In a recent post Chris Mooney challenged a USA Today opinion piece by Alex Berezow claiming that anti-science bias was blind to the political spectrum. From USA Today:
"In short, for every anti-science Republican that exists, there is at least one anti-science Democrat. Neither party has a monopoly on scientific illiteracy. Indeed, ignorance has reached epidemic proportions inside the Beltway."
Mooney was having none of it, as he explained in his own response.
"I accused the author, Alex Berezow, of constructing a false equivalence between right and left wing science abuse. The latter does occur sometimes, and I've given many examples (ionizing radiation risks, vaccines, GMOs, etc). But it has relatively little mainstream influence today—and can hardly compare with the sweeping denial of huge bodies of knowledge (e.g., all climate science, all evolutionary science) that we see on the right."
Mooney also noted others who had questions about the Berezow column, including Joe Romm and Paul Raeburn.
Here at 13.7 we have also been discussing anti-science basis in politics, as well as its origin and effects. In a time when science-saturated issues represent some of our greatest challenges, understanding its place in the public dialogue could not be more critical.
How do you see the relationship between science and politics? Is there a partisan divide?