Rick Santorum might have dropped out of the race, but anyone who watched his campaign would see some conservatives have serious issues with science.
A new study from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill found conservatives’ trust in science has declined dramatically since the 1970s.
A conservative flight from science is disheartening, but it’s not surprising given the shifting role of science in society and the conflict between conservative views and scientific positions.
The study, published in the journal American Sociological Review, was based on results from the General Social Survey, a 40-year study of citizens’ attitudes toward political and social institutions such as science, Congress or the media.
Conservatives in the ’70s took a similar stance to liberals or moderates, with 48 percent of conservatives saying they had a “great deal of trust in science.” Today, only 35 percent of self-identified conservatives are willing to make that statement, losing nearly a third of those who trusted science 40 years earlier.
In the ’70s, science was associated with matters of national security, like nuclear weapons and the space race. Since then the image of science has morphed from ICBMs and NASA to ivory towers and the EPA.
Science has also moved onto religion’s turf, attempting to explain our origins and the nature of the human mind and morality.
Gordon Gauchat, author of the UNC paper, thinks the decline in trust is due in large part to the conservative perception of being an embattled minority – a perception encouraged by sources like Fox News and political think tanks.
The truth is conservatives outnumber liberals in the U.S. by about two to one, with 40 percent of the population identifying as conservative, 35 percent as moderate and only 21 percent as liberal. Conservatism is actually on the rise, up from 37 percent in 2008.
However, media outlets like Fox News portray themselves and other conservatives as an oppressed minority fighting against the “elite” in the media and academia.
Portraying science as the opposition is unfortunately easy since the scientific consensus on issues like global warming and evolution comes into direct conflict with deeply held conservative beliefs. But that’s only because the evidence supports those scientific conclusions.
The idea of scientists actively steering their research or even fabricating their results so they can oppress conservatives is completely ridiculous. Science is the best process we have yet discovered to investigate our world and explain how and why phenomenon occur.
Science doesn’t care about what conservatives think or what anyone thinks. It only cares what is supported by evidence.
The growing distrust of science among conservatives compared to the stable trust level of liberals points to many conservatives rejecting results they disagree with instead of adapting their beliefs to the evidence.
A 2011 Yale study testing subjects on their scientific literacy and political beliefs found conservatives grew more dismissive of science as their scientific literacy increased, supporting the idea conservatives choose to reject the scientific consensus regardless of education.
Subjects were also asked for their views on nuclear power, an issue liberals are traditionally opposed to despite a large scientific consensus on its safety and merits relative to other energy sources.
As expected, liberals were inherently biased against nuclear power in much the same way conservatives opposed global warming.
Interestingly, more scientifically literate liberals were much more likely to support nuclear power, suggesting liberals are more willing to reconsider their political positions in light of scientific evidence.
These dramatically different responses point to a disconnect between how liberals and conservatives approach information, with liberals tending to change their views based on the evidence while many conservatives cling to their views in spite of it.
 
Andrew Shockey is a 21-year-old biological engineering junior from Baton Rouge. Follow him on Twitter @TDR_Ashockey.
 
—-
Contact Andrew Shockey at [email protected].