Banner
    Do You Need A Political Ideology To Be A Successful Science Site?
    By Hank Campbell | July 6th 2007 03:25 AM | 10 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

    I wrote about this briefly in our nifty new 'quick blog' feature but I thought it merited more consideration so I wrote down some thoughts and you can tell me if I'm off base.

     Basically, I read for the first time that we are considered a "conservative" science site.  This was a surprise to me but the author of the article seemed like a pretty balanced person and it didn't seem to be a slur.

    Still, I think we have been completely scientific, almost boring for our lack of controversy, but that is our mission statement so we can't really do a victory dance for sticking with our vision.

    Yet maybe we haven't succeeded as much as I thought. Obviously I am not concerned about labels. It's the guy's blog and he was free-thinking and that's what people do in blogs so none of this has anything to do with him or the site he was using as comparison to us other than being a starting point to getting me thinking about science and the internet and whether or not a site can make it if it doesn't display the proper political credentials.

    However, before I could really figure out why we might be considered a conservative site I had to determine what makes a science site liberal versus conservative anyway.

    I always assumed conservatives would be ruthless business people in a capitalist enterprise doing whatever it takes to get ahead but we're not a corporation, we don't have venture capital funding, we don't have a sales force, our writers are not paid a salary - exactly the opposite of the "liberal" site we were being compared against by the blogger.

    Maybe in the world of science the conservatives are the communists who work together without a salary and don't have deep pockets financing them.  More likely we are simply a group of people who want to read and write about science without having politics introduced into it.

    Yet if being conservative means we don't have venture capitalists looking for a return, we never have to think about what "sells" to our audience and we don't make science political, that feels like 3-0 in favor of conservatives. Actually, I am surprised more scientists aren't conservative, if that's the case.

    To see if I could help figure out how we became conservative, I did a search on Technorati to find people who have linked to our articles. Links can always tell you what kind of people are reading you and believe in your work. I am not a political expert so the only 'conservative' political site I know of is National Review. They have never linked to us and, to my knowledge, have no idea who we are. Conservatives don't take care of each other very well, it seems. The two I know of that are political and somewhat liberal are Huffington Report and Slate. Slate linked to us one time. So we have one link from a somewhat liberal political site and none from any conservative ones.

    The number one linked article is Sarda Sahney's poking fun of the Creationist Museum - so I am assuming the Christian Conservatives are not endorsing us any time soon.

    One semi-liberal site and no conservative ones is hardly a ringing endorsement from either side. It feels like the neutral science we set out to create.

    Yet maybe neutral science is not enough. What do we have to do to be taken seriously by readers on the internet if science isn't enough? Do we need to write anti-Republican articles to show enough liberal cred to get attention from those readers? More Al Gore jokes to get respect from the right wing? We were being compared to a popular site so if the mainstream among the science readers out there is far left, then the middle is actually far right to them. If so, are we doomed before we get going?

    I don't know the answer to that yet. We had 200,000 people visit last month, which feels like a good place to be. So maybe we're not out of the science mainstream, after all. Maybe the science mainstream is finally veering toward us.

    Liberal, conservative, we'll take it. If you want to write good science we aren't going to make you show us your voter registration card. Just sign up. We want to learn from you.

    If you just want to read good science and don't want to think about politics, you're already at the right place.

