E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
msnbc.com
How do liberals and conservatives differ in their attitudes toward science? Statistics indicate that conservatives' confidence in science as an institution has declined dramatically since 1974.
An analysis of 36 years' worth of polling data indicates that confidence in science as an institution has steadily declined among Americans who consider themselves conservatives, while confidence levels have been at steadier levels for other ideological groups.
The study, published in the April issue of the American Sociological Review, provides fresh ammunition for those who complain that conservative views on issues such as climate change are at odds with the scientific consensus.
"You can see this distrust in science among conservatives reflected in the current Republican primary campaign," Gordon Gauchat, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Sheps Center for Health Services Research, said in a news release from the American Sociological Association. "When people want to define themselves as conservatives relative to moderates and liberals, you often hear them raising questions about the validity of global warming and evolution, and talking about how 'intellectual elites' and scientists don't necessarily have the whole truth."
It's not clear how much impact Gauchat's study will have on the debate over politics and science: Liberals are likely to see it as confirmation of what they already believe, while conservatives who are skeptical about the scientific elite are likely to greet these scientific claims with skepticism as well.
But the analysis represents a serious effort to flesh out political attitudes toward science with real data. Gauchat bases his findings on a statistical analysis of survey results from the General Social Survey, a long-running project that has weighed public confidence in social institutions since 1974. The GSS has been conducted annually or semiannually by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, or NORC, with an annual average of 1,500 Americans taking part.
Gauchat cross-referenced attitudes toward the scientific community with various demographic categories, and found that two categories showed a significant erosion of trust in science: conservatives and frequent churchgoers. People who identified themselves as conservatives voiced more confidence in science than moderates or liberals in 1974, but by 2010, that level had fallen by more than 25 percent.
Gordon Gauchat / UNC-Chapel Hill / ASR
This graph shows the unadjusted mean values for public trust in science, classified by self-reported political ideology between 1974 and 2010. The figures are derived from the General Social Survey.
Why the drop? Gauchat suggested that the character of the conservative movement has changed over the past three and a half decades — and so has the character of the scientific establishment.
"Over the last several decades, there's been an effort among those who define themselves as conservatives to clearly identify what it means to be a conservative," he said. "For whatever reason, this appears to involve opposing science and universities, and what is perceived as the 'liberal culture.' So, self-identified conservatives seem to lump these groups together and rally around the notion that what makes 'us' conservatives is that we don't agree with 'them.'"
Meanwhile, the perception of science's role in society has shifted as well.
"In the past, the scientific community was viewed as concerned primarily with macro structural matters such as winning the space race," Gauchat said. "Today, conservatives perceive the scientific community as more focused on regulatory matters such as stopping industry from producing too much carbon dioxide."
Gauchat's findings run counter to at least one liberal stereotype about conservatives: that right-wingers are distrustful of scientists because they have less education. The figures do support a link between more education and more trust in science, but they also show that more highly educated conservatives are, if anything, more distrustful.
That trend fits best with the concept that "educated or high-information conservatives will hold hyper-opinions about science, because they have a more sophisticated grasp about what types of knowledge will conform with or contradict their ideological positions, and they will prefer to believe what supports their ideology," Gauchat wrote.
So what does this mean for the role of science in setting national policy? "In a political climate in which all sides do not share a basic trust in science, scientific evidence no longer is viewed as a politically neutral factor in judging whether a public policy is good or bad," Gauchat said. Heightened distrust could turn young people away from careers in science and engineering, and in the long run, that could hurt America's standing in a global economy that is becoming increasingly competitive on the technological front.
Vanderbilt University's Jonathan Metzl and Northwestern University's Jennifer Richeson explain the science behind how the brain weighs decisions and forms political beliefs.
'The Republican Brain'
Gauchat took on this project to assess the claims made by science journalist Chris Mooney in his 2005 book, "The Republican War on Science" — and Mooney, who reviewed the paper before publication, said the findings confirmed those claims.
Wiley
"The Republican Brain" is the latest book from Chris Mooney.
"It's certainly gratifying to see this study come out," Mooney told me. "I appreciate that the author actually undertook to use data. I'm glad I wasn't just whistling in the wind when it came to Republicans and science."
Now Mooney is coming out with another book, titled "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Don't Believe in Science."
"In the book, I'm really careful to say there's what we call 'nature' and what we call 'nurture,' and you can't explain anything in politics without both of them," he said. "Whenever you see change in a group over time, that's probably 'nurture.'"
Mooney said the factors Gauchat mentioned would fit in the nurture category, along with the GOP's "Southern strategy" to bring what were once traditionally Democratic states into the Republican fold. "This is tapping into the power of nurture, but I also say we've ignored nature for too long," he said.
