A DeNA Life Science Inc. laboratory technician holds plates containing genes extracted from customers’ saliva, in preparation for genetic analysis for the company’s direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing service “Mycode”, during a media preview at a laboratory of the University of Tokyo’s Institute of Medical Science in Tokyo, Japan, on Wednesday, July 9, 2014. (Kiyoshi Ota/Bloomberg)
Many people think that political beliefs predict how people respond to science and technology issues. Conservatives, many believe, tend to be more skeptical or distrustful of science and technology, while liberals tend to be more accepting and encouraging. But this accepted wisdom doesn’t always hold. For example, on the current flare-up regarding the vaccination of children against measles and other illnesses, we are increasingly seeing the strongest anti-vaccination sentiment in what are traditionally very liberal parts of the country.
This presents a puzzle. If politics doesn’t always explain why some people embrace scientific research and why others are skeptical, then what does?
In an article recently published in The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, we find that the answer lies not just in our views on politics or whether we are conservative or liberal. Instead, our views about innovations in science and technology may be driven by something more fundamental and more contextual — whether we are optimists or pessimists.
The difference between the two is straightforward. When we are optimistic about a new technology or evidence-based public policy (such as compulsory vaccination), we believe that its potential for good outweighs its potential for harm. On the other hand, pessimists are more likely to remind themselves of the potential harm that a technology or policy could bring about, as opposed to its potential benefits. This difference between optimists and pessimists isn’t always explained by the standard liberal-conservative divide, although it sometimes correlates with it.
Our study sheds light on the importance of optimism and pessimism by exploring the opinions of one prominent group: academics. Why academics? For one reason, academics write. And they write a lot. But another reason is that academics writing on science and technology issues are opinionated, providing reasoned arguments that serve as clues.
To determine the leanings of academics, we analyzed about 750 well-cited articles on the topic of genomics — a new and exploding area, especially after President Obama’s recent announcement regarding personalized medicine.
We found that nearly twice as many of the articles expressed optimism rather than pessimism. However, disciplines that are traditionally left-leaning — for example, sociology, anthropology and cultural studies (such as race and ethnic studies) — are among the most pessimistic on genomics issues, frequently using distrustful or cautionary language. This upends traditional rhetoric and much research, which argues that the political left is more amenable to scientific innovations and the political right less so.
Why is the usual association of liberal ideology and support for science reversed when it comes to genomic science? Left-leaning scholars appear to fear the resurgence of eugenics with regard to race and the possibility of ignoring environmental conditions that lead to medical problems such as high blood pressure or obesity. Left-leaning academics also tend to mistrust pharmaceutical companies.
In contrast, right-leaning scholars focus on the benefits of genomics for solving crimes through forensic databases and tend to be enthusiastic about the enormous economic benefits that genomic science can bring to investors, entrepreneurs, corporations and communities.
So, if politics doesn’t always explain attitudes on science, then what does? What our study shows is that not only can attitudes on science depend on the particular scientific arena, but that optimism and pessimism can be stronger driving forces than are political beliefs.
Maya Sen is Assistant Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. Jennifer Hochschild is Henry LaBarre Jayne Professor of Government at Harvard University and Professor of African and African American Studies.
This post is part of a series on politics and science. Other posts in the series include:
“A scientific perspective on politics and science”
“You can change the mind of climate change skeptics. Here’s how.”
“Why science teachers sow doubt about evolution (even when they don’t mean to)”
“Neuroscience is coming to law. Can we keep politics out of it?”
“Biased interpretations of science? Liberals do it too.”
“Partisan bias about climate change is more prevalent than you think.”
