The authors seem to make the mistake of conflating the two national parties with the political ideologies they purport to represent. They claim the vast majority of "neuropundits" are liberal, and back this up by detailing the differences in party affiliation, more are Democrats. But this is disingenuous. The fact of the matter is both party platforms contain a mix of liberal and conservative policies, and it makes sense that scientists would gravitate toward the Democratic mix.

With some exceptions, the Democrats tend toward conservative (almost libertarian) political ideology with respect to certain social issues like privacy and freedom of speech. The government should stay out of your bedroom and it can't tell you not to burn the flag. Obviously in terms of many programs, however, the Dems are liberal and favor gov't spending and intervention (say, education). The Republican party has come to represent the opposite. The government can tell you who you can't sleep with but private enterprise should take care of everything that involves paying people to do things.

I'm a scientist, and I tend to be okay with the idea of gov't spending, so I'd probably lean Dem no matter what. I know many scientists who agree with me about spending, and I also know many who are very wary of large gov't. But almost all scientists I know value objective thought and free discourse above all else. This isn't so much a political issue as that this is what lies at the core of modern science. And so while they may or may not agree with the Dems on how many programs the gov't should oversee, I would say they overwhelmingly agree that the gov't shouldn't tell you what is and isn't moral. And I suspect this, more than anything else explains the skew in the the party affiliation of scientists.

It also doesn't help that the Republican Party has decided that having an education, particularly from a well-known university, is something that should be mocked unless you barely passed your coursework.

It may be the case that having such a political skew amongst scientist, and university staff in general, is not a good thing. But it's not fair to dismiss this as some kind of liberal university conspiracy without at least examining the possibility of confounding variables.

'm a scientist, and I tend to be okay with the idea of gov't spending, so I'd probably lean Dem no matter what. I know many scientists who agree with me about spending, and I also know many who are very wary of large gov't. But almost all scientists I know value objective thought and free discourse above all else.

But then again, the academic establishment is by far the demographic most supportive of formal speech codes and other forms of enforced political correctness, so is it a case of general support for "free discourse" so long as it doesn't allow for open dissent on topics they themselves hold near and dear to their hearts, or a genuine commitment to free speech across the board?

That is the purpose of tenure, you nitwit. So, that we can buck the academy with impunity.

Exactly SlateSurfer, This is essentially why so many scientists are Democrats. Because democrats suck up to them. Democrats believe that the more education you have the more qualified you are for everything, somebody with a PHD is bound to gravitate toward this type of thinking, because it justifies all the years they spent in school, it essentially argues that they are a better person than people without education, and ultimately allows you to believe you are better than others. Don't think this is the exclusive domain of scientists. The religious like the Republican party because it makes them feel special. It says that family values, faith, and devotion matter, things that religious people feel they have are important, and convince them that they are better than atheist, fancy educated people who think they know everything, but know nothing because they don't have God in their heart. It makes them feel as if they are better than you, and so the religious of course flock to the Republican party.People naturally gravitate to the party that tickles their vanity, its human nature to go where your wanted, and democrats have done a better job of publicly worshiping scientists, and republicans have done a better job of publicly worshiping fundies. Basically the two parties are the exact same, the difference amounts to abortion and gay rights, but people like to pretend they are miles apart. Its funny, and sad.

Planetary Eulogy: Well, I would argue there's a big difference between the gov't limiting free speech for everyone and an academic institution limiting hateful speech b/c they feel it impedes education. However, I've spent a lot of time on academic campuses and I've yet to meet people who actually believe certain words shouldn't be allowed to be spoken. Maybe the political correctness debates happened before my time or something. I do think that campuses are more sensitive to the connotation of words and phrases and academics try to choose words that are either specifically more morally neutral, or, in some instances, belie a specific interpretative bent. But in my experience it's a myth that the administration wanders around college campuses rabidly policing every word that comes out of a student's mouth. It's a myth, though, that seems to have a lot of traction.

