Are scientists susceptible to political biases?

radcen said:

Are scientists susceptible to political biases?

In general.

Click to expand...

They get measles, don't they?

joG said:

They get measles, don't they?

Click to expand...

What exactly does the virus 'measles' have to do with politics or bias?

If a joke, quite lame.

radcen said:

Are scientists susceptible to political biases?

In general.

Click to expand...

Why would they not be?

The Poll obviously favors Yes, b/c this is a political junkie site.

I'm going with the non-PJs, the answer is No.

APB212 said:

Yes, most of them are leftists.

Click to expand...

Because they're educated?
If they're rightists, does that still count as a political bias?

Scientific research is in a crisis right now. My youngest son does medical research. He says that few papers are peer reviewed, and seldom are studies replicated. About a third of medical studies wouldn't hold up to close scrutiny. Some journals are very selective about publication, while others are loose as possible. He also says money is influencing research more and more each day. So draw your own conclusions.

FYI; did you know eating chocolate could help you lose weight? One study says so.......of course, it had only about half a dozen participants......

Yes, of course, because all humans are susceptible to biases of any sort.


At least with scientists the papers are published, preferably not in one of those scummy pay-journals, but they are published, can be reviewed, and any experiments can be duplicated with the failure to duplicate being reported (and leading to retraction of papers in most cases).

radcen said:

Are scientists susceptible to political biases?

In general.

Click to expand...

Not real scientists performing actual physical science. But in general all people have biases that interfere with judgement especially in social sciences.

Waddy said:

Scientific research is in a crisis right now. My youngest son does medical research. He says that few papers are peer reviewed, and seldom are studies replicated. About a third of medical studies wouldn't hold up to close scrutiny. Some journals are very selective about publication, while others are loose as possible. He also says money is influencing research more and more each day. So draw your own conclusions.

FYI; did you know eating chocolate could help you lose weight? One study says so.......of course, it had only about half a dozen participants......

Click to expand...

The issue is that there's money and possibly fame in flashy results, and little in confirming or finding out they're wrong.

ttwtt78640 said:

Yes. Why would one's occupation render them not susceptible to political bias? My political bias, while apparent on this forum, does not have any effect on my handyman work - my repairs, maintenance and improvements show no political bias at all.

Click to expand...

I dig what you're saying here. I can also do my job independently of my political views. Sometimes when I express a political view on facebook, some bum will look at my profile, see that I teach at a local college then assume that I inject my political beliefs into my teaching. I teach music theory and advanced woodwinds. Not a lot of room for politics there.

Anyhoo, I'd like to think science doesn't get swayed by politics, just by the fact that if a scientist publishes a garbage paper obviously swayed by political bias, that fellow scientists would pick it apart. But like I said, that's what I'd like to think. Does it work thay way? I don't know, I'm not a scientist.

I think I got it straight what I'm about to relate; In the near future my son will be attending a conference in, I think, Baltimore, sponsored by the NIH. The NIH is a major source of health research funding. Apparently, lots of "researchers" publish their studies but do not publish the raw data those studies are based on. So the NIH intends to make it mandatory that the raw data be made available when the study is published.

NIh is also concerned that studies aren't being peer reviewed nor replicated. They intend to increase funding for that. But my son says that may not do much because there is little interest in replicating studies as there is not much opportunity for them to be published; and researchers at major colleges live and die by publication.

So where the situation is at now is any publication is good publication, even in a secondary journal..and there are lots of journals, only a few are very demanding. My son says the real problem in medical research, at least, is the huge emphasis on getting published. It makes or breaks careers.

ataraxia said:

Actually, if anything, there is often too much pressure for scientists to keep publishing new and revolutionary ideas and observations. They are the ones who become famous and get the grants. If you keep publishing "same old same old", you are more likely to lose funding.

Click to expand...

You have absolutely no experience in science if you think that's the case. Other scientists decide who gets funding. Do you think they're going to fund those who think that their research is trash?

radcen said:

Are scientists susceptible to political biases?

In general.

Click to expand...

WTH does "in general" mean, anyway?

If you want to ask if scientists are more susceptible of less susceptible then say so.

The way you phrase the question the only plausible answer is "Yes"- all races, creeds, colors, both sexes, all and professions are susceptible to political bias.

radcen said:

I would disagree with your last statement. Really, a consensus is nothing more than collective individual conclusions or opinions. In fact, given the concept of group think and peer pressure I'd say it's even more prone to bias.

Click to expand...

NO it is not. A scientific consensus is not given by a vote, it's determined by the preponderance of evidence available at the time.