Does Ideology Influence the Policy Preferences of Scientists?
As I noted last week, the Pew survey of scientists finds that more than 50% self-identify as liberals compared to just 20% of the public.
Which then leads to the question: what role does ideology play in shaping scientists' policy preferences relative to science, especially in those areas outside of their specialty? Or on those issues where there are high levels of uncertainty about risks, benefits, and trade-offs? Heuristic decision-making is common in politics and policymaking, are scientists as a group any different?
Put another way, in responding to the Pew findings, several commentators have noted a "dangerous disconnect" between the policy preferences of scientists on an issue such as stem cell funding and that of the American public. The root of the disconnect is assumed to be an "unscientific" predisposition of the public. But is part of this so-called "science gap" attributable not so much to expert knowledge but to the differing influence of ideology as a heuristic in forming policy preferences? In other words, scientists lean liberal and therefore have more liberal policy preferences?
On this point, analyzing survey data collected from 363 of the most highly cited and most active U.S.-affiliated scientists in the nanotechnology field, a new study examines these decision-making factors and their influence on scientists' views about nano regulation. The study appears at the Journal of Nanoparticle Research and is co-authored by Profs. Elizabeth Corley at Arizona State, Dietram Scheufele at the University of Wisconsin, and graduate student Qian Hu. (Dietram has more at his blog Nanopublic. See also the ASU news release.)
Here is the relevant finding summarized in the conclusion to the study:
Third, our findings highlight the importance of developing a systematic understanding of the demographic antecedents among policy perceptions for nanoscientists. In particular, our analyses show that economic conservatism among scientists was related to less support for regulation, and that more economically liberal scientists--in turn--were more likely to support regulations. The fact that views on regulation among the leading U.S. nanoscientists is driven by personal ideologies--even after also controlling for their scientific judgment about potential risks and benefits--may be troublesome to some observers, especially since journalists and policymakers alike routinely turn to experts from the research community when they need information on nanoscience and regulation.
Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.
No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.
Is it "perverseness," the "death drive," or something else?
A disturbing interview given by a KGB defector in 1984 describes America of today and outlines four stages of mass brainwashing used by the KGB.
- Bezmenov described this process as "a great brainwashing" which has four basic stages.
- The first stage is called "demoralization" which takes from 15 to 20 years to achieve.
- According to the former KGB agent, that is the minimum number of years it takes to re-educate one generation of students that is normally exposed to the ideology of its country.
It's up to us humans to re-humanize our world. An economy that prioritizes growth and profits over humanity has led to digital platforms that "strip the topsoil" of human behavior, whole industries, and the planet, giving less and less back. And only we can save us.
- It's an all-hands-on-deck moment in the arc of civilization.
- Everyone has a choice: Do you want to try to earn enough money to insulate yourself from the world you're creating— or do you want to make the world a place you don't have to insulate yourself from?
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.