patron002: Clearly I'm not an unbiased source, but I don't think the Dems have particularly sucked-up to the scientific community...and certainly not to the extent that Repubs have to the religious right. And I don't think valuing free discourse means that people with lots of education are better than anyone else. Our economy is on the brink of collapse b/c of people with lots of education (especially financial modelers with PhD's). I don't believe having more degrees is always better. Overall the Dems have attempted to carve out for themselves the demographic of people who care about social programs but not about 'moral values' legislation. My argument is that scientists specifically may or may not care about social programs, but 'moral values' legislation is a threat to their livelihoods. It's not about feeling superior, it's about not being able to do your job. Yes there are many scientists who also feel superior b/c of their educations, but those scientists also have utter contempt for anyone in gov't Dem or Repub. They just might lean Dem b/c they feel like the party platform is practically more favorable to their work. (The argument that science funding increases under Repub presidencies seems to me a red herring. You need to know 1) who controlled Congress and 2) what's being defined as science funding. B/c military funding goes up with Repubs, certain types of funding for projects that DoD might support goes up as well. But in my experience the scientists and engineers who work on DoD supported projects typically lean Repub anyway...which offers more support to the idea that non-DoD funded scientists' leaning Dem is a practical matter)

Slatesurfer: I would argue that you probably don't make that decision consciously, just as I suspect the religious do not actively think they are Republicans, because the party tells them they are just as good as better educated people with more wealth. They believe in their heart that the Republican party has their best interest in mind, or follow their political views. Just like nobody admits that they vote for a candidate based on his attractiveness, yet studies have shown time and time again that the better looking candidate is much more likely to win regardless of policy. (I admit, Al Gore probably looked better than Bush, but remember how inhuman, and robot like he looked during the election?) I suspect again that people are not making the decision to vote in the front of their mind based on looks, but clearly it is a factor. I would argue that being reminded that you made good choices would also be a big factor in how strongly you lean in one direction or the other. Republicans tend to scold scientists while Democrats tend to pat them on the back, obviously a person is more likely to choose the party that treats them better. At any rate its not an attack on scientists in general, its an attack on human nature, and I'll lose that battle every time, doesn't mean I'll stop trying.

patron002: I don't disagree that there are subconscious factors at work. There always are. But there are most definitely concrete, practical reasons why scientists might choose one party over another. Most likely not a lot of the Pacifist Party's membership includes soldiers. No doubt some of that has to do with feeling like they get more respect from the other political parties. But surely at least some of it has to do with the fact that it doesn't make sense to belong to a party that wants to put you out of business. So you're right, in addition to showing a willingness to fund research the Dems also pay scientists a lot more respect and that only reinforces the propensity to vote for them. But for the same reason that I don't think people whose top priority is overturning Roe v. Wade will be voting for Obama, I don't think people who want their research funded so they can eat and do their jobs will be voting for a person who ridicules scientific research as a way of demonstrating that he'll be able to balance the budget. It might be the case that overall the two parties are very similar, but for many voting niches (and scientists comprise one) the wedge issues are all that matters.

I guess I'm more cynical than you about people's voting propensities. For people whose livelihoods depend on gov't decisions, I think they follow the money and the willingness to continue to let them do their jobs. My only point was that this has less to do with ideology than with being left alone. Sadly, for science, I think either the Obama or McCain presidency will not be great...but I think that McCain is more hostile to funding research overall.

And, not that I want to really start this debate, as a scientist I would prefer that legislators of either party would refrain from co-opting scientific theories and results they don't understand to advance their own political agendas. If I believed either party really cared about my results it might be different, but in my experience they don't. It's just that at the moment the Republicans want to actively suppress my (figuratively) work...that I'm not so happy about.

Well put, and much more diplomatic and thoughtful than "nitwit"

I don't agree with you regarding Obama and science, however. One of the issues that really swayed me toward Obama (as opposed to Clinton) was that if you get to the root of his energy and economic policies, they focus on investing in education and R & D. In the Audacity of Hope, he points out that our investment in the basic sciences have fallen dramatically which ultimately limits developments of new technologies and thus limits new jobs/energy solutions. Contrast with McCain's alternative energy plan that boils down to giving a monetary prize to a car company if they can develope a more efficient engine.

