Scientists holding their breath
Interesting article in Wired about scientists holding their breath for democrats - because they believe the dems will bring them more funding (well that and stop suppressing their results). Maybe they'll get in and immediately increase the number of NSF grants so I can get one! hahah.Put away the petri dish. Turn off the Bunsen burner. When mid-term election results start to roll in next Tuesday, few groups will be as glued to the television as America's scientists.
In a country grousing for new leadership, the elections will be a referendum on an unpopular president and a chance for science-friendly candidates to hang out a shingle on Capitol Hill. The change could prompt government action on a range of issues.
I think this monkey is praying for the republicans to cut his projects funding. I don't think he wants to run around with wires sticking out of his head (or help cure some disease).
6 Comments:
Guess you haven't read the latest communique on political genes:
Scientists Study Political-Genetic Link
. . .
So far, the political connection has relied on studies by Lindon Eaves, professor of human genetics and psychiatry at Virginia Commonwealth University. About 8,000 sets of identical and fraternal twins answered a series of questions on topics such as school prayer, nuclear power, women's liberation and the death penalty.
. . .
Some scientists, however, are not ready to embrace the theory.
"The very idea that something like a political ideology could be heritable is incoherent," said Evan Charney, assistant professor of public policy and political science at Duke University. "It doesn't make any sense, and it's historically inaccurate."
Any similarities found in twins' political beliefs can be attributed to environment, not genetics, Charney said.
Fri Nov 03, 10:43:51 AM CST
ahh.... so perhaps we should expand this finding and say that being a scientist is inherited?! I follows logically ;)
Fri Nov 03, 11:50:35 AM CST
So many things are partially genetic and partially environmental. The more complex the behavior is (like politics!) then usually the less can be attributed to genes. So many environmental factors can change your political views.
So essentially, I'd want to see the data (effect sizes, n, significance, design, etc) before coming to the conclusion that this article did. The easiest way to study twins is to compare fraternal and identical, after making sure the twins were raised together, etc, but the problem with this design is that identical twins are still usually treated more similarly to each other than are fraternal ones by the family, friends, school, etc. So it's still not the best design. I think it's possible that all of the effect from this study is due to that small environmental difference. It's also possible that a teeny tiny bit of political view is based on some sort of pre-determined disposition, but I'd bet it's so small that it's pretty worthless for any inferences you'd want to make.
Fri Nov 03, 12:36:12 PM CST
I disagree. When political differences between movements are profound, genetic effects can lead indirectly to significant political differences. Genetic effect is generally underestimated by social scientists.
Sat Nov 04, 05:59:51 PM CST
Look at all the scientists in particular families, like the Huxleys and the Darwins. There does seem to be something to this theory!
Sun Nov 05, 03:46:56 PM CST
look at the families with not more than 1 scientist. many more of them yeah?
Sun Nov 05, 08:53:19 PM CST
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home