On July 9, 2009, The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released an in-depth look at science, scientists, and the public's perception thereof.
The exciting tidbit for us was the figure that only 6% of scientists identify as being a member of the Republican Party. If there's one thing to take away from this, that's pretty memorable.
At this point, I want to share some additional observations from this rather massive study, Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media. The full report, from which I quote below, is here (PDF warning). I would summarize the value of this report by saying it shows in-depth how Americans appreciate science even though there are a few areas that are controversial. In other words, it is not rank-and-file Republicans who stand in the way of evidence-based policy, despite tremendous efforts to make things like evolutionary theory a wedge issue to divide us.
The title for the report itself is interesting. The public appears to have a more favorable rating of scientists than scientists have of the public.
Americans like science. Overwhelming majorities say that science has had a positive effect on society and that science has made life easier for most people. Most also say that government investments in science, as well as engineering and technology, pay off in the long run. And scientists are very highly rated compared with members of other professions: Only members of the military and teachers are more likely to be viewed as contributing a lot to society’s well-being.
Interesting side note, the group which the smallest number of respondents felt contributed to the well-being of society was the category labeled 'business executives'.
While the public holds scientists in high regard, many scientists offer unfavorable, if not critical, assessments of the public’s knowledge and expectations. Fully 85% see the public’s lack of scientific knowledge as a major problem for science, and nearly half (49%) fault the public for having unrealistic expectations about the speed of scientific achievements.
snip
Despite these differences, science and scientists are viewed positively by those who differ over evolution, global warming and other contentious issues.
It's a little easier to not be so hard on people when you understand that they like you. I would urge us to make distinctions between disgust with a particular GOP policy and the beliefs of average Republicans. In a nonpartisan way, at its core, the public gets it on science. Scientists are not under assault from a wide swath of America, but rather, from a very narrow group with a radical agenda of controlling information and wealth.
Once we get past asking who likes whom, there is actually much agreement on core issues affecting scientific endeavors in the US.
While scientists express frustration with the public, there are some significant points of agreement between the public and the scientific community. First, majorities of both groups point to advances in medicine and life sciences as important achievements of science....
There also is common ground between the public and scientists regarding the pivotal role of government in funding scientific research...
A majority of the public (60%) says that government investment in research is essential for scientific progress...
Moreover, large percentages think that government investments in basic scientific research (73%) and engineering and technology (74%) pay off in the long run. Notably, the partisan differences in these views are fairly modest, with 80% of Democrats and 68% of Republicans saying that government investments in basic science pay off in the long run.
I would wager we generally know this, but I think we lose sight of this in particular struggles. Government support for science is popular. It is good policy and good politics. There is no compromise to reach with national GOP figures on this issue because those leaders don't represent any significant segment of Americans who would support us on other issues. And rhetorically, I don't think we can emphasize this theme enough. If both scientists and the public agree, who disagrees? That's a devastating question in its inherent call for democracy, accountability, and transparency.
On specific issues, however, there is not necessarily agreement between scientists in particular and the broader public. Interestingly, the difference is not partisan. On some issues, scientists are more 'leftist'.
Scientists are far less critical than the general public of government performance. Just 40% of scientists agree that “when something is run by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful”; a majority of the public (57%) agrees with this statement.
snip
Most notably, 87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true.
On other issues, scientists are more 'rightist'.
More than nine-in-ten scientists (93%) favor the use of animals in scientific research, but only about half of the public (52%) agrees.
snip
About half (51%) of the general public favors building additional nuclear power plants compared with 70% of scientists.
One intriguing side note about animal testing is that there are significant variations among the public that don't exist among the scientific community. For example,
Among the public, there is a striking gender gap in opinions about using laboratory animals in scientific research. Most men (62%) favor the use of animals in research while just over half of women (52%) oppose this.
There also are sizable age, education and partisan differences in the public’s views of using animals in research...
there is very little variation in opinion among different types of scientists about the use of animals in research.
Finally, there is much value in some direct questions about the role of scientists in political debates over specific issues.
A large majority of the public (76%) and nearly all scientists (97%) say that it is appropriate for scientists to become actively involved in political debates on controversial issues such as stem cell research and nuclear power.
Among the public, substantial majorities of Democrats (80%), independents (76%) and Republicans (75%) say it is appropriate for scientists to take an active political role on such issues. While older Americans (those older than 50) and less educated people are somewhat more likely to see scientists’ political involvement as inappropriate, majorities in all major demographic and political groups find this appropriate.
Most Americans do not see scientists as a group as particularly liberal or conservative. Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) say they think of scientists as “neither in particular”; 20% see them as politically liberal and 9% say they are politically conservative.
In other words, the public
- values the voice scientists offer and
- does not think that voice is skewed particularly to the left.
With control of both houses of Congress and an Administration that is once again friendly to scientists and scientific endeavors, we have significant opportunities to create more effective policy that addresses both scientists' and the public's belief that government investments in research are good investments. I want to close with a bit of warning about the politics. We tend to think of scientists as a more highly educated, more rational, more Democratic group of people, and that's what makes the 6% figure so much fun. To a certain extent, we naturally enjoy poking fun at those ignorant Republicans who think the Earth is 6,000 years old.
The warning I would offer is that considerable numbers of scientists choose not to identify with the Democratic party. Opposite that 6% figure who call themselves Republicans is not 94% of scientists who call themselves Democrats. Rather, only 55% of scientists say they are Democrats. It's certainly worth asking, why do so many scientists reject both parties? Perhaps rather than trying to appeal to some fictitious 'center', we should instead be trying to appeal to the scientific community, to concepts of democracy and evidence and truth, regardless of where they fall along the left/right continuum.
After all, the general public likes scientists, too.