In "The Republican Brain," Mooney weaves his case for "nature" in politics from a variety of studies tracing the brain-based differences between liberal and conservative views of reality. (You'll find some of them by following the links below.)
"You're starting to find things about fixity of belief, desire to have certainty, and you see that these things are also associated with conservatism," he said. "These traits are content-neutral. You could take today's conservatives, stick them in [Soviet] Russia, and they can be very pro-science."
Mooney said people may be born with brains that predispose them either to liberal-leaning traits such as "openness to experience," or conservative-leaning traits such as "conscientiousness."
"The research suggests that people are born with a predisposition, but it's only a predisposition," Mooney said. "'Just born that way' is a phrase that makes me uncomfortable, because it implies some sort of hard wiring. Genes aren't destiny."
If you haven't figured it out by now, Mooney considers himself a liberal, and he's doubtful that any amount of "nurture" could turn him into a conservative. But he said liberals could learn a lot from conservatives, specifically about loyalty to leaders and to their cause. Like conservatives, some liberals may find themselves at odds with the scientific consensus on some issues. Which issues, specifically? Mooney pointed to hard-line stands against hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. fracking), nuclear power, childhood vaccination and genetically modified organisms.
"Liberals have wanted to believe that if the system were just fair, then everybody would agree with us," he said. "That's a liberal fantasy. Actually, it turns out that liberalism is not the only way of being. ... Liberals should realize that not everybody's like them, and liberals' instincts in politics could be exactly what you don't want to do."
I'm imagining there's a lot to disagree with here, whether you're a liberal or a conservative. Good thing there's a comment section below. To paraphrase Monty Python, this is the right room for an argument.
More about politics and science:
- Conservative or liberal? It may be in the genes
- Scientists say they've found the 'liberal gene'
- Brain scans show whether you lean left or right
- Study finds that political bias affects brain activity
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter or adding Cosmic Log's Google+ page to your circle. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for other worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Don't spend too much money on the study. Just look where the GOP is? South, Nixon Southern Strategy, poor, poorly educated, lack of higher education? Pretty much sums up the results you will find...
Science isn't addressing faith. Science can tell you that you can possibly get to a PLANCK LENGTH distance ( 1.61619 x 10 to the minus 35 Meter ) from God, but not actually getting to God without getting lost in a Black Hole or Quantum Foam. Conservative politics, and hence conservative economies without faith as a major cornerstone are likely to collapse as a structure, and its the fear of this economic collapse which is the overriding concern, not that science won't come up with a disease cure, or technology advancement. Conservatives and liberals alike use technologies, and are comfortable using them, well inside of the measurement scales which don't push the boundaries of the boarder of heaven and its attainable achievement for them.
Just one point. Most that 'trust' science don't do so blindly whether liberal or conservative. Questioning why, what, how, etc... is kind of the corner stone of scientific inquiry. We don't just look at a study and blindly accept it's conclusions. We ask who did the study, how it was done and most importantly, does someone have an interest is obtaining a certain conclusion. If we accepted science blindly then we would just accept when studies funded by big Oil tell us that Fraking is safe when there is clear evidence that it can screw up ground water. We would just accept big Ag funded studies that tell us the GM crops are safe when there have been wide spread allergic reactions to GM crops. These are two examples from the article and it's wrong to say the liberals distrust science in these areas. They distrust the people doing the 'science' and it's exactly the trust in the scientific method that gives them this distrust when the evidence before their eyes contradicts a conclusion reached by 'scientist' who clearly have a interest in reaching a certain conclusion. So no, we don't distrust science. We sometimes distrust those performing the science, particularly when large amounts of money hang in the balance of the conclusions. And even when it doesn't we still question the conclusions because that is what good science is all about.
Living in a town full of conservative nuclear nutcases, I can explain it in one short paragraph. The conservatives love science as long as it brings money to them. They dislike science when it threatens to take money and profits away. Money for nuclear weapons to them is good. Money to clean the air is bad. And despite their obscene salaries they receive from tax dollars, they hate paying taxes. They do not share with others well and do not care enough to be good stewards of the earth. And though they profess to believe in "Jay-sus", they don't get the Jesus concept of sharing through the tax system.
The desire for economic reward could also be considered a holy grail in conservative thinking. By placing income above environment, conservative thinking must find a way to justify that pursuit when faced with opposing scientific findings. By taking a stand against cautionary findings in scientific circles conservative business leaders are prone to downplay the negative results of their exploitation of nature's bounty. Sowing the seeds of doubt about climate, pollution and species extinction due to human activity is a logical outgrowth of a policy of extending profitable activities as long as the charade can be maintained. In this way conservative thought has a pecuniary motivation. More liberal thinking is not usually associated with direct profiteering.
The graph in the article shows that self-described moderates have also had their trust in science decline since 1974. Additionally, conservatives and moderates have pretty similar (dis)trust in science as of 2008 or so. Yet this story singles out conservatives as the anti-science group ignoring that moderates make up the majority of this country.
That aside, a healthy skepticism of science is not equivalent to ignorance. The great physicist Richard Feynman warned people to beware of scientism where people give a facade of science to unscientific studies. Much of what passes as 'science' nowadays isn't experimental data but statistical analysis that tries to equate correlation with causation. Even science that uses experimental data can be highly questionable, as this msnbc article on cancer research shows:
"Scientists often ignore negative findings that might raise a warning, cherry picking the results and putting the best face on their research.
...
As Begley and Ellis detail it, “To obtain funding, a job, promotion or tenure, researchers need a strong publication record…Journal editors, reviewers, and grant review committees [and I might add journalists—R.B.] often look for a scientific finding that is simple, clear and complete—a ‘perfect’ story. It is therefore tempting for investigators to submit suspected data sets for publication, or even to massage data.” "
The link isn't showing up for some reason. The article is titled
"Rethinking how we confront cancer: Bad science and risk reduction"
I think this is one of the biggest problems with sound and objective scientific inquiry.
Can you imagine if a researcher said that the brains of African-Americans were different from Whites, and thus responsible for their beliefs? That would be considered absolute hate speech, not to mention junk science. And, that's exactly what this study is.
Being conservative and believing in science and not mutually exclusive, just as believing in God and science aren't mutually exclusive either. Over 1/3 of scientists also believe in God. Science provides the "how", and belief in God provides the "why".
No. Conservatives have lost faith because of the politicization of science. Of science being manipulated for monetary and political gain. Science being used as an attempt to control peoples lives. Science being warped by the power hungry.
To this day there is no proof that man has changed the climate. It is still only a theory. A theory that is based on computer models. Computer models that have repeatedly been shown to to inaccurate.
Even the IPCC states:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/03/handy-bull@!$%#-button-on-disasters-and.html
What is different about conservatives is that we are willing to look at ALL of the science, ALL of the data, ALL of the newest studies.
Using the phrase "only a theory" invalidates the rest of your response. If you do not understand the scientific definition of the word, you do not understand science.
Is gravity "only a theory?" Is quantum mechanics "only a theory?"
If this sort of study is considered science...then I don't blame the conservatives and moderates for being distrustful.
Conservatives are very Tribal and respect for tradition is high on their list.They do not like change. To them change is dangerous and they fear. Liberals are by nature curious people, love differences in cultures and by and large do not respect tradition or believe it is so important. We believe change is progress and exciting. We do not fear and embrace change as a natural occurance in mankind and the world. I am proud to be a Liberal
This is pure nonsense. I consider myself quite conservative. I'm also an engineer. When I look around my office, everyone single engineer, surveyor, technician, and cadd operator falls somewhere on the conservative spectrum. Out of over 50 people, only one of them would fall into the writer's generalization of a conservative who doesn't trust science, and he is a social conservative.
There are two main populations within the republican party. Conservatives and social conservatives. Social conservatives are relatively new to the party, joining the ranks over the past 30 years. They used to be called WASPS, for white anglo saxon protestants. Of course, that was prior to the 80's when they voted exclusively democratic.
Conservatives believe in the power of self. You succeed or fail based on your own motivations and desires, and government should play a very limited role in your life.
Social conservatives believe in the power of God. They also believe government should play a limited role in your life, unless it's not convenient for them. Like a conservative, they do not like when liberals try to take away the freedoms given to us through the constitution and bill of rights, yet at the same time try to reinterpret the meaning and ignore the secular aspect. Reinterpreting documents and ignoring the parts you don't like is a liberal trait. Maybe the social conservatives should go back to their democratic roots, that way the writer of this article won't be confused anymore and can actually write something somewhat accurate.
It's all that idiotic God crap that keeps conservatives retarded
Well if your going to blindly accept something, all those pesky facts and evidence of science just get in the way.
Liberals use religion as a vehicle for Salvation and inner Peace and use Science to explain laws of nature while conservatives use religion to do both
I consider myself a religious person, a person of faith. I am also a person of science, and I apply scientific knowledge and understanding in my profession. The two are not mutually exclusive, and I don't find myself struggling with schizophrenia.
By my definition, a persons religion has less to do with dogma than it does with behavior. I hold that a person's religion is defined by two characteristics: First the moral basis on which he or she makes choices and decisions. Second, by the manner in which they treat other people. Everything else is just frosting and decoration.
