Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats?

Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats?To keep on topic, let's refrain from unsupported political posturing and stick to actual supported policies, spending and analysis. Though it does seem fair to address whether being Pr0-science is actually determined by spending in science-like agencies.I think it is fair game to talk about where money is being spent. For instance, how much is being spent on actual science vs. administration. Or if spending is on research and teaching vs. engineering and supporting science related businesses. How much of the funding is actually hidden military and political costs (administration), etcetera? It should also be fair game to talk about how much of the NIH budget is actually science related.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Define "pro-science" and you'll have an answer.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I think both parties, taken as a whole, are only pro-science when it suits them and have many aspects that are blatantly anti-science when the science conflicts with their ideology.I think Republicans have a slight tilt towards being less science friendly because of their recent high profile dismissal and censorship of science for ideological reasons during the Bush administration. Republicans have a lock on support for ID, creationism, global warming denial, banning embryonic stem cell research.It may very well be true that Republicans have spent more in the past than Democrats on science but I wonder what the numbers would look like with respect to science for defense spending versus other things.Democrats are no saints though although I think they haven't YET soiled our national reputation when it comes to science like Republicans have. Look no further than guys like Tom Harkin and his faithful support for all things Quack. Democrats, IIRC, are responsible for the creation of NCCAM and for allowing herbs and suppliments go unregulated by the FDA for the same reasons that Republicans have been blocking climate change regulation. Money.IMO, Democrats have less ideological positions AGAINST science but they tend to promote pseudo-science and general quackery much more that Republicans. Democrats seem to be the primary party supporting new age nonsense, anti-vaccination fear mongering, etc. Democrats are also nearly fascist in their support of IP/patents/copyright to the general detriment of innovation.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

One of my gripes is that Republicans like to use scientific research as an example of wasteful spending. John McCain used genetic research on grizzly bears as a punching bag during the last presidential campaign. Just recently Jindal used volcano monitoring as an example of wasteful spending. IMHO, Republicans seem to have a problem with science because scientists will not conform to their message to the Republican talking points. Science is a loose cannon, and they have a hard time dealing with it.Democrats are not saints when it comes to science, but I don't hear them using anti-science propoganda on a regular basis.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Erh.. What problem do the republicans have with the result of research into genetics of Bears and the outcome of volcano monitoring?What made you come to that conclusion with these two examples?Edited by rbp, : No reason given.

You don't hear about it all that much because the population and media in general are also sympathetic to quackery.Here is a sample from RFK Jr. ranting about vaccinations. On a liberal blog to boot.Vaccine Court: Autism Debate Continues | HuffPost LifeIf you read that, you will discover not only that he is blatantly anti-science, he is also a conspiracy theorist wack-job. Those two things often go hand-in-hand I guess when it comes to purveors of nonsense.I like HuffPo for their politics but they are basically also a platform for anything nonsense when it comes to science. Nobody can claim to be pro-science who would give a platform to guys like Kerby or Depok Chopra.

---

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

Equating Kennedy's lunacy with the Democrats is a bit of a a stretch. Rethugs are consistently anti-science and legislate against science. The Dems have a big tent and that means there are some looneys under that tent.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Oh, republicans probably don't have a problem with the results of such studies (especially republicans that live in areas with volcanoes).It's just that republicans don't think we should be spending public money on such projects.They forget, as they usually do, that there are certain things that only the government can or should provide, and these are known as public or common goods. Defense is their favorite example, but roads and scientific research also fall into this category.The reason we generally can't rely on private funding for scientific research is that often it's a stab in the dark in terms of return on your investment. You just don't know whether the development of buckyballs could be a boon or a bust, and the sheer capital requirements with low security in return chases away investors. So we turn to government to invest in those things the private market won't.The republicans have been confused since Ayn Rand. It's not that government spending has pushed out the private sector in these markets, but that there wouldn't even be such a market without government investment because the private sector won't touch it.

That would seem to be a popular opinion, and maybe it is true.What kind of actual data is there to support the opinion though? It seems to me to be an empirical claim, but there also seems to be a difficult amount of subjectivity involved in making it.

That the Rethugs consistently are anti-science?Look at the gutting of the EPA and unwillingness to follow scientific advice during the Bush administration. You want examples?
Stem cell policy
EPA
Endangered Species
Science Under Siege By Bush Administration, ACLU Charges | American Civil Liberties Unionor is it the big tent dems? The Democratic Party in the United States has liberal and progressive, moderate, and conservative wings.or is it taking issue with the idea that Kennedy speaks for Democrats?Not sure what part you take issue with?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Modulous writes:

quote:

---

What kind of actual data is there to support the opinion though? It seems to me to be an empirical claim, but there also seems to be a difficult amount of subjectivity involved in making it.

---

Well, in the question of vaccinations, there is a new vaccine which will prevent the most common cervical cancers caused by HPV. However, it's only effective if you get it early, before you've become infected, which means before you've had sex.Who, of course, is opposed to this vaccine being mandatory? Generally Republicans under the claim that it will "promote sex" (as if a pubescent girl is really thinking, "You know, I was gonna, like, have sex and stuff but I, like, really didn't wanna get that, like, cervical cancer and junk (said as a question) so I just, like, said no."In Houston, the city held a flu vaccination drive at early voting locations...which was shut down by Republicans claiming it was a ploy to get Democrats to vote. The stations were available for those 50 and over in underserved areas. Those areas tend to be black and Hispanic neighborhoods and the Republicans claimed it was political.Does this qualify as "anti-science"? That really depends upon what you mean by it. I wouldn't say the Republicans in question are denying the effectiveness of the vaccine, but they are blocking the use of it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

RFK Jr. has rubbed me the wrong way for quite some time. I think of him more as a whack job who happens to be associated with the Democratic party.

A while back my bosses went to a big infectious disease conference. One of the keynote speakers had spent quite a few years researching whether or not education on condom use lead to a decrease in STD's. He presented his data and conclusions, all of which showed a correlation between sex education that includes safe sex policies and a decrease in STD's. At the end of his talk he explained how political advisors went to the NIH and had his grants defunded. His findings clashed with the Bush administration's stance that abstinence only sex ed was the way to go. This is what I am talking about.

I'm not taking any issue. I am just asking if there is any data to back up the claims you are making.I am not asking for examples, but maybe some kind of objective criteria set and a rigorous examination of a large subset of all relevant party's (all elected officials maybe?) You know that thing that can be so inconvenient to personal viewpoints sometimes? What do they call it? Oh yeah - science.I'm sure the Democrat party is a Big Tent - but then again so is the Republican party. The question is, on balance, which party's large tent contains the most anti-science members OR the greatest magnitude of anti-scienceness.It is also my opinion that the Republicans would come out the baddies here - but my opinion is worth shit without some data to actually back it up, right?