On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:15:16 +0000 (UTC), "K-Ric"
wrote:

Why scientists are seldom Republicans

By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Columnist

Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without
scientists?

Ask the Republican Party.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/0...e-democrats-or

Are Republicans or Democrats More Anti-Science?
Comparing the scientific ignorance of our mainstream parties

Ronald Bailey | October 4, 2011

A fight has broken out in the blogosphere over whether Team Blue or Team
Red is more “anti-science.” Microbiologist Alex Berezow, editor of
RealClearScience, struck the first blow in the pages of USA Today. "For
every anti-science Republican that exists," he wrote, "there is at least
one anti-science Democrat. Neither party has a monopoly on scientific
illiteracy."

The battle of the blogs was joined when Chris Mooney, author of The
Republican War on Science, denounced Berezow’s column as “classic false
equivalence on political abuse of science,” over at the Climate Progress
blog at the Center for American Progress. He accused Berezow of trying
“to show that liberals do the same thing” by “finding a few relatively
fringe things that some progressives cling to that might be labeled
anti-scientific.”

Berezow acknowledged that a lot prominent Republican politicians
including—would-be presidential candidates—deny biological evolution,
are skeptical of the scientific consensus on man-made global warming,
and oppose research using human embryonic stem cells. As evidence for
Democratic anti-science intransigence, Berezow argued that progressives
tend to be more anti-vaccine, anti-biotechnology when it comes to food,
anti-biomedical research involving tests on animals, and anti-nuclear
power.

In support of his claims, Berezow cited some polling data from a 2009
survey done by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. In
fact that survey identified a number of partisan divides on scientific
questions. On biological evolution, the survey reported that 97 percent
of scientists agree that living things, including human beings, evolved
over time and that 87 percent of them think that this was an entirely
natural process not guided by a supreme being. Some 36 percent of
Democrats believe that humans naturally evolved; 22 percent believe that
evolution was guided by a supreme being; and 30 percent don’t believe
humans have evolved over time. The corresponding figures for Republicans
are 23 percent, 26 percent, and 39 percent, respectively.

On climate change, the Pew survey reported that 84 percent of scientists
believe that the recent warming is the result of human activity. Among
Democrats, 64 percent responded that the Earth is getting warming mostly
due to human activity, whereas only 30 percent of Republicans thought
so. That is truly a deep divide on this scientific issue.

The Pew survey next asked about federal funding of human embryonic stem
cell research. Democrats favored such funding by 71 percent compared to
only 38 percent among Republicans. The Republican response is likely
tied to two issues he (1) the belief that embryos have the same moral
status as adult people; and (2) less general support for spending
taxpayer dollars on research. With regard to the latter, the Pew survey
reports that 48 percent of conservative Republicans believe that private
investment in research is enough, whereas 44 percent believe government
“investment” in research is essential. As Mooney might say, the partisan
differences over stem cell research might be considered a
“science-related policy disagreement” that should not be “confused with
cases of science rejection.”

But what about Berezow’s examples of alleged left-wing anti-science?
Mooney’s basic response is that some groups on the left are in fact
anti-science with regard to those issues, but he asserts that they are
fringe groups with no power, unlike the Tea Party activists who are
driving Republican politics. For example, Mooney argues that PETA
(People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) “is not a liberal group
commanding wide assent for its views on the left, doesn’t drive
mainstream Democratic policy, etc.” Fair enough. But the Pew survey does
report that Democrats are split right down the middle on using animals
in scientific research, with 48 percent opposing it and 48 percent
favoring it. Republicans divide up 62 percent in favor and 33 percent
opposed. Like stem cells, using animals in research is often framed as a
moral issue.

With regard to nuclear power, the Pew survey found 70 percent of
scientists in favor of building more nuclear power plants. For their
part, 62 percent of Republicans favored more nuclear power plants,
compared to 45 percent of Democrats. This difference is likely related
to views on nuclear safety. For instance, a 2009 Gallup poll reported
that while 73 percent of Republicans are confident in the safety of
nuclear power plants, only 46 percent of Democrats agree.

Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm chimed in to Mooney’s column, arguing
that the nuclear power industry was done in by commercial considerations
rather than leftwing opposition. And that’s true because coal and
gas-fired electricity generation plants are considerably cheaper to
build. However, if policies limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases
produced by burning fossil fuels are adopted, nuclear becomes more
commercially attractive. In fact, much more attractive than the solar
power alternatives pushed by Democrats like Romm. But that is not a
scientific argument; it’s an economic one.

What about partisan attitudes toward genetically enhanced crops and
animals? A 2006 survey [PDF] by the Pew Trusts found that 48 percent of
Republicans believe that biotech foods are safe compared to 28 percent
who did not. Democrats at 42 percent are just slightly less likely to
think biotech foods are safe while 29 percent think they are not. Back
in 2004, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report on the
safety of biotech crops that noted: “To date, no adverse health effects
attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human
population.” That is still the case today. In 2010, the NAS issued
another report that found that biotech crops offer substantial
environmental and economic benefits.

Mooney in his response to Berezow allows with regard to genetically
enhanced crops and animals that “there’s some progressive resistance and
some misuse of science in this area—no doubt.” But he waves that
resistance off and asserts, “it is not a mainstream position, not a
significant part of the liberal agenda, etc.” But that only holds true
if groups that oppose biotech foods such as the Sierra Club, the
Consumers Union, and Greenpeace can be considered to be on the fringe of
Democratic Party politics.

Mooney does however acknowledge that he doesn’t know if Democratic
congressional resistance to allowing the Food and Drug Administration to
go forward with its process for evaluating a biotech salmon variety that
grows faster than conventional ones should count as a “misuse of
science.” He suspects that it is a mere “policy disagreement.” Maybe.
But consider that a bunch of mostly Democratic lawmakers sent a letter
opposing FDA approval this summer. One signer of the letter, Sen. Mark
Begich (D-Alaska), asserted, "We don't need Frankenfish threatening our
fish populations and the coastal communities that rely on them.”
Actually a formal environmental assessment [PDF] submitted to the FDA
last year concluded that producing the biotech salmon would be “highly
unlikely to cause any significant effects on the environment, inclusive
of the global commons, foreign nations not a party to this action, and
stocks of wild Atlantic salmon.”

What about vaccines? Berezow mentions data showing that vaccine refusals
are highest in notoriously Blue states like Washington, Vermont, and
Oregon. However, he could have cited the Pew poll that shows that 71
percent of both Republicans and Democrats would require childhood
vaccination. Scientists favored mandatory childhood vaccinations by 84
percent.

However, the vaccine/autism scare was fueled in part by prominent
lefties like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. writing in popular publications like
Rolling Stone and Salon. In fact, such fringey characters as then-Sen.
Barack Obama lent further credence to the vaccine scare when in 2008 he
declared, "We've seen just a skyrocketing autism rate. Some people are
suspicious that it's connected to the vaccines. This person included.
The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it." Sen.
John McCain (R-Ariz.) made similar statements.

Mooney modestly asserts that “liberal journalists like myself… have
pretty much chased vaccine denial out of the realm of polite discourse.”
And good on him. With similar modesty, I note that some of us who are
not left-leaning have been working to do the same thing for some years
now.


One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch