I came across an article on Slate this morning that has some interesting news:
A Pew Research Center Poll from July 2009 showed that only around 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans; 55 percent are Democrats, 32 percent are independent, and the rest "don't know" their affiliation.
The article's premise is that
Most scientists in this country are Democrats. That's a problem.
I don't see this as a problem. I see it as the consequence of a scientific education.
In October of 1957, I was sitting in my 3rd grade class in an Ohio elementary school when the news of Sputnik broke. I don't remember whether this was in the context of a Duck and Cover drill, but I remember being very excited, and like the rest of the country, very scared. The Space Race was on, and we didn't have a horse in it.
Sputnik was a basketball-sized object that didn't do much more than announce its existence, but it galvanized the nation. The 1950s were already an exciting decade for science, but the Cold War and Sputnik gave U.S. scientific research a massive infusion of public interest - and Federal money. We saw the creation of DARPA, NASA, and the passage of the National Defense Education Act, which provided for the education of a new generation of scientists, engineers, linguists, and other professionals, on the grounds that we needed to get and maintain an edge on the Soviets academically as well as militarily.
All of this occurred on the watch of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican. Ike embraced science and education as well as, or even better than, any of his predecessors in the Oval Office since Thomas Jefferson. The commitment that was made to science under his administration pushed the U.S. to the forefront of scientific research in virtually every major field of study. Given the state of the Republican party as it exists today, it's hard to believe this initiative was championed by a Republican president.
The impression Sputnik made on me in the 3rd Grade was indelible. I was already fascinated by the vacuum tubes I could see glowing through the vents of our 14" Philco, and I never missed an opportunity to watch my father change the spark plugs in his '53 Ford. I knew right there and then that I would grow up to be a scientist, and Ike was my hero. A Republican. Hard to believe, I know, and I still have a distinct fondness for the man.
By and by, I did grow up to be a scientist - and a Democrat. I actually became a Democrat first. In 1968, I was drawn into the party by Sen. Eugene McCarthy's Presidential campaign. Nixon's subsequent victory that year (why did you pick him Ike?) sealed the deal for me, and I never looked back. However, I think I'd have ended up in the Democratic party sooner or later.
Reagan's romance with the religious right was likely the beginning of the end for Republican patronage of science. To be sure, Reagan wanted the U.S. to maintain an edge in defense technology over the as-yet terrifying Soviets. However, when Falwell and his ilk entered into the mainstream of American politics, they brought their decidedly unscientific notions about evolution and cosmology with them. They also brought with them a genuine contempt for contemporary public education, exceeded only by their contempt for intellectual elites - like scientists, for instance.
If Reagan's reign was the beginning of the end, the presidency of G.W. Bush was the end of the end. His administration was marked by open hostility to science, to the extent that he actively suppressed the work of Government scientists like James Hansen, of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, on climate change. Assclowns like James Inhofe would work to defund all research into climate change and anything else with environmental impact. They would disband the EPA, the Department of Education, and every Federal agency that might either advance the cause of science, or bring the light of science to bear on public policy. The Republican Party has declared war on science, and they intend to take no prisoners.
It is thus no surprise to me that only 6% of U.S. scientists would admit to being Republican. I suspect that many of the self-identified independents in the Pew survey harbor liberal leanings but are afraid of speaking up about them because they work in private industry - for Republicans. Some scientists are genuinely disinterested in politics, but the majority - at least the 55% who identify as Democrats - know they're under attack.
The remainder of the Slate article approached this issue as if there is a genuine question as to why there are so few scientists in the Republican party. Its concluding paragraph:
Yet there is clearly something going on that is as yet barely acknowledged, let alone understood. As a first step, leaders of the scientific community should be willing to investigate and discuss the issue. They will, of course, be loath to do so because it threatens their most cherished myths of a pure science insulated from dirty partisanship. In lieu of any real effort to understand and grapple with the politics of science, we can expect calls for more "science literacy" as public confidence begins to wane. But the issue here is legitimacy, not literacy. A democratic society needs Republican scientists.
is clueless to the point of being almost incoherent. There is no lack of understanding here. There is no need for the scientific community to investigate anything. There are no "cherished myths" to be protected; any responsible scientist abhors myths. Today's Republican party has no use for scientists - nor do we have any use for them.
UPDATED: I added the link to the Slate Article I quoted.
UPDATED #2 - Thanks, Rescue Rangers.