Whether that means that he supports basic science in all fields or whether he will need to postpone implimentation of his plan because of current economic issues, is anther story.

Planetary Eulogy:

'm a scientist, and I tend to be okay with the idea of gov't spending, so I'd probably lean Dem no matter what. I know many scientists who agree with me about spending, and I also know many who are very wary of large gov't. But almost all scientists I know value objective thought and free discourse above all else.

But then again, the academic establishment is by far the demographic most supportive of formal speech codes and other forms of enforced political correctness, so is it a case of general support for "free discourse" so long as it doesn't allow for open dissent on topics they themselves hold near and dear to their hearts, or a genuine commitment to free speech across the board?

LOL, that's the best burn I've seen in a long time here, and although he didn't realize it, it hit the mark.

As a Ph.D. and an academic, I don't believe that your statement about free discourse applies at all to the physical sciences.
It is difficult to disagree about the documented, observed behavior of matter.
If you can, great, but in the end, you have probably made a mistake somewhere in your calculations. Think hard, research, and double check first. Not bad advice for non-scientists, either.

nancyh: I hope Obama will be good for science. Reading through his proposals so far, aside from non-specific promises to increase funding for NSF, DoE, and NIH (same as McCain), his most specific policy (also like McCain) is to make the R&D tax credit permanent. They both wax philosophic on the issue...though I'd argue McCain's statements belie his true feelings about scientific research. Neither one seems to understand the complex interplay btwn basic research (often done at universities), early development and proof-of-concept (often done at institutions like national labs, NIH labs etc), and private R&D which is really D to deployment. I obviously don't know for sure, but I know a fair bit about scientific funding and how politicians fundamentally misunderstand our nations' research complex.

orangeone:

Are you physicist? I'm asking not to be rude but b/c I'm not entirely sure how to interpret your statement. It's difficult to disagree with facts, but most experimental results are subject to interpretation. That's why it's called the Discussion section. This is partially b/c the experimental design and data collection introduce all kinds of uncertainties and biases. It's also b/c how a particular observed behavior fits into the framework of a theory is usually unclear. For example, if we assume spiral galaxies are gravitationally bound and stable, we see that stars and gas in the outer parts of is orbiting around the center faster than can be explained by the amount of matter we know about. Does that mean our theory of gravity is wrong? Or that there's extra matter we don't know about? After several decades of discourse and thousands of papers positing many different possibilities, the majority of the scientific community tends toward the latter. But there's no definitive proof. And listening to the people who continue to hold that we need a modified theory of gravity is important. Even if they're wrong, it's a reminder that we don't really know the answer. And there's value in hearing their counter arguments b/c it can reveal faults in the "consensus" view. This is why I shudder when politicians co-opt scientific theories and reduce them to sound bites...they simply cannot disclose the complexity and nuance that deeply understanding most of modern science requires.

Understandable. Also, not everybody votes the way you would suspect them to, I know plenty of church going democrats and quite a few college educated Republicans, and yes you are right your not going to vote for somebody that would put you out of business.

Your reading of Obama's position on science is different from mine. Maybe the problem is that his approach is not neatly captured in the "stand alone" section on the website. Instead, his commitment to science is embodied in his education and economic policies. In the Audacity of Hope, he oulines a plan for improving the American economy that is completely dependent upon scientific innovation. Moreover, he advocates for policy change in education from kindergarten through university, and increased federal funding for research via funding agencies such as NIH and NSF. In fact, he talks about the dearth of funding for basic science as the reason our economy has stagnated.

I do think that he "gets it" in the sense that he understands that basic science is done at universities and that supporting university based research is more fundamental than supporting R & D at the corporate level.

SlateSurfer, I appreciate your thoughtful response. Actually I am a Physical Chemist. I agree with much of your post- in my opinion science works precisely because it is open to new ideas, as new evidence emerges. As for interpretation of results, the discussion, that is always the challenging part- but chemical behavior itself must be reproducible. For a discussion at another time, perhaps. But really, my post was an apparently too vague response to the idea that free discourse is squelched in academia. I don't feel that it is discouraged in the science classroom, and I feel that academia is often a convenient target.