Pew has a new survey which compares the attitudes of scientists with the general public. Nothing too surprising. Scientists are secular, liberal, and support funding for science and think that science is awesome! On some of the issues where scientists and the public differ it is the Right which is skeptical of the scientific consensus; evolution, global warming, etc. (embryonic stem cell research is really more of a normative, not factual, issue) But not all. When it comes to animal testing and nuclear power scientists have views more in line with Republicans and the Right. But the biggest factor in animal testing is sex, so it might be that if you control for this variable there wouldn’t be a political difference. But what about nuclear power?
The GSS has a few nuclear related questions asked in 1993-1994. Below the fold are attitudes toward nuclear energy (columns add to 100%) broken down by self-reported ideology. Additionally, I controlled for education & race by limiting a second sample to whites with college degrees or higher. The effect remains; liberals are (or were in 1993-1994) hostile to nuclear power than conservatives.
| Liberal | Moderate | Conservative | ||
| Nuclear power dangerous to Environment | Extremely Dangerous | 22.2 | 20.3 | 19.3 |
| Very Dangerous | 27.7 | 24.8 | 19.7 | |
| Somewhat Dangerous | 38.4 | 42.3 | 34.6 | |
| Not Very Dangerous | 10.5 | 10.5 | 23.7 | |
| Not Dangerous | 1.2 | 2.1 | 2.8 | |
| Nuclear power danger to my family | Extremely Dangerous | 19.9 | 19.1 | 17.2 |
| Very Dangerous | 25.6 | 22.4 | 17.2 | |
| Somewhat Dangerous | 37.4 | 39.5 | 31.1 | |
| Not Very Dangerous | 14.4 | 15.8 | 28.6 | |
| Not Dangerous | 2.7 | 3.2 | 5.9 | |
| Limited to whites with at least college educations | ||||
| Liberal | Moderate | Conservative | ||
| Nuclear power dangerous to Environment | Extremely Dangerous | 16.5 | 11.1 | 9.6 |
| Very Dangerous | 28.2 | 21.8 | 12.7 | |
| Somewhat Dangerous | 42.2 | 41.4 | 37.1 | |
| Not Very Dangerous | 11.9 | 21.7 | 36.8 | |
| Not Dangerous | 1.1 | 4 | 3.8 | |
| Nuclear power danger to my family | Extremely Dangerous | 12.8 | 9.6 | 7 |
| Very Dangerous | 27.3 | 15.9 | 12.4 | |
| Somewhat Dangerous | 37.3 | 38.8 | 28.3 | |
| Not Very Dangerous | 19.6 | 29.1 | 41.8 | |
| Not Dangerous | 3 | 6.6 | 10.4 | |
Animal testing is an entirely normative issue. It’s not clear what fact liberals and scientists would be disagreeing about on that.
i think many people do believe that animal testing isn’t needed anymore, or that all animal testing is the case of rabbits who are blinded for the purpose of cosmetics. the contrast with embryonic stem cell research is that i think pro-life people who play up adult stem cells are pretty transparent about the fact that that argument isn’t really that big of a deal for them, and everyone knows that. if embryonic stem cells were found to be awesomely more useful than adult stem cells that wouldn’t change the views of those who oppose them, and if adult stem cells were as good many who support research on embryonic stem cells would still support it on the chance that they might have some comparative advantage in the future.
within animal testing it is i think a disagreement over facts. many in the public think of cruel tests in the service of vanity consumer products. while scientists think of very important medical research.
When liberals distrust science as a topic should also include reference to the safety of genetically engineered crops, which I suspect will show a scientist – liberal diversion.
It would be interesting to see how liberal distrust of social science findings compares to the opinions held by scientists. There are plenty of liberal policy preferences which run counter to social science findings.
An interesting offshoot might be when scientists distrust science. Issue = human biodiversity.
When liberals distrust science as a topic should also include reference to the safety of genetically engineered crops, which I suspect will show a scientist – liberal diversion.
you’re suspicion is probably wrong. i blogged it a while ago, look at EATGM var in GSS. there isn’t much of a difference (small N’s, so you can’t tell if the small % diffs are real or not). though perhaps it might differ how you ask the question. e.g., phrasing genetically modified crops as the product of the corporation monsanto will probably give a different outcome than a generic question about whether you will or won’t eat genetically modified food. the short of it is that it seems that left opposition to “franken-food” is really anti-corporatism, and opposition to genetically engineered stuff has a uniform basal distribution across political persuasions (and is skewed toward the stupid, poor and female).
double-checked: if you control for sex & race there’s no difference at all.
double-checked: if you control for sex & race there’s no difference at all.
OK, then. Liberals as a group react to genetically engineered food the same as scientists as a group, with sex and race controlled. I wonder how much confounding is going on?
Liberals as a group react to genetically engineered food the same as scientists as a group, with sex and race controlled.
no, i’m saying that liberals and conservatives are *equally* suspicious of genetically modified food.
ROW: EATGM
COLUMN: POLVIEWS(r:1-3;4;5-7)
(so i combine the various liberal and conservative classes together)
you see little difference, if a slight bias toward more liberal suspicion.
go into SELECTION FILTER(S) and limit to men, SEX(1) or whites, RACE(1) and you see the little ideological variation disappear.
scientists are the outliers is all. this is one case where the anti-science back-to-nature segment of modern liberalism doesn’t seem to be that powerful. average liberals and conservatives both fear franken-foods to the same extent.
