The Science of 6% of Scientists...

[flacaltenn]

"Only 6% of Scientists Identify as Republicans."

I've run into that statement countless times on USMB and it surely didn't jive with personal experience in Silicon Valley and elsewhere.. So I started to look into the claim..

Found one USMB thread from last year that ended up in the "tantrum room". Don't want THAT to happen here. What I what to do is nail the original source of that oft-quoted meme and do a factual analysis of the claim...

So far -- this is what I know.. Origin of the "factoid" is a Pew Poll that was done in conjuction with American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), a generally respectable organization that publishes "Science" magazine. Membership is similiar to National Geographic Society and all that is required is a subscription and a questionnaire.

The 6% factoid was only ONE of a couple dozen questions posed EXCLUSIVELY to AAAS membership.. But that was ALL that the political rags like HuffPost and Slate needed to know to turn it into flaming partisian dung.

The actual "factoid" can be found on this page of the survey..

Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

So if AAAS is a truly respectable organization and is composed of "scientists" --- what could be the problem with the claim that only "6% of Scientists Identify as Republicans"?

1) We would need to know if this is the ONLY POLL ever done on the subject and whether there is further evidence of this fact ---- I can't find a single assertion of fact on this question that does not refer back to the Pew/AAAS poll cited here.

2) Is there any potential institutional bias due to the organizations involved? --- Both are highly respected organizations, tho leaning somewhat to the left. PEW's employees contribute almost exclusively to Democrat candidates and causes. And AAAS has many "social justice" initiatives that might seem more lefty political than scientific.

3) Does the statistical sampling of the AAAS membership ACTUALLY REPRESENT the composition of the general population of "scientists"? -- Most probably not.. And I'll elaborate on that below...

Question #3 presents the biggest problem for this factoid. I am certain that the sample population for this SINGLE poll does not accurately represent the general population of "scientists" in America stating political preferences. And any PROOF of this factoid would require far more extensive polling..

The Pew sampling methodology is located at:

http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/528.pdf

and gives some breakdown on the AAAS sample... To wit::

Category Percent Total

Employed 81 1990
Retired 19 602
Student 16 286

Employment sector*

Academic 63 1209
Government 9 191
Industry 15 308
Non-profit 8 162
Other 5 116

Field
Bio and Med 51 1255
Chemistry 14 348
Geosciences 6 154
Physics Astro 8 229
Other 19 497

Work primarily addresses…
Basic knowledge questions 49 1225
Applied research questions 46 1167
Own work is interdisciplinary
Yes 81 2053
No 18 456

In past 5 years, devoted all,
most, or a lot of time to…

Research 66 1597
Teaching 30 791
Mgt & admin. 35 917
Clinical practice 6 159

I seriously doubt that the general composition of scientists is anywhere near 63% academic and only 15% industry. Even if it were true -- that alone would partially explain the result. And with the last survey question adding up to WAAAY more than 100% , there's some question as to the allowed answer(s) for whether their work was largely Teaching and administration or real research and clinical practice (or some combo of both if in a university).

Perhaps others want to contribute SCIENTIFIC analysis to this question in the form of how the general "scientist" population breaks down between academic and industry. Keep in mind that NO PARTICULAR effort was placed in verifying the bona fides of the individuals surveyed, no control was placed on geographic regions..

I find it very likely that this factoid is merely an opportunistic political use of a single data point that was NOT derived in a very scientific manner. Truly an irony in itself..

DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO PUTTING THIS THREAD into the tantrum room.. I tried hard to be objective and non-political in the OP construct.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yeah, we all know the 6% is an inaccurate joke but it cracks us up every time its presented as a "fact

 

[toxicmedia]

PEW's employees contribute almost exclusively to Democrat candidates and causes.

I'm having trouble verifying this claim. Where did you get this information? I'm not trying to sidetrack...It's just that I find nothing on the web that says this, and it's critical to the establishment of lefty bias for PEW.

Is your use of the epithet "Democrat Party" and indication of your bias? Again, not trying to pick a fight, just trying to guage whether or not it's worth the time to play objectively

 

[California Girl]

PEW's employees contribute almost exclusively to Democrat candidates and causes.

I'm having trouble verifying this claim. Where did you get this information? I'm not trying to sidetrack...It's just that I find nothing on the web that says this, and it's critical to the establishment of lefty bias for PEW.

Is your use of the epithet "Democrat Party" and indication of your bias? Again, not trying to pick a fight, just trying to guage whether or not it's worth the time to play objectively

Pew Research Center, funded by..... Pew Charitable Trust..... headed by Rebecca Rimel, who says "If we could re-infuse the idealism of the Sixties into our work, there [would be] nothing this country couldn't do."

