very sophisticated and complex take on issues and willingness to not tow the party line. The only other option is to be comfortable with being called a hypocrite and compartmentalize.
Incidentally I attended a talk by a member of the Vatican Observatory who was able to satisfy his religion and his scientific beliefs without hypocrisy through strength of character.
The era of news sensationalism hasn't always served science very well. Suddenly a study of 20 people in one town in England is cited as proof of evolution. Critics can lampoon that and paint the broad media/science liberal bias brush. For me I felt this reached a high point during the Bush administration.
It was well outlined in The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney
http://www.amazon.com/Republican-War-Science-Chris-Mooney/dp/B000WCNU44/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247419247&sr=8-1
Christine Todd Whitman and Treasury Secretary Paul O'Niell were both Republicans serving in Bush's own cabinet who wanted to be very proactive on climate change and favored CO2 regulation until Cheney declared it was anti-business.
The highpoint can with the editing of James Hansen's work.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
This kind of thing convinced independents and even moderate conservative scientists that they should be Democrats. Bush and others have alienate generations of scientific minded people.
Bonus for laughs
http://theskunk.org/2008/11/republican-scientists-claim-gravity-a-scam/
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx
It's an interesting question in social and/or political science, but terms like "political science" and "social science" are oxymorons, since any predictions based on their principles are inherently untestable. Societies can be observed "in the wild," but you can't isolate a sample society under controlled conditions and expect it to behave in anything resembling a normal manner.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Yes social science is tough to do, and the conclusions are a lot more tentative than in say physics. However it's hard to generalise about what science is, or what is and isn't a science.
For example, is String Theory science? Some people think not. Last time I looked, we were in no position to even figure out what it predicts, and equally unable to create the conditions in which the predictions could be tested, even if we knew what the predictions actually were. :)
Ironically questions like "What is science?" fall within fields like philosophy and social science which you hold to be incapable of coming to any good conculsions. :)
Regarding scientists' resistance to political ideology, first I'd say, why should they have a special resistance? One would hope that they don't apply their politics to their profession, much like doctors and judges.
And otherwise I would completely agree with your thinking that fewer Republicans choose to become scientists. A number of the members of the Christian base can't reconcile some science vs. Bible contradictions.
Although some scientists can reconcile them somehow...and I think we'll hear from another answerer I know today about those folks.
I concede your point on experiments in social science (the example you give for "framing" is an excellent one). I'll also admit to knowing less about social science than about many other things (although personally I've had very little success in applying *any* generalizations in social situations, and maybe that's why I'm dismissive of social science).
The same objection of "you can't do experiments" applies to astronomy, some Earth Sciences etc. In fact in many social sciences you can do experiments a lot more easily than in astronomy. See my Behavioral Economics page for some examples.
If you think social science is an oxymoron you clearly don't know much about it.
Some Republican scientists that Googe came up with...
Dr. Allan Salzberg, physicist running for Congress.
Joel Walker a theoretical physcist running for the Texas School Board. It seems he is generally conservative but opposed to Creationism.
Congressman Vern Ehlers - long-serving politican, formerly nuclear physicist with a PhD from Berkeley, and various research and academc roles before entering politics.
Timothy Cook, industrial chemist who says he helped developed biodiesel, and has run for various offices as a Republican. (Looks like he never won.)
Also worth mentioning in this context - though not a Republican because she wasn't American! - former research chemist and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
The most interesting thing in that article is the breakdown of scientists views on issues like evolution, global warming and nuclear power compared to the general public and the political parties. From the stats and the examples of people mentioned above it seems clear that even those scientists that are Republican tend to think like the scientifc community in general on those issues rather than like the base of the party they support.
Maybe the most striking example there is Margaret Thatcher, who was the first world leader to take global warming seriously.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
First, while 94% aren't Republican, 45% aren't Democrat, and 7% aren't anything.
Second, scientists are just as 'dogmatic' as anyone else. You just happen to like their dogmas better (a value judgment on your part). They dogmatically believe in the scientific method, in mathematics, and in certain 'scientific principles'. Personally I would only want to go to a doctor who dogmatically believed that giving me an only harmful poison (note the fact I said only harmful so this wouldn't include something like kemo if I had cancer) was a bad thing to do. When are people going to start realizing that it is impossible to truly compartmentalize your life. What you believe about religion affects your view of society affects your view of economics affects your view of politics affects your view of the world affects your view of yes even science. Their are plenty of "scientific" areas that scientists disagree on. That is why there is the distinction between scientific theory and scientific fact (one which is often blurred by modern society), such as the THEORIES of evolution or intelligent design or 6-day creation, string THEORY, and the THEORIES of global warming/cooling (http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm).
