Hi Mod,
A lot of the problem here is that the two sides seem to have slightly different views on social (and other) issues which might give the impression that they are 'anti-science'.
IMO, the problem isn't so much that "both sides have slightly different social views", it's that "both sides have slightly different lobbyist" pushing for different scientific agendas.
It gets wrapped up into a
social issue for means of propaganda and public emotional support, but it is, without a doubt, all about whos pockets get greased by what big business.
The social impacts are just distractions from the main objective - financial gain.
Not that I have the time to do it, but I would be curious to see who the big science investors for each party are. I think that would give us a clearer picture for why certain scientific research is supported and others are rejected. I doubt these decisions are based on social views.
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky