Slate: Democratic scientists accused of pushing Dem agenda
Last year, The Pew Research Center for People and the Press reported that 55% of scientists say they are Democrats, 32% say they are independents, and a scant 6% say they are Republicans.
Who knew? It’s an interesting finding, and you might find yourself wondering, as I do, why that’s the case, and what might explain it.
In an article in Slate, Daniel Sarewitz, co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes at Arizona State University, concludes that the Democrats’ scientist-majority is advancing findings that support a Democratic agenda:
Think about it: The results of climate science, delivered by scientists who are overwhelmingly Democratic, are used over a period of decades to advance a political agenda that happens to align precisely with the ideological preferences of Democrats. Coincidence—or causation?
Sarewitz reasons by insinuation, not with evidence or data. If he thinks it’s causation, he should make his case–and cite some evidence to support it. He doesn’t bother. He tries to taint scientists merely by asking a loaded question. Sarewitz might also ask the males among them when they stopped beating their wives.
Can Sarewitz show that scientists’ political beliefs affect their findings, which is what he is alleging? No. Again, he insinuates, but does not even try to back up the claim. Instead, he writes, “…Could it be that disagreements over climate change are essentially political—and that science is just carried along for the ride?” Well, it could be, I suppose. But is it? Sarewitz doesn’t bother to say.
Another instance: Sarewitz says “survey data show that the scientific community enjoys the trust of 90 percent of Americans—more than for any other institution, including the Supreme Court and the military. Yet this exceptional status could well be forfeit in the escalating fervor of national politics.” Could it be? I suppose so. But where’s the evidence? Mr. Sarewitz? Hello? Hello?
Maybe it’s unfair to hold Sarewitz, a political commentator, to standards of evidence we might demand from scientists. But wait a minute; according to the the Arizona State University website, Sarewitz is a scientist, with a Ph.D. in geological sciences from Cornell. On that basis, I’d say we have every right to demand a little more scientific rigor in his arguments. And what is Sarewitz’s political affiliation, I wonder? Wouldn’t it be fair to disclose that if he is alleging that others are reaching conclusions based on their political leanings?
Sarewitz ends his Slate piece with this grand, impressive conclusion: “A democratic society needs Republican scientists.” Really? Based on what?
Here’s my conclusion: A democratic society needs good scientists. And if the public’s overwhelming trust in scientists signifies anything, it might just signify that we have them.
- Paul Raeburn
(Thanks to literary agent Ted Weinstein for the heads-up on this.)
December 8th, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Sherwood Boehlert, the former Republican chair of the House Science and Technology Committee, had an interesting WaPo editorial recently. He wondered, “Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world’s top scientific academies and scientists are wrong?”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/18/AR2010111805451.html
December 9th, 2010 at 6:49 am
Brandon,
You’re right–a very interesting piece. Thanks for letting us know.
December 9th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
“…Could it be that disagreements over climate change are essentially political—and that science is just carried along for the ride?”
This is merely a slight restatement of a Republican, anti-science position: there are disagreements over climate change [among reputable scientists]. Exactly the same claim is made about evolution: there’s a controversy [among reputable scientists].
December 9th, 2010 at 2:52 pm
“Can Sarewitz show that scientists’ political beliefs affect their findings, which is what he is alleging?”
It’s interesting that many folks think political belief affects experience, when more likely it is the reverse. That is, has Sarewitz considered that so many scientists are Democrats because it’s the Democratic party that addresses scientific issues like global warming?
December 9th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I truly miss Sherwood Boehlert.
And I’m beyond tired of people hinting at conspiracies and controversies where there are none to stir up anger or fear. It would be really nice if folks had some actual evidence to back up claims before opening their mouths.
December 13th, 2010 at 10:42 am
In less than two minutes of googling, it is pretty easy to dismiss a lot of your claims with evidence. Should we hold you to a different standard than Sarewitz?
Minute 1:”Sarewitz’s political affiliation, I wonder?”
Why wonder when we can find evidence? He is a senior fellow at the Breakthrough Institute, a “think tank committed to rejuvenating liberal thought for the 21st Century….Breakthrough Institute was founded in 2003 to modernize liberal-progressive-green politics.” Why imply that he is a Republican?
Minute 2: “a political commentator…Really? Based on what?”
Why label him a political commentator when ASU’s website clearly depicts him as an academic and director of a research center?
According to the center that Sarewitz runs, it appears he has a long academic publication record in the field science policy. Quite a bit of his research appears to focus on the legitimacy of science in a democracy (Including a regular column in the journal Nature). http://www.cspo.org/library/author/#S
You seem to misconstrue the point of Sarewitz’s argument, implying that he is playing nothing more than partisan politics. I think Sarewitz is arguing something more: Who produces science matters in politics. This is an unfortunate reality that we can’t ignore. Using think tanks as an example: Republicans dismiss the findings of Brookings; Democrats do the same of AEI. Substance does matter, who produces the information does. If scientific institutions are skewed toward one political direction, there findings are likely to be viewed as illegitimate in the political realm. Since empiricism matters to most of us, this would be bad for both science and policy.
December 13th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Dave,
Minute 1: My point was that Sarewitz might have revealed his political position, because that seemed relevant to his argument. I critiqued what he wrote, not what I might have added after Googling him.
Minute 2: I called him a political commentator because he wrote a political commentary. And I did note that he is a scientist.
To your last point, what’s important about science, as I said, is that it be good science. While Republicans and Democrats often have different opinions about the consequences or implications of scientific facts, there are no Republican or Democratic facts. The speed of light is what it is, regardless of the political beliefs of the person measuring it.
Rather than concluding that science skews toward Democrats, one might conclude that Democrats skew toward science.