Does believing that something is dangerous really constitute hostility? I think cars are dangerous, but not that they should be outlawed. However, I do support regulation of car design, driver qualifications, and traffic laws, all aimed at making cars less dangerous. Similarly, I wouldn’t say I’m hostile to nuclear power plants, but I certainly do think their design and operation should be regulated for safety (and I do not at all trust the free market to accomplish this task effectively). (On the other hand, bogus safety concerns shouldn’t be used as a smokescreen for NIMBYism. This is where safety experts and evidence are important.)
Many ways of obtaining energy are dangerous – including ones that release tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, at least if you listen to liberals and scientists. If nuclear power is dangerous that doesn’t necessarily make it worse than the alternatives. The dangers of cars, although considerable, do not necessarily justify a return to horses.
Personally, I would answer “not very dangerous” to both questions (since nuclear power plants are, in fact, designed and inspected for safety). But I don’t think they measure the same thing as “favor building more nuclear power plants”.
P.S. There sometimes seems to be a libertarian streak here – how would the community on this site respond to the mandatory vaccination question? I can imagine some people taking the view that vaccines are beneficial but parents shouldn’t be *required* to provide them (although I think this is misguided because the parents’ duty to the children’s interests should take priority over the parents’ own preferences, even if that requires government intervention to achieve).
There sometimes seems to be a libertarian streak here – how would the community on this site respond to the mandatory vaccination question?
secular conservatives tend to be libertarian. but this site was started in part to give voice to those who were not necessarily libertarian. so speaking for myself, i have no problem with coercion in public health as such. but it needs to be looked at a case-by-case basis. so yes, i think vaccination should be mandatory and coerced for children for the various common ailments.
no, i’m saying that liberals and conservatives are *equally* suspicious of genetically modified food.
OK. I didn’t realize that the conversation had shifted. Your topic was liberal-scientist differences. Mike referenced the liberal-scientist split in regards to animal testing. I was talking about a liberal-scientist split on genetically modified food. I wasn’t so much focused on the “compared to conservatives” metric of measurement. The conclusion here seems to be that there is little, or no, difference between liberals and conservatives on the issue of genetically modified food, but we don’t know how scientists respond to the question. We can infer that if the scientists’ response is markedly at odds with the conservative-liberal split, then they’re not more like liberals nor conservatives but standing off in their own category.
I took the topic post to be an examination of how well liberal attitudes to science informed their own views of life. Do they take guidance from science and thus modify their views? If this was the case then I would expect pretty tight alignment between the views of liberals and scientists (ignoring the confounding aspect of many scientists being liberals and Half Sigma’s observations that it doesn’t take much to be classed as a scientist in the poll design featured in the post.)
Anyways, I think that this is derailing your thread. I misunderstood your point.
but we don’t know how scientists respond to the question.
yeah, it’s not in the pew data. i assume that scientists will be more pro-GMO than not.
(ignoring the confounding aspect of many scientists being liberals and Half Sigma’s observations that it doesn’t take much to be classed as a scientist in the poll design featured in the post.
there are plenty of polls on academic scientists (i blog them every 6 motnhs). they’re liberals. he’s just mad that as liberals they have liberal views. i would be willing to bet that if you looked at national academy members the tendency would be more exaggerated as it is with lack of religion (i assume sigma wouldn’t object to this set being scientists).
. i assume that scientists will be more pro-GMO than not.
OK, so on this issue, I’m not smokin’ crack. 🙂
OK, so on this issue, I’m not smokin’ crack.
since we agree, of course.
I confess I didn’t really scour the Pew article, but do they define “scientist” for the purpose of this poll? Are they all research scientists, or just folks who wear lab coats at work? Makes me suspicious.
I’m a Democrat-leaning Independent who does not like nuclear power. NOT because I think it’s somehow inherently dangerous (I live only 40 miles from the US’s largest nuclear power plant and never think twice about it).
My main concern, however, is where do we store this stuff? If Yucca Mountain were available I think my opinion would change as I’d know we would have some storage ground that was safe enough to accommodate this waste. Right now, we’re storing it on site. That seems like a very dangerous terrorist threat. If we can come to an agreement on a safe, national storage area I would easily support building more reactors. Until then we’re basically leaving waste behind chain link fences with rent-a-cops patrolling it. Definitely not safe.
shawn, your reasons are fine, but liberals and conservatives tend to use the “precautionary principle” selectively. you may not be an instance of this, but i believe most people do engage in this (since most cognition isn’t conscious most are not aware of this). the nature of nuclear power is such that it is feasible for individuals to reasonably object indefinitely due to potential side effects. i would argue that if nukes did get safer more people would be accepting of them, but a substantial number would still continue with precautionary arguments. similarly, if they got less safe more would oppose them, but a substantial number would still be open to them because they don’t find precaution warranted.
(unstated in this is the reasonable point about trade-offs and alternatives)
Craig: “I confess I didn’t really scour the Pew article, but do they define “scientist” for the purpose of this poll? ”
Nope. The AAAS is a polictical organization and, from what the survey disclosed, the groups called “scientists” could be mostly K-12 school teachers.
https://pubs.aaas.org/org_membership/new_member_setup.asp
Half-Sigma pointed this out the other day.
I favor mandatory vaccination for at least some of the main childhood diseases, though I’d allow parents to opt out with a price: no public school for their kids. (And no refund of the costs of public school.)
I wrote a blog post comparing religious creationists with their liberal counterparts.
http://onestdv.blogspot.com/2009/07/liberals-who-deny-evolution.html
shawnin,
It was anti science liberals who shut down Yucca mountain. That is, liberals who deny the basic tenets of physical science shut down Yucca mountain.
Wow, that survey shows me that I will never vote for a scientist for public office. Those guys are apparently morons…haha