Before placing blind faith in Science, it should be recognized that science is changeable and constantly evolutionary. There are far more theories than laws, and every theory is subject to revision as new information becomes available. Science has no moral basis, and does not give meaning to human existence. It does provide a growing understanding of the technical aspects of nature, and provides enormous benefits which improve our quality of life. It does not, however, add meaning to life.
Therefore, I adjur every person to examine his or her own behaviors and attitudes, particularly as they relate to the meaning and purpose they attribute to their own lives, and to say and DO those things which truly reflect their values. I also advise those who will listen to take science seriously, but to recognize its weaknesses and changeability, and to implement scientific knowledge with a realistic view to its actual effectiveness.
As Indiana Jones said (more or less): Science is about "fact". If you want "truth", Dr. X's philosophy course is three doors down the hall...
No, religion is about God, and there's no God, so religion can be dispensed with.
I define moral behavior by why they make their choices and decisions. If you choose to behave in a certain way because your religion says you will be rewarded or punished by your behavior then you are just acting in your own best interest.
If you behave in an obedient way because your observation and experience have taught you that it's advantageous for you to do so in the long run, then you are acting in your own best interest, and your behavior will meet the criteria for morality as well. Morality can be defined by anthropology, sociology, and psychology - all rooted in biology (which is rooted in physics and chemistry). There's no real need to invoke religion, religion is a by-product of all the above.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
C'mon, it just runs downhill. The politicians pander to their constituents by saying things that they believe or know that their constituents believe.
If they're running where there's a bunch of bible-billies, they'll say that evolution is crap to get those bible-billies out in force because they know that the bible-billies believe that a book filled with zombies, talking animals and bush burning that can talk is true despite the fact that they've never seen a zombie or a talking animal or a talking, burning bush.
If they're running where big business wants to run roughshod over the environment, they'll say that there is no climate change or no need to preserve an ecosystem or there is no worries at polluting the oceans to get those folks out in droves.
They're well educated people, they know how to think and they also know how to play they odds in continuing their career. They'd poison their own families if it would get them in, or back in, office.
At the core, I think the article hits the point - but doesn't realize it.
In the '70s, Love Canal represented a cause of huge mistrust of science, which was indeed perceived to be a part of the establishment - particularly the industrial establishment. There was a strong liberal voice generally blaming science, technology, and industry for that catastrophe. Even fictional characters were hit: A. C. Clarke's HAL9000 computer was held up by some as an example of why technology was bad - something Clarke himself did not intend. Since then, there has been significant changes from Vanevar Bush's "Endless Frontier" to the time efforts were being made to make science research more relevant to our dwindling domestic manufacturing and industrial sector - primarily headed by Barbara Mikulski and George Brown. Over 20 yrs later, science indeed is seen as a part of the regulatory process, and for pushing for regulatory changes that are perceived to be radical and expensive, while at the same time, industries that used to stand on science are either being shut down (Kodak) or off-shored.
The article suggests that the shift in roles is most important, and the perceived alignment of science has most to do with that. Maybe a good test of that hypothesis would be to look at specific alignments, such as pharmaceuticals, to parse out how the alignments between science and the impact on our lives is perceived by liberal vs. conservatives?
If Science will make a republican richer, they will be all for it. If Science might hurt their ability to make a profit, they will dismiss it. That is how it really works
This is a crock of crap. Allow me to share a brief true story.
Not so long ago I made a new friend. When discussing what we do for a living, the new friend smiled and said, "I'm a biostitute." He went on to explain that while he received post graduate degrees in biology, he worked for the government and his job was to prove what ever his boss wanted to be true. He provided several examples as to how the data could be easily distorted and how politicians would wrap that data around what ever program funding they wanted.
What we get from the government is not "science" - it is political science. If in fact "conservatives" are more skeptical of this junk science it suggests conservatives are smart enough to separate reality from political fantasy and it's the liberal mind sets that lead to gullibility. Kind of like the liberals here who believe this faux study is meaningful or in the least bit accurate - if you think that you just failed yet another mass media IQ test...
So either you are making things up or you make friends with dishonest people. Not sure why you would want to share that.
BTW3110, So, you believe government funded studies are mostly accurate scientific studies and that the "study" shared in this article follows the "scientific method" and, therefore, represents an unbiased presentation of fact. Thank you for presenting yourself as a case study to support my concluding thesis. ;o)
Here's a related article that makes the same point, that conservatives have ushered in the Age of Ignorance.
I'd note that it seems to be willful ignorance.
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/mar/20/age-of-ignorance/