Are scientists biased toward certain policies by their political views?.?

<<<While trust in science remained stable among people who self-identified as moderates and liberals in the United States between 1974 and 2010, trust in science fell among self-identified conservatives by more than 25 percent during the same period>>

http://www.asanet.org/press/conservatives_trust_ha...

This is from the same bunch of idiots that concluded that conservatives have a mental disorder. In 1964, over a thousand mental health professionals signed a statement that Goldwater was not "psychologically fit" to be president without ever having met him. The media accepted it as a scientific finding. Researchers at UC Berkeley's Institute of Personality and Social Research published "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition" in the Psychological Bulletin- one of the most prestigious journals available. They concluded that conservatism is a kind of mental defect. These are just the tip of the iceberg.

The lengths that the left will go to to abuse science is endless. It appears they have no shame, no honor, and no rules. And they wonder why conservatives have had it with much of their so called science. They are too often charlatans, sheep, and idiots IMO.

Of course some people let their political views influence their scientific conclusions. I have certainly recognized that numerous times. It is an epidemic in climate science. That is a consequence of arrogance and ignorance.

So scientists let their political ideologies infliuence their preferences in regards to regulatory policies ... well lucky for us scientists generally report/present the evidence and leave the regulatory policies up to politics.

I tend to find that scientists (well many) have an idealistic and realistic argument for policies that should be enacted (they can be significantly different).

Remember scientists don't make polices ... they simply provide the information and it is up to politicians to decide what to do with that information. For example under the Bush administration the USA government decided to ignore the scientific evidence and information regarding climate change. Then Obama comes in, and with the exact same scientific evidence and information makes a decision to enact policies to manage/mitigate climate change. The scientific evidence didn't change only the politicians did.

For me I would be far more concerned that religion and personal gain (self interest) influences politicians than the political persuasion of a science.

Edit: Or if you like an economists did a tax review in Australia a few years ago (the Henry Tax Review). He made many wide sweeping recommendations. The government however has only instituted a few of them. This is similar to scientists . They may make recommendations etc. but in the end politicians decide the policy.

Of course there's personal bias in science, just like there's personal bias in journalism, government, and every other human pursuit. Scientists are humans like everyone else, and their personal beliefs and values can influence their conclusions, and certainly influence what subject matter they choose to study.

But here's the thing. Contrary to your article's claim, scientists know very well that personal bias exists in science. It comes with being human. There's no way to eliminate personal bias in science, unless we put Skynet in charge.

So what we do, instead, is we prevent personal bias from becoming institutional bias. How? We build the institutions on anonymized peer review, open publication, and independent verification, and not name recognition, blind trust, or hierarchical authority. Through these processes, errors that arise from personal bias, fraud, mistake, or any other cause, get caught and corrected.

If you feel the conclusions of any peer reviewed article are questionable, refutation is the very reason the article is published with all the data and methodology. You don't have to show the authors were biased, or corrupt, or Martian invaders bent on our destruction, or guilty of any other personal foible; indeed, proving any of these does nothing to disprove the science. Just show us that their conclusion is not consistent with the evidence, whether old or new evidence.

I, for one, am a strong believer in the private value of sustainability and resource conservation, and I still hold out hope that voluntary, self-interested acts (primarily by corporations, but also individuals) can be as effective at mitigating climate change as taxes, tariffs, etc. This was not the case through most of the 20th century, but our understanding of the world's changed; I'd love to read your study presenting new evidence that is has become the case now.

maximum individuals i be attentive to who grow to be Thelemites grow to be extra Conservative, yet for me, that's been a journey in basic terms the alternative direction. As I get to the backside of the magnitude and meaning of 'genuine Will,' I further and further see the main important possibility to the guy being the corporate structures that are worshiped above the guy interior the yank suitable. government is from time to time a soreness interior the butt, particular, (place of work work) despite the fact that it additionally helps the guy time (by way of welfare, food stamps, and so on) to discover their genuine will by way of their own dark night of the soul. companies despite the fact that (as unfavorable to kinfolk owned businesses, i'm talking secure company structures defined by way of the regulation as "persons"), are perverse cartels who could be harnessed to serve persons (customers) fairly than vice versa. I reserve the properly suited to alter my perspectives as I detect my indoors fortress extra nonetheless. So, my faith (in a private way) has moved me added to the Left.

>>Are scientists biased toward certain policies by their political views?<<

I'm sure that in some instances, they are. But as others have mentioned, scientists don't make policy and from what I've seen, they only recommend potential policies or endorse policies *after* they've assessed the science. There are of course exceptions to anything and I'm sure some AGW denier is about to say, "Well Dr. Evil S. Villain wrote this letter to a friend when he was in college that says he's pro-Marxism and now he's a climate scientist who supports Cap & Trade. Obviously that proves that AGW is a Marxist plot to take away my SUV and my daughter's puppy!" But then AGW deniers are kind of nuts...