Personally I don't identify with the Republican party or with the Democratic party as they are both basically socialist parties and in practice barely differ in what they actually accomplish. It is sad that the majority of Americans have bought into the propaganda that the United States is and can only be a bi-partisan country.
I was rather shocked at the huge difference between the party identification, but would also be curious to know how much this has changed over the last few years as many Republicans have chosen to disassociate themselves from their party due to dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, and some Republicans may be 'hiding out' as Independents.
I disagree with you @spiked. A paradigma is not a dogma. The actual work of a scientist is to break down dogmas. The so called "dogma of biology" (DNA to RNA to protein) is tought as an example of what scientists shouldn't do (a first year we never forget). BTW I am a scientist.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2000/03/07/ca/state/vote/hickey_j/
Here's a speech he gave: http://users.cwnet.com/jackhick/dbltree.htm
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Close, both links show me he was a Libertarian, or is he like Ron Paul and is a Libertarian who is part of the Republican Party.
I in no way am trying to criticize the AAAS, but it is an organization which seems to have a strong commitment to the issues of climate change and evolution. If you look at their website, under the featured areas section, the first one listed which is also the only science related thing in that section is "Climate, Evolution & More." I'm not saying that is a bad thing or that a scientific organization shouldn't be committed to those issues. However it makes sense that an organization committed to those issues would attract members also strongly committed to the same things. It also stands to reason that people who are strongly committed to the issues of climate change and evolution would not identify themselves as Republicans.
http://www.aaas.org/
Also if you look at the statistics of the sample of scientists, you can see that around half of the scientists in the study work in the "Biological and Medical" field.
Group Sample Size
Total sample 2,533
By Field:
Biological and Medical 1,255
Chemistry 348
Geosciences 154
Physics and Astronomy 229
This brings up two problems.
1) The study shouldn't have given any area of science this strong of a representation if it claimed to be representative of all scientists. It should have been more evenly distributed. And as an engineer I'm a little offended, is engineering not science? I think their definition of scientist was very narrow. I would have included many more professions not included in the 4 categories they list.
2) People in the field of biology basically accept and work with the theory of evolution on a day to day basis, so obviously they would be turned off by a political party which often questions a area of study which they have dedicated their lives to. Throw in the fact that this is the field that accounts for half of the respondents to the study and you have a little bit of a bias problem.
Let me be clear, I am saying this is some liberal conspiracy to lie to us. As far as I know the PEW research center is fairly conservative. I just think it was a poorly conducted and somewhat misleading study. If they did this study again with a sample that was actually representative of all scientists in the US, I imagine more would still identify as Democrat than Republican, but I do not think the gap would be so big. I think the overall lesson from this is not to accept everything so easily, even if it is from a legitimate source and reported on by several news organizations.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Republicans actually look at what works and what is feasible and logical and have usually been on the right side of history from slavery to most of the US fought wars.
Democrats think they can rub a lamp and a genie will appear and grant a utopian society once we all agree to disagree and blow each other kisses while using whatever manipulative emotional ammo they can to get their way.
I think I would rather have a republican scientist.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$hi
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Great examples, I'll look into them soon enough and try to learn a thing or two from these Republican scientists. I'm familiar with the 60 Minutes episode you linked to, this particular part blows my mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9i8RrsK7oAI know quite a few conservative scientists in fact. They might not all consider themselves Republican, as many are more libertarian, but conservative none-the-less. If the poll also reported how many of those surveyed had an Ivy League education, the numbers would undoubtedly mirror party affiliation. As a scientist myself, I know how work in academia shields people from real world experiences. The concept of tenure is unknown to working class americans, and to some would be down right offensive. The scientific community also tends to be elitist in their thinking; most believe that their research is the most important thing in the world and the taxpayer should pay millions if not billions to support it.The hubris that they know what is best fits almost perfectly within liberal ideology. To be conservative in the scientific community requires working within a system that relies on government funding, something most conservatives would find abhorent.
I'm not sure there is anything esp Republican about such things. Global warming proponents tend to err on the side of *not* expressing any doubts, while underscoring the direness of the dangers, and downplaying the costs of tackling the problem. That's politics and advocacy for you.
One of the interesting stats in the report (which I mentioned in passing in my answer) is the number of scientists that accept the theory of evolution (97%), that global warming is caused by humans (80%) and support more nuclear power (70%).
The interesting thing about those stats is that if you asked me not whether I believe in those things but how *probable* they are to be correct, I would come up with similar numbers.
Of course in poltiics you don't go around saying "I'm 80% confident about this theory".