Why Republicans aren't scientists (or journalists, for that matter)

I've written several posts over the years about why more conservatives aren't in journalism (at least on the basic reporting side -- there's a fair number of conservative opinion writers, even in a Commie hotbed like Philadelphia). I wish there were more, frankly -- it would make life easier for everyone. But the basic things that get reporters amped up to come intro work in the morning (at least before then becoming jaded or high-paid Beltway stenographers) -- questioning a certain kind of authority, challenging the established version of events -- aren't part of the conservative mindset. That's not intended as an indictment of the right -- it just means that logically there have to be differences in human nature that makes some people more liberal and others more conservative, and there's an overlap between liberal traits and journalist traits.

Turns out the same things is true with science. Here's an interesting take on why only 6 percent of U.S. scientists are Republicans:

Are we still surprised that there aren't tons of Republican scientists? Liberals tend to be more intellectually curious, comfortable with ambiguity, and attracted to novelty. Those are traits that are critical for scientific investigation. And academia would be a pretty bad place to spend your career if you like clear lines of authority and rules.

This doesn't mean liberals are necessarily better or smarter. The typically conservative traits of orderliness, loyalty, and rule-following are positive, too. It's entirely possible—I'd say it's likely—that conservatives make better soldiers and sports teammates.

What it does mean, however, is that the small percentage of Republicans in science isn't due to a bias in the scientific community or a recruiting failure. It's just a natural sorting of people based on their personalities.

We shouldn't expect that half of our scientists be Republicans any more than we expect half of all NRA members be Democrats. The imbalance is only a problem insofar as it furthers a suspicion of science based on the misconception that the scientific community has a political agenda.

Exactly. If you question what journalists like me write...well, good for you. On some level, that's also true with science; that is, it's certainly good when people question individual cases of junk science. But when people distrust a broad scientific consensus on a critical issue, that's a problem for society, and it doesn't have an easy answer. But when it comes to not enough Republicans in science or the media, conservatives have largely themselves -- and human nature -- to blame.