>>"In debating science-related policy matters, we tend to assume that scientists are not influenced by their own political views."<<

Don't make assumptions. I'm sure you've heard why you should not...

>>Yet in a recent study co-authored by one of us (Scheufele), we find that even after controlling for their scientific judgments, scientists’ political ideologies significantly influence their preferences for potential regulatory policies.<<

Well, the scientists preferences don't really do much affecting of policy do they? Mostly they just push for *anything* to be done. Sure, they can suggest things and explain the rate at which they believe we need to affect a change, but in the end, all they're doing is advising.

Here's a better and more interesting question:

Does a person's level of scientific knowledge affect their acceptance of scientific near-certainties and their level of motivation to act to solve the problem?

Another question:

Does a politician's acceptance of scientific near-certainties begin and end with party dogma?

>>The scientific data is one thing, what I find disappointing is how quickly so many scientists give up on any freedom/voluntary based solutions and immediately assume only top down tyranny will suffice.<<

How do you know that they started by thinking that drastic and not very pleasant means were the only way to get the job done? How many of them do you think tried to be informative and just assumed that people would listen and change what they were doing in order to correct the situation? Corporations on the other hand are completely mindless slaves to profit. They don't care if the planet's 'health' is in danger, they will just keep on advertising for more consumption of their products because that is their primary objective.

If you don't like the solutions presented, then present your own or support a solution that you do accept. How foolish is it to reject evidence of a problem, and accept evidence that the problem is a hoax, simply because you don't like many of (if not all of) the proposed solutions?

Edit: [re: Phoenix Quill's answer]

>>AGW Theory suggests no less than that the Individual use of fossil fuel Energy is BAD,<<

Burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment because excessive emissions of CO2 and other GHGs are causing the planet to warm, which in turn is changing the climate rapidly.

>>so that to save the Planet,<<

More like to prevent unnecessary harm to the ecosystem and to humans as a species. "Save the planet" is more of a slogan and to take it literally is really grasping for straws or not fully understanding the problem.

>>virtually all Free Market Energy use must be turned over to Socialistic Government control.<<

That is simply a lie. Most of the solutions, including Cap & Trade, are capitalist solutions. Is it socialistic government control for me to get a tax credit for installing energy efficient windows in my home? Is it socialistic government control to give businesses tax credits for installing solar panels on the roofs of their factories? Is it socialistic government control to give tax breaks to investment in alternative energy development?

>>Now try keeping your personal feelings out of that one.<<

Your feelings on the matter and your personal and political biases are shining brightly...

_

I suspect that you and your source have things backwards. A good scientist will not allow anything but logic to control his opinions. However, I think it probable that many scientists allow their scientific findings to control their political views. The nerve of them! Allowing logic and reason to dictate how they vote instead of being swayed by commercials, other propaganda, and public opinion.

It's not just political views, it's much more. Some scientists cling to their own theories in a manner that has nothing to do with anything other than their own ego. Some are afraid to go against the mainstream. Some are simply incompetent. Some fight tooth and nail to keep their academic department funded. Some will do anything to get promoted or get tenure at a college.

I realize that not all scientists are like this and it depends on the science itself and how prominent it is (or applicable to public policy) in society like medicine or climate change.

In particular, the medical research field has been looking inwardly at itself and asking hard questions about the conduct of researchers.

http://www.livescience.com/8365-dark-side-medical-...

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.13...

I know you can't directly compare medical science with climate science but they do share a lot of commonalities like large funding and important public implications.

Ask Richard Lindzen, he's one who claimed to not be funded by oil interests, it then turned out he was funded. But I think you will find he is a denier scientist, I think his motives have less to do with politics and more to do with his bank balance.

Not just political view, virtually any view.

Your paradigm affects how you analyze things.

You might even agree on something like Climate Sensitivity to CO2 and STILL differ on want constitutes an acceptable 'solution'.

Scientific bias is considered so influential that drug studies often include a double blind, where neither the Patient OR the Scientist is allowed to know if the drug or placebo is in use.

And THAT is with something simple like does drug A help condition B.

AGW Theory suggests no less than that the Individual use of fossil fuel Energy is BAD, so that to save the Planet, virtually all Free Market Energy use must be turned over to Socialistic Government control.

Now try keeping your personal feelings out of that one.

Most people are biased politically, however bias regarding a policy is much different than following an empirical process in research. I think you are grasping at straws.