Science and American Politics: A Paradox of Truth and Power

Ester Todd

Department of Leadership Studies, Fort Hays State University

POLS 856: Advanced Research Methods in Political Science

Dr. Jian Sun

May 9, 2022
 Abstract

Science and politics have played a considerable role in the development of civilizations

throughout history. In the United States today, many explosive political topics and platform

issues are science related, including climate change, COVID-19, renewable energy, and

biological evolution. This paper reviews the literature around politics and science, and discusses

the need for additional research. The author reviews the results of a survey they conducted,

seeking to determine if there is a correlation between political party affiliation and one’s belief or

confidence in scientific issues. In addition to political affiliation and confidence in science, the

study addresses additional factors that could have an impact such as gender, age, level of

education, and occupation.

Keywords: science, politics, party, climate change, COVID-19, renewable energy, biological

evolution
 Science and American Politics: A Paradox of Truth and Power

Background

For as long as Archimedes, Hippocrates, Galilei, Newton, Curie, and Einstein have been associated

with science, science has been associated with the quest for both truth and power. Political power

has long both influenced and been influenced by science. Where science intrinsically seeks truthful

answers to specific problems (not in an infallible way, rather in a best assumption until further

evidence is presented), the objective of politics is less about finding truths and more about

placating relevant interest groups. These two forces have been inextricably intertwined throughout

history, each playing off the other, but whenever the paradox of their tension becomes unbalanced

in favor of power—the ethics of public policy can be compromised.

How do political leaders make the best and most ethical decisions for their constituents?

How is public policy selected and implemented? The short answer: it depends. Many policy

decisions are about extremely complex or “wicked” problems, and there are no neat solutions tied

together with a bow. They are so intertwined in our systems, cultures, and societal values that

every decision made has the potential to negatively impact another area. Science is often offered

as one problem-solving mechanism, both through the scientific method and for the value scientists

place on reliability, testability, accuracy, and precision (Allchin, 1999). However, we also know

that the scientific community is made up of individuals who are impacted by their societal values,

and intrinsically bring those values (positive or negative) into their research and scientific work.

For example, predominant societal beliefs rooted in sexism and racism shaped scientists

understanding of human anatomy for years, until those beliefs were uprooted and society started

shifting in the 20th century. In addition to being used as justification for the political oppression of

women and racial minorities, science has also been used by power-hungry politicians to justify
economic disparities of social classes as a whole (Allchin, 1999). Despite its potential for political

weaponization, science has also provided many life-saving solutions such as antibiotics and

vaccines, and remains a standard in decision-making for societal and cultural problems. Whether

it be through risk assessments, cause-and-effect relationships, comparisons, or the pursuit of

knowledge itself—science is here to stay. The focus of this study is on what people believe, think,

and say about science, because those values impact the scientific community, which in turn

impacts public policy, and vice versa.

In 2016, Oxford Dictionaries names “post-truth” as their word of the year. It is defined as

“relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public

opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief” (Flood, 2016). This leads to an important

consideration: does the popularity of post-truth reflect what is happening in science and the

politics? Growing partisan alignment gaps have positioned many scholars to believe that

antiscientific thinking, mistrust in scientists, and acceptance of “alternative facts” is correlated

with conservative political ideology, while others argue this to be untrue (Tausig, 2019). The

COVID-19 pandemic has shone a spotlight on this topic, as “hot” issues such as mask-wearing

and vaccinations are painfully divided along red and blue lines. However, while the COVID-19

pandemic dominates our news cycle, it is only one issue amidst a vast sea—or is it? Do other “hot”

science topics (i.e. climate change, renewable energy, and biological evolution) also divide along

the party lines? More importantly, does confidence/belief in science align with political

partisanship?
 Focus and Hypotheses

Research Hypothesis One: This research seeks to answer whether confidence in the validity,

reality, and importance of science are aligned with political partisanship. The hypothesis tested is

as follows:

H1: Confidence in science is aligned with political partisanship.

The null hypothesis (control) is as follows:

H0: Confidence in science has no relationship to political partisanship.

Variables: The independent variables in H1 are party affiliation, level of education, age

and gender. The dependent variable in H1 is confidence/belief in science. Individuals with lower

levels of confidence in science-based beliefs are expected to be more likely to affiliate with

conservative political ideology, whereas individuals with higher levels of confidence in science-

based beliefs will be more likely to align with more liberal political ideology. Level of education,

age, occupation, and gender variables will be used to identify other potential variables (controls)

that affect people’s confidence in science.

