Daniel Sarewitz of Slate worries that there aren't enough Republican scientists. Is it any wonder that Republicans don't trust science, if it's all coming from the laboratories of Democrats?
I don't know. Is it?
What would a Republican scientist look like? Would she accept the reality of man-made global warming? Evolution? Would she be aware that gay couples are at least as good parents as straight couples? Or that states that allow gay marriage and civil unions have lower divorce rates than those that don't. That true Keynesian economic stimulus works pretty well, and that tax cuts for the rich have little effect on the economy? That the health care system in Western Europe is cheaper and more effective than the American health care system?
As Colbert once noted, reality has a well-known liberal bias.
I strongly believe that communities are stronger when they are made up of people with diverse viewpoints. There is no benefit to a community made up of people with diverse facts.
Yes, we should be worried by the paucity of Republican scientists. But what does Sarewitz mean by saying we need to make the scientific community "more welcoming" to Republicans? If that means wearing elephant pins, I'll go along with it. If it means abandoning facts for fiction...
Why I'm Marching for Science
1 day ago in Angry by Choice