Hi, NoNukes.
NoNukes writes:
So what role would you assign to atheist and lefties for chasing conservatives out of science so that only 6% of the scientists identify themselves as Republican?
I don't know. Just working from my limited experience and observations, it seems very likely that conservative scientists would be handicapped in their ability to socialize at conferences, in their ability to drum up collaborations with other scientists, and in the likelihood that they will get friendly, favorable reviews on papers they submit for publication (because they would have fewer friends in the community).
All of this could result in conservative scientists having difficulty meeting requirements for tenure, and having difficulty in attaining a high standing within the community. But, I don't know that this is the case: you'd have to ask some actual, conservative scientists, like Coyote, if they had ever experienced this.
Since Coyote claims to have experienced this, I feel like the matter deserves some actual consideration. Of course, we need a sample size of more than one, so do you know of a way to find some more conservative scientists and poll them about their experiences as a political minority in the sciences?
NoNukes writes:
So what could possibly explain the left leaning of the biology department, given the taboo on politics? Surely not the campus environment.
In this case, it's probably driven by peer pressure from within the Mormon community. Even though Mormons claim to value education and science, there is a lot of pressure in the community for people to stay away from academia and anything else liberal (they even had to use the word "Humanities" instead of "Liberal Arts" in order to not scare away potential donors).
The only Mormons that typically go into science are the ones that are more detached socially from the main crowd in the first place. So, individuals with low social tendencies or comparatively "liberal" politics are disproportionately represented.
NoNukes writes:
I'm quite skeptical that any of those excuses contribute significantly to the dearth of conservatives in the sciences. If you have even anecdotal evidence suggesting otherwise, let's hear it.
Again, I don't know that these excuses contribute significantly, and I'm not sure how to test it. Maybe we could poll people who didn't go into science and ask them why they didn't go into science?
I do have a couple of anecdotes, though. First, I'm pretty sure we can attribute the dearth of conservatives on EvC to the way they were treated by atheists and "lefties" while here. Whether or not that's a bad thing, I'll let you decide on your own, but I think we can all agree that they didn't leave because they were convinced that they were wrong.
Second, I know that applicants to my advisor's lab are screened for how well their personality and opinions mesh with the other members of the lab (though, obviously, conservatism isn't the only deciding factor), and that many other labs do the same thing. From this, it seems pretty straightforward to predict that people with unpopular opinions would have a hard time getting a graduate position in my field. I don't have evidence for this, but it seems reasonable.
NoNukes writes:
I tend to think dwise1's tongue in cheek comment is at least partly on the mark and partially explains the lack of diversity among science. While a scientist might well identify and hold conservative values and even vote for Republican candidates, large parts of the Republican platform are anti-science, and I just cannot see how very many scientists would identify with such a platform. For example, the number of science who reject man-made climate change must surely be a tiny number.
Is there evidence for this position? I would be very interested in seeing it.
Edited by Blue Jay, : "having difficult"
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.