Left wing connection demonstrated.

*Bows and leaves thread without calling anyone an idiot.*

 

[rightwinger]

Only 6% of scientists are Republican?

I never heard that before

 

[California Girl]

Only 6% of scientists are Republican?

I never heard that before

You have rdean on ignore? Wow. Did not see that coming. Nope. I sure didn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Only 6% of scientists are Republican?

I never heard that before

You have rdean on ignore? Wow. Did not see that coming. Nope. I sure didn't.

Me either.

 

[California Girl]

Only 6% of scientists are Republican?

I never heard that before

You have rdean on ignore? Wow. Did not see that coming. Nope. I sure didn't.

Me either.

I guess even his own 'side' are embarrassed by his babbling whines. Damn, I'm feeling kind of sorry for him now.

 

[rightwinger]

Only 6% of scientists are Republican?

I never heard that before

You have rdean on ignore? Wow. Did not see that coming. Nope. I sure didn't.

If it is posted on the interweb often enough, it must be true

Kinda like the government takeover of healthcare

 

[Ernie S.]

PEW's employees contribute almost exclusively to Democrat candidates and causes.

I'm having trouble verifying this claim. Where did you get this information? I'm not trying to sidetrack...It's just that I find nothing on the web that says this, and it's critical to the establishment of lefty bias for PEW.

Is your use of the epithet "Democrat Party" and indication of your bias? Again, not trying to pick a fight, just trying to guage whether or not it's worth the time to play objectively

Pew Research Center, funded by..... Pew Charitable Trust..... headed by Rebecca Rimel, who says "If we could re-infuse the idealism of the Sixties into our work, there [would be] nothing this country couldn't do."

Left wing connection demonstrated.

*Bows and leaves thread without calling anyone an idiot.*

Simply amazing! Are you well?

 

[flacaltenn]

PEW's employees contribute almost exclusively to Democrat candidates and causes.

I'm having trouble verifying this claim. Where did you get this information? I'm not trying to sidetrack...It's just that I find nothing on the web that says this, and it's critical to the establishment of lefty bias for PEW.

Is your use of the epithet "Democrat Party" and indication of your bias? Again, not trying to pick a fight, just trying to guage whether or not it's worth the time to play objectively

No Prob... I'm in a cooperative mood today... Ran across an op ed that claimed 95% purity of employee donations to Democrat causes.. Gave numbers, but since I didn't verify them totally -- I didn't include them.. HOWEVER --- I've tested a couple hits on opensource.org and it seems to check out.. For instance...

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/s...d=&c2010=Y&sort=N&capcode=kkb43&submit=Submit

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/s...=Y&c2006=Y&sort=N&capcode=kjdjb&submit=Submit

Note multiple Editors at PEW contributing $2000+ to B. Obama in 2008.. And the lack of ANY donations to Repubs..

And WTF is this "epithet" business about mentioning the "Democrat Party"??? Trust me I hate both parties equally... But it would be germane to the discussion if PEW allowed questions on the survey favorable to THEIR politiical views while knowing as professional pollsters that answers would not be scientifically definitive..

 

[theHawk]

The "6%" figure is spewed by the Huffers here. It was one of their talking points a while back.

Just because its 100% false doesn't phase em though.

 

[flacaltenn]

Only 6% of scientists are Republican?

I never heard that before

You have rdean on ignore? Wow. Did not see that coming. Nope. I sure didn't.

If it is posted on the interweb often enough, it must be true

Kinda like the government takeover of healthcare

I look at it as a basic brush-clearing operation.. Since I'm not truly wedded to either party, it's like machete travel thru dense jungle of partisian crap... The more of these pesky little factoids that pop-up -- the harder the threads are to read... Kills the productivity of "killing time" on USMB..

 

[toxicmedia]

Note multiple Editors at PEW contributing $2000+ to B. Obama in 2008.. And the lack of ANY donations to Repubs..

There were donations to The Women's League of Conservative Voters too. The PEW Charitable Trust is in cahoots with PBS and NPR, they are huge contributors, and I'd bet contributions to the Democratic party will increase because of the Republicans trying to destroy PBS and NPR. The PEW Research Center, has been lauded by folks like Bill O'Reilly and other conservatives as a reputable and objective source. It's not unexpected that media afflicted partisans on both sides only say sources are legit when they agree with the results. If you're just trying to establish bias amongst pollsters and think tanks...look no further than Cato, AEI, The Heritage and Foundation, Republimussen Reports (see there!...I made up my own childish epithet!).

