Writing in USA Today, microbiologist Dr. Alex Berezow makes a statement sure to leave the militant left wing who believe all Republicans are mentally Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann sputtering. Namely, that anti-science Republicans get media coverage but not anti-science Democrats.
After five years of Science 2.0, if I am making an educated demographic guess, I am inclined to agree there are more anti-science Republicans than Democrats today but I resist sweeping generalizations because, when I was a young guy, it was the other way around. All the kookiest anti-science positions were adopted by the left wing while Republicans generally accepted that science was out to make the world a better place.
What changed in the last 25 years? Demographics. While science academia is more diverse in race and gender, it has plummeted to Holocaust levels in political diversity. There is none at all. The discrimination against conservatives or Republicans, subtle and overt, has been documented many times so I won't go into it here but if I were looking for a reason that Republicans are more skeptical of science than they used to be, it's because they have become more skeptical of the motives of scientists.
Some positions of the right, like anti-evolution beliefs, are as ridiculous as the anti-vaccine positions of the left. Berezow is a little more forgiving, calling such areas 'blind spots' but he challenges the media for reinforcing negative stereotypes by perpetuating the myth of the anti-science Republican while never mentioning that some goofy anti-science positions are primarily Democrats. In defense of USA Today as part of that big media group, they published it.
Greenpeace insists that you should trust scientists on global warming but not on genetic modification, for example. In America, Greenpeace members are overwhelmingly Democrats but does the political makeup of the anti-vaccine and the anti-agriculture movement get any attention? No, yet 'stem cells' get trotted out again for Republicans, though, despite the fact that Republicans never objected to 'stem cells' in 40 years and even human embryonic stem cells were only limited(1) to existing lines - and then only if federal money was involved, because it was a violation of the Dickey-Wicker Act made into law by Democrat Bill Clinton to prevent research on embryos.
Pres. George W. Bush is reviled by Democrats, as is Ronald Reagan, but Bush reversed the science funding decline that occurred during the Clinton years and doubled NIH funding and boosted NASA after 8 years of decline. Republican Pres. Ronald Reagan gave a public address providing the single greatest defense of basic research in presidential history. Yet they were supposedly anti-science.
Berezow punctures the myth that only hESC research and evolution and global warming are science positions under attack. The organic food hype and anti-vaccine hype (often the same people because of their 'natural' fetish) is silly but the anti-GMO hysteria is far more of an insult to science than hESC ethical concerns ever were. The anti-GMO campaigns are blatantly anti-science because almost every molecular biologist in the world knows GMOs are not making people sick. There are more, of course. PETA is not a right-wing group, nor are opponents of nuclear power.
Republicans aren't perfect but they don't have a monopoly on scientific illiteracy. After all, in 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama got a razzie award from Sense About Science for saying the same thing that Michele Bachmann said last week about the potential dangers of vaccines. Yet who in the media ever mentioned it?
(1) And by 2007 even Republicans were satisfied the ethical issues were resolved, so in 2009 Pres. Obama did one of his many 'safe' changes and made the restrictions less. He didn't lift them, he simply changed the guidelines, yet no one ever complains Pres. Obama is anti-science for limiting hESC research. Regardless, the media perpetuates the myth of hESC objections by Republicans even though no actual poll shows it.
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Could You See Moon City Lights Or A Greenhouse From Earth? Just For Fun
- The Alleged Perversion of Geoff Marcy and Sexual Harassment.
- Mother Jones Hates Scientists - And Their Bias Shows
- Hand And Arm Movement To Quadriplegic Patients Restored
- The Plot Of The Week: Light New Bosons Below The J/Psi
- To Make EU Food Sector Renewable Energy Viable, Less Meat And More...organic Veggies?
- 'Blind Analysis' Used In Physics Could Reduce Bias In Social And Life Sciences Papers
- "The events are not statistically independent! My definition of (statistical) dependence is the..."
- "Hi,sorry but saying the events are independent is different from saying as you imply above the..."
- "With five increases in magnitude, they are dimmer by a factor of 100. I just looked up the..."
- "Quite the contrary - my reasoning is that of a statistician and yours that of a physicist. That..."
- "So cinnabar is non-toxic, because it's natural, when processed in the magical TCM way? Interesting..."
- ACSH Talks Science Outreach At The Western Plant Health Association Meeting
- OxyContin-for-Kids Debate, Now National, Intensifies
- Golden Rice Moves Closer to Reality in Asia
- C. Diff. Can Be Controlled, With Relative Ease
- FDA-Approved Test for Meningitis is a Home Run
- Trends In Smoking – Chinese Men In Peril, American Women Get Better Cessation