Distrust of science grows along with partisan divide

A large segment of the public distrusts science and scientists. Polls suggest that despite the increasing pace of scientific discovery, trust of science in general is low and not getting better.

Not only that, but also the spread between liberals and conservatives has been widening in the past 30 years, whereas before that there was little difference.

In a study conducted by Gordon Gau­chat in 2009, 50 percent of liberals, 40 percent of moderates and 38 percent of conservatives trusted science. In 1974, 50 percent of all three groups indicated their trust.

This decline in trust in science by conservatives has been led by the most educated, most engaged segment of conservatism. Those with high school degrees, bachelor’s degrees and graduate degrees all expressed greater distrust in science over time. The reasons for this are not clear, although many researchers think that some cultural groups, especially conservatives, have fallen out with science for reasons tied to the nature of modern American conservatism dating from the Rea­gan-Bush era and championed today by former Vice President Dick Che­ney.

President Ronald Rea­gan and his cohorts were famous for statements that betrayed their ignorance. He thought that trees emitted more pollution than all the cars on the road. His famous statement, "A tree’s a tree. How many more do you need to look at?" showed his complete lack of understanding of ecology and environmental issues.

His secretary of the interior, James Watt, suggested that a cure for atmospheric ozone depletion was to "wear a bigger hat."

Watt described environmentalists as "a left-wing cult dedicated to bringing down the type of government I believe in." He also voiced the Rea­gan’s administration assault on the environment: "We will mine more, drill more, cut more timber."

After the resolution of the oil shortages of the 1970s, the Rea­gan administration killed solar energy subsidies, ripped the PV system off the roof of the White House and set the country back on a course of petroleum thirst, ignoring its byproduct carbon dioxide and the effect on global climate change that now seems clear despite the outcries of deniers.

In recent elections many conservatives on the GOP side declared war on science positions, denying the "big two" issues, climate and evolution. Besides these are misinformation campaigns on the issues of birth control, abortion, vaccinations and homosexuality, to name a few.

The geopolitics of petroleum is dominated by big business, which is traditionally conservative although not necessarily anti-science, but petroleum interests do not fit well with environmentalism.

All of this is not to say that science always gives the correct answers, but it has undeniably led us to many things that we take for granted today — such as cellphones and digital TV — that were not available a decade ago, as well as to more fundamental things such as electricity that liberals, conservatives and moderates enjoy equally.

We can only hope that the partisan divide over science can be mediated before we lose our scientific and technical supremacy to other nations.

———
Richard Brill is a professor of science at Honolulu Community College. His column runs on the first and third Friday of the month. Email questions and comments to brill@hawaii.edu.