Do you think there are as many Republican/conservative scientists as Democratic/liberal ones?

As far as the validity of the 6% figure...speaking anecdotally...if that's a word...I'd like to offer a possible reason why scientists tend to be Democrats/Liberals. I don't think anyone would suggest there are as many Republican scientists as there are Democratic scientists. Most scientists tend to accept their disciplines as better explainations of the world around us than they do religion, Francis Collins accepted, so they tend to be less religious, and as part of academia as a whole, more liberal and less socially conservative.

And WTF is this "epithet" business about mentioning the "Democrat Party"??? Trust me I hate both parties equally... But it would be germane to the discussion if PEW allowed questions on the survey favorable to THEIR politiical views while knowing as professional pollsters that answers would not be scientifically definitive..

"The Democrat Party" was a phrase coined by Thomas Dewey...Eisenhower used the epithet in at least one speech...and Joe McCarthy used it too. Rush justifies it's use by saying "there is nothing Democratic about the Democrat party". IMHO, I think the word Democrat sound more like "rat", and it's often stated in a hatefull shaming tone.

 

[rdean]

I think this is hilarious.

Republicans want so badly for there to be more Republican scientists than a mere and meager 6%.
The question is, “Why would anyone think there would be more”?
After all, the vast majority of Republicans believe science is a “faith”. That evolution is a “lie” and Climate Change is a “conspiracy”.

And look at the different organizations made up of Scientists.

The Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans
The Society of Black scientists and engineer
There are even ones for gays and women.
Everyone insists the Union of Concerned Scientists is pro liberal
Who hands out Nobel Prizes?

Find an organization made up of Republicans or conservatives. You can’t. At least, I couldn’t.

So when the right sees all these organizations, instead of a shred of introspection, they say, “OH, those aren't REAL scientists. Science doesn’t have a BIAS.” They don’t even stop for a second with the idea that perhaps black scientists would want to support the creation of MORE black scientists. The same for the gays and for Native Americans and so on. What conservative pushes the idea of creating more conservative scientists?

The truth is, “science is biased”. There is a bias towards “data” and “study”. When that data disagrees with right wing ideology, instead of any “correction”, the right simply refuses to accept what the data is pointing to. We don’t need to go into all the countless methods of data collection and the vast amount of sources arrayed against the right’s mantra of, “I don’t believe it”. They have no foundations of “data” or “study”. Just a simple, “I don’t believe it”. So this group is going to produce inquiring and opened minded people?

The problem is the right doesn’t see their rigid adherence to ideology as “close minded”. Because they don’t believe their ideology is wrong. Look at their economic policies. Disaster after disaster and yet, instead of studying the policy, moving to a flexible policy, they assume it was others who wouldn’t give “trickle down (one example)” a chance. The failure in Iraq. Obviously the Iraqi people were “ungrateful”. The mystical beliefs behind their intolerance of gays. Even while they insist they want equal rights for gays, they write into their state party platforms plans for what they really want to do to the gays.

The very idea behind “Conservative” is to slow down change. To keep things the same. To create a kind of “traditionalism”. To “go back” to a better time.

Scientists discover, explore, break the mold, and extend the boundaries. The polar opposite of conservative ideology.

I thought the worst thing Conservative Republicans could to do science was ignore it or call it a liar. I was wrong. During the Bush administration, government officials tried to force scientists to change their data to match government policy. Many of our best and brightest left their government jobs. Dozens of scientists signed and sent letters to Bush in protest. The guys that left are gone. It’s not like the Justice Department where Republicans fired lawyers and replaced them with Bible School Graduates. Scientists take a very long time to train and replace. Look at the ages of the Nobel Prize winners. How old are they on average?

And look at what right wingers on this very site say about scientists. Scientists collect money on their academics but don’t contribute. Scientists are lazy. Scientists have no common sense. You have to ask yourself, if a political party feels that way about scientists, who would want to become one?


This very morning, I started a thread about innovation and the importance of government involvement.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...tion-has-been-our-own-federal-government.html

Here is a guy who runs two successful companies developing innovative technology. He goes into detail about the importance of government and gives many examples. This is something, regardless of the evidence; the right wing will laugh at and call “Liar”. Why? They can look at all the evidence, all the inventions, all the technology, but if it disagrees with their ideology, forget it. They will never bother taking a serious look if it disagrees with their “carved in stone” ideology “Government can’t do anything”. Because they hold that position, then the opposition’s position must be, it simply MUST be, it has got be, “Government should do everything”. Because in the “black and white” world of the right wing, there is ONLY black and white. Right or wrong. Only up or down, no sideways.