    Comments

    Georg von Hippel
    Wercome to the wolrd of extleme reft- and light-wing thought! I know people on the left who consider me a social conservative because I have been spotted at mass, and I know people on the right who consider me a communist because I am in favour of keeping socialised medicine (which we have in some form in all the countries I have lived in so far). Needless to say, I can't really be both at the same time, and in fact I am neither. But those on the fringes of the political spectrum are much more vocal than the more moderate forces, and they end up defining the boundaries of the political camps, especially with the echo chamber effect in the blogosphere. But ultimately, the moderates are in the majority, and I have zero doubt that in the long term lots of people will come to enjoy the politically neutral climate on this site as opposed to the politicised environment of certain other fora. After all, in science, the litmus test is given to chemical samples for acidity, not to people for the "correctness" of their politics!
    adaptivecomplexity
    I noticed this comment about us in the blog post linked to above: "The "conservative" site is remarkable mostly because it really does have to swallow its pride and admit, yeah, no science actually comes out of the DI, and all of the biology done today relies on evolutionary theory." Where did that come from? Who around here is an apologist for the DI? I've never seen a featured article here supporting the DI, or reluctantly admitting that the DI does no science. I'm an NCSE member, not a conservative by any means, I read PZ Myers and Larry Moran every day. If I thought this was a conservative advocacy site, or a place specifically designed to let creationists get a respectability boost by blogging side by side with serious scientists, I wouldn't blog here. There are some mixed opinions on this site and a range of political views, but as you said Hank, just because this place is not specifically liberal doesn't mean it's conservative. The site is about science, and isn't more or less conservative than other big science sites like Discover, Sci-Am, or Nature News.
    Mike
    Georg von Hippel
    Wow, that quotation is just so totally absurd that I am rendered speechless! <silence> So, because we aren't specifically liberal, we are conservative, and because we are conservative, we are creationists?!? I am familiar with the first (incorrect) premise in that syllogism, but the second one is new. So all those pharmaceutical and biotech executives, who are presumably conservatives, are clandestine creationists? I never knew. Sarcasm aside, it just shows how far one can come by mastering the art of selective reading: some creationists angrily commented on Sarda's post mocking the creation museum, therefore this has to be a crypto-creationist site; never mind what the original post said... Just like you, I would not want to have anything to do with a site that aims to give a veneer of respectability to the ravings of creationists by juxtaposing them with the writings of actual scientists, and I am sure that goes for the majority of the writers here. No pride to swallow here at all.
    Hank
    I think we're basically respectful because we know people have beliefs that are outside science and that's okay. However, if not being condescending and ridiculing people means we are considered some covert right-wing fundamentalist group, I have to take exception.

    You guys write terrific science. Science is science and religion is religion. We don't write theology and they don't write science and there's a reason our circles don't overlap and never will.

    P.S. Now I am curious about their statement too. I'd like to see documentation on their claim. Our TOS says the articles have to be science but we do allow humor yet I still don't recall anyone doing satire or anything like that saying that there was a science basis to a 6000 year old planet or anything. And I have literally read all 2000 articles on this site.

    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    Kimberly Crandell
    I think interesting, thought-provoking, informative, science is all you need to be a successful science site, and we have a ton of that. The fact that you can't determine the political perspective of the contributors to this site is an indicator that we're all just talking pure science, and and that's a good thing. If "science without an agenda" is conservative... then they can call us conservative. But as long as we keep serving up the good content that we have been, it doesn't matter what this site is labeled... it will be a success.

    jcbradley
    I know you want to increase the number of visitors but don't do it at any cost. The content here so far relates more to science than politics and there are many people who like it that way (myself included). You can always increase numbers by adding controversy but you'll be attracting a different audience...
    Hank
    The site we were being compared to gets 5X the traffic! Maybe more. They have almost 3X the writers though so I think you have a good point. We're doing fine in our fifth month just sticking to the science and there's no reason to change.

    I don't think we even have any overlap. Except the few times people have written articles like that, we never get any of their audience and they probably don't get any of ours.

    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind
    jcbradley
    That is the point - to offer something different and you're doing a great job
    antunes
    Hank writes: "I always assumed conservatives would be ruthless business people in a capitalist enterprise doing whatever it takes to get ahead but we're not a corporation, we don't have venture capital funding, we don't have a sales force, our writers are not paid a salary". But are we at least ruthless? Come on, please tell me we're at least ruthless!!?! Actually, if this was a self-avowed 'conservative' site, I wouldn't have joined as a writer. Ditto for a 'liberal' site. I like that it's a 'science' site. Cheers, Alex, the daytime astronomer
    Hank
    Maybe we should change our tagline to 'science blogging for adults' or something else that gets the message across - though I was tickled that finally, last month, 1.5 years after this piece came out, a conservative site linked to us.  I was so happy I wrote about it in I, For One, Welcome Our New Republican Overlords

    We're not even ruthless.  Sorry about that.  If anything we are too polite, even to people who come here and try to claim they have a new definition of Pi or perpetual motion machines and stuff.   But we do make fun of them a little before we remove their articles.
    Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind