Hamilton, Lawrence C. (author) and University of New Hampshire
Format:
Article
Publication Date:
2015-09-01
Published:
United States: Carsey School of Public Policy, University of New Hampshire
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 128 Document Number: D11245
Notes:
10 pages, via website, Conservative distrust of scientists regarding climate change and evolution has been widely expressed in public pronouncements and surveys, contributing to impressions that conservatives are less likely to trust scientists in general. But what about other topics, where some liberals have expressed misgivings too? Nuclear power safety, vaccinations, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are three widely mentioned examples. For this report, five similarly worded survey questions were designed to test the hypothesis that, depending on the issue, liberals are just as likely to reject science as conservatives. The five questions were included along with many unrelated items in telephone surveys of over 1,000 New Hampshire residents.
Author Larry Hamilton reports that, as expected, liberals were most likely and conservatives least likely to say that they trust scientists for information about climate change or evolution. Contrary to the topic-bias hypothesis, however, liberals also were most likely and conservatives least likely to trust scientists for information about vaccines, nuclear power safety, and GMOs.
A version of this article appears in print on September 6, 2015, Section A, Page 1 of the New York Edition of the New York Times with the headline, "Emails reveal academic ties in a food war.", Examines lobbying activities of firms and interest groups in the debate over bioengineered foods - and involving third-party scientists "and their supposedly unbiased research." Includes examples of interactions and financial support for university scientists by commercial firms.