Worse, they accuse others of being biased, of refusing to “look at the evidence”. Because they have “faith” that something is true so anything that disproves that “truth” must be a lie and the perpetrators “closed minded”. There is no evidence in “Intelligent Design”. “God did it” is not science”.

Nothing in today’s Republicans stilted view of reality lends itself to “questioning”, “study”, “discovery” nor anything involving the “scientific method”.

Even while their leaders are cutting research and education, still the right insists there must be more than a measly 6% of scientists who are Republican. The reason they think that? Faith, a “gut” feeling, and “common sense”.

 

[flacaltenn]

ToxicMedia:::

I think you are FAR too wound up about Democrat vs Democratic party.. If the Democratic Party is made up of Democrats and NOT Democratics --- they you better be more concerned about the level of proficiency in Public Education to get that irrating little distinction more ingrained..

Do you think there are as many Republican/conservative scientists as Democratic/liberal ones?

As far as the validity of the 6% figure...speaking anecdotally...if that's a word...I'd like to offer a possible reason why scientists tend to be Democrats/Liberals. I don't think anyone would suggest there are as many Republican scientists as there are Democratic scientists. Most scientists tend to accept their disciplines as better explainations of the world around us than they do religion, Francis Collins accepted, so they tend to be less religious, and as part of academia as a whole, more liberal and less socially conservative.

I would suspect that ANY profession that had such a prevalence of ACADEMIC employment would lean somewhat towards the Democrats. Perhaps even 60/40 --- but that's just a personal guess based on the size of the educator cohort. But it's NOT because Republican or Conservative scientists are RETARDED by their religious beliefs. In fact, I find it easier to believe in the Genesis explanation of Creation rather than the Big Bang because the concept of all matter/energy in the universe fitting on the head of the pin prior to the event requires MORE FAITH than the cutesy folksy version... The amount of FAITH required by advanced science is actually pretty high..

There is also the reality of the govt being a large source of funding for the profession. And that tends to spawn a higher tolerance of govt largess and spending..

But I DO know (unless anyone can name similiar studies or defend the poor sampling technique of the PEW AAAS poll) -- that 6% is a faulty answer.. And I believe that PEW was smart enough to know that including those questions for THAT population would generate controversial results that would please the client and get them favorable exposure...

 

[flacaltenn]

RDean::

You possess an extremely warped view of how science works..

The very idea behind “Conservative” is to slow down change. To keep things the same. To create a kind of “traditionalism”. To “go back” to a better time.

Scientists discover, explore, break the mold, and extend the boundaries. The polar opposite of conservative ideology.

Science actually works very SLOWLY and deliberately and with respect to existing laws and theories. EACH AND EVERY new assertion is tested, debated and discussed. Stating it THAT way makes it sound actually quite Conservative.

Much like I am doing here with your singular assertion that "only 6% of scientists indentify as Republicans". The next step is for YOU to back up your defense of that single data point by addressing the issues I raised about whether sampling one magazine readership is an adequate sample to draw that conclusion.. But instead --- you go off on Black Science and Gay Science and a lot of tangents.

Never is a vote taken and a edict declared that "the science is settled" and further inquiry is locked out.. It is NOT a democratic process -- and I think you're very confused by that.. Because science has been hijacked by politics at every opportunity. Especially when the "gatekeepers" of that science are largely creatures of govt themselves. I don't care WHICH political party they serve..

When discussion of the environment comes up -- it is perfectly allowable to be hired to represent the views of either side of the discussion. Those views better contribute to the TOPIC and be FOCUSED on deriving truth -- or you will not succeed. If the states want to argue with the EPA about the allowable amount of NATURAL arsenic in the drinking water -- that's a debateable topic. And whether you work as a scientist for the evil water Nevada water company or the NRDC or the EPA -- that debate will proceed along the lines of proving valid assertions and pruning weak or faulty ones. Such as we SHOULD be doing here.

And look at the different organizations made up of Scientists.

The Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans
The Society of Black scientists and engineer
There are even ones for gays and women.
Everyone insists the Union of Concerned Scientists is pro liberal
Who hands out Nobel Prizes?

Find an organization made up of Republicans or conservatives. You can’t. At least, I couldn’t.

Don't need to.. I see no reason to form ethnic/racial/sexual constituencies within science. There is NO justification for that other than to encourage participation of their OWN populations. Which BTW could be done WITHOUT the need for such minute subdivision of candidates. Science doesn't NEED more gay black female scientists, it needs more creative, brilliant AMERICAN scientists.. Or we fail...

All the other political crap in your screed is non-responsive in a true Scientific sense.. Especially your biases about Republicans. Biases like that --- or your personal beliefs in God --- generally get checked when you come to the office or laboratory.. Hard for party animals like yourself to believe -- I know.. But it's true..

 

[rdean]

RDean::

You possess an extremely warped view of how science works..

The very idea behind “Conservative” is to slow down change. To keep things the same. To create a kind of “traditionalism”. To “go back” to a better time.

Scientists discover, explore, break the mold, and extend the boundaries. The polar opposite of conservative ideology.

Science actually works very SLOWLY and deliberately and with respect to existing laws and theories. EACH AND EVERY new assertion is tested, debated and discussed. Stating it THAT way makes it sound actually quite Conservative.

Much like I am doing here with your singular assertion that "only 6% of scientists indentify as Republicans". The next step is for YOU to back up your defense of that single data point by addressing the issues I raised about whether sampling one magazine readership is an adequate sample to draw that conclusion.. But instead --- you go off on Black Science and Gay Science and a lot of tangents.

Never is a vote taken and a edict declared that "the science is settled" and further inquiry is locked out.. It is NOT a democratic process -- and I think you're very confused by that.. Because science has been hijacked by politics at every opportunity. Especially when the "gatekeepers" of that science are largely creatures of govt themselves. I don't care WHICH political party they serve..

When discussion of the environment comes up -- it is perfectly allowable to be hired to represent the views of either side of the discussion. Those views better contribute to the TOPIC and be FOCUSED on deriving truth -- or you will not succeed. If the states want to argue with the EPA about the allowable amount of NATURAL arsenic in the drinking water -- that's a debateable topic. And whether you work as a scientist for the evil water Nevada water company or the NRDC or the EPA -- that debate will proceed along the lines of proving valid assertions and pruning weak or faulty ones. Such as we SHOULD be doing here.

And look at the different organizations made up of Scientists.

The Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans
The Society of Black scientists and engineer
There are even ones for gays and women.
Everyone insists the Union of Concerned Scientists is pro liberal
Who hands out Nobel Prizes?

Find an organization made up of Republicans or conservatives. You can’t. At least, I couldn’t.

Don't need to.. I see no reason to form ethnic/racial/sexual constituencies within science. There is NO justification for that other than to encourage participation of their OWN populations. Which BTW could be done WITHOUT the need for such minute subdivision of candidates. Science doesn't NEED more gay black female scientists, it needs more creative, brilliant AMERICAN scientists.. Or we fail...

All the other political crap in your screed is non-responsive in a true Scientific sense.. Especially your biases about Republicans. Biases like that --- or your personal beliefs in God --- generally get checked when you come to the office or laboratory.. Hard for party animals like yourself to believe -- I know.. But it's true..

"How science WORKS"? What does that even mean?

You said: Science actually works very SLOWLY and deliberately and with respect to existing laws and theories. EACH AND EVERY new assertion is tested, debated and discussed. Stating it THAT way makes it sound actually quite Conservative.

The only problem is that what you said is "bullshit". The last 40 years has seen an explosion of knowledge, especially with the introduction of all the advancements in technology.

You're right. Science was hijacked by a political party. And it still is. By Republicans, like I said, who think science is a "faith", evolution a "lie" and climate change a "conspiracy". That can't possibly be denied. Not even by you.

Oh wow, "Natural Arsenic", must be good for you.

You said: I see no reason to form ethnic/racial/sexual constituencies within science. There is NO justification for that other than to encourage participation of their OWN populations.

You make that sound like a "bad" thing. A guy who owns a company wants his son to run the company. A guy who runs a newspaper wants son to run the newspaper.

Why shouldn't black scientists want other blacks to learn the benefits of science? What do those organizations do? They create scholarships and internships LIKE THEY DO EVERYWHERE ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't even know where your argument was aimed. As some kind of "proof" that more than 6% of scientists would be Republican? If that was it, you failed terribly.

Republicans cut education. They defund research and innovation. Republicans don't like science. I'm not saying ALL, how about "All but a few"?

 

[JackDan]

flacaltenn-

It is in your best interest to ignore rdean in this conversation and in all ones to follow. He is completly brainwashed and adds no knowledge to any conversation I have seen on these boards. He simply roams around and spews extreme liberalism. Even as a moderate I view rdean as one of the worst posters on this website. Just ignore him like everyone else does.

 

[daveman]

Flacaltenn, excellent research, but it's utterly lost on rderp. He has more an emotional investment in being utterly wrong than anyone I've ever seen on the internet.

You tell him the sky is blue, show him spectrograms and explanations from scientists about the scattering of light, and he'll go to his grave swearing the sky is green.

He enjoys being wrong. He loves it.