Methodology

The data for this project will be primarily obtained through a cross-sectional survey conducted by

the researcher during the spring of 2022. The questionnaire will contain a variety of questions

related to confidence and belief in “hot” scientific issues, including: COVID-19 vaccines, climate

change, renewable energy, and biological evolution. These questions will be based on an index

score with 0 being “Not Confident At All” and 10 being “Extremely Confident.” Other questions

will include basic demographic questions and political affiliation. Survey data will be collected

through the internet via email and social media. Respondents will be anonymous. This survey will

use a nonprobability sample, which although not as desirable as a random sample, is the best option
for this study based on availability of participants. The study will not be stratified, and

approximately 20-30 individuals will participate.

Resources and Literature

A variety of studies have been conducted on attitudes related to science, the connection

between science and politics, and the correlation between political affiliation and scientific beliefs.

Between 2016 and 2019, Pew Research conducted a series of surveys regarding “Key findings in

American’ confidence in science and their views on scientists’ role in society.” This research

stands out as an important look into pre-COVID sentiment, since many resources on beliefs

specifically address the COVID-19 impact to American’s beliefs regarding science. The studies

found that although some scientific beliefs are aligned with partisanship, not all are. The article

points out that climate change is aligned with political affiliation, whereas childhood vaccines are

not, as of 2019. The studies also found that American’s confidence that scientists act in the public

interest increased significantly from 2016 and 2019 (Funk, 2020).

Just two years after the previous article was published, Pew Research published another

article with surveys on public confidence in scientists and medical scientists. These studies were

done to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on public beliefs, and found a sharp

decrease in public confidence in scientists, and also higher partisan alignment and correlation with

scientific trust. While confidence fell for both conservatives and democrats, Republicans were

much less likely to believe scientists act in the best interests of the public (Kennedy et al. 2022).

Another article, titled “Science Beliefs, political ideology, and cognitive sophistication”

challenges the assumption of partisan alignment and scientific attitude correlation. The authors

argue their results show that there is less of a correlation between politics and scientific attitudes

than between scientific literacy/critical thinking and people’s beliefs about science. This
information is important because it highlights just one of the plethora of other factors contributing

to scientific beliefs that are not directly addressed in the hypotheses of this overarching research

study. (McPhetres, Bago, & Pennycook, 2021)

Other studies have focused on specific scientific issues, such as climate change and

vaccines. “Climate Change in the American Mind” offers in-depth insight into American beliefs

regarding climate change. This publication found that 76% of Americans belief global warming is

happening, 6 in 10 Americans understand that global warming is mostly human-caused, 59%

understand that scientists believe global warming is happening, and 70% are at least somewhat

worried about global warming. Interestingly, the study found that 79% of respondents believe

global warming is an environmental issue, while 60% also say it is a political issue. This study

also has a very useful time lapse of data since they began conducting similar surveys in 2009

(Leiserowitz et al. 2021)

Vaccines have been well-studied because of wide availability of data due to the reporting

and record-keeping involved in the medical fields, and are an interesting point for this study

because of the ability to look at data over a time-lapse: pre and post COVID-19. “Vaccination

Confidence and Parental Refusal/Delay of Childhood Vaccines” is based on data from the 2011

National Immunization Survey, in which parents provided information on their children’s

vaccination status. While this study did not collect data specifically on political affiliation, it did

collect data on vaccine confidence. Researchers found that the trust parents have in the vaccines

themselves is correlated with vaccine refusal, but noted that additional research on the relationship

between parent’s and providers was necessary (Gilkey et al. 2016). This information is important

as it helps bring a holistic understanding of vaccine hesitancy throughout recent years, but prior to

the COVID-19 vaccine. (Gilkey et al. 2016).

 Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has provided an influx in scientific literature (over

100,000 published articles by the end of 2020), and many researchers touch on the politics and

science. “Surveying the Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Public Confidence in Vaccines and

Vaccine Messengers” reviews a study conducted by the American Academy of Family Physicians

in March 2021. One of the most significant pieces of information in this source is the shift in where

Americans got their vaccine information from during the pandemic. Over time, people consumed

more scientific information from social media, internet, and the news that from their primary care

physician. Another important suggestion from this survey is that people expressing COVID-19

vaccine hesitancy are not necessarily the same individuals who previously expressed general

vaccine hesitancy, indicating a potential increase in scientific doubt. (Schoof et al. 2021)

“To vax or not to vax: Predictors of anti-vax attitudes and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy

prior to widespread vaccine availability” is a recently published study conducted in fall of 2020

on adults in the United States, to determine what determinants impacted their attitudes toward

vaccinations. The article discusses the anti-vax movement’s origin with the political left in the

1990s, and the shifting political landscape of far-right alignment with the movement. Important

research identified in this study: a) found consistent correlations between anti-vax attitudes and

more conservative social attitudes and less liberal social attitudes, b) social and political attitudes

had stronger association with the anti-vax attitudes in general than with the specific COVID-19

vaccine hesitancy (Roberts et al. 2022).

Very recently, an article titled “A Darkening Spring: How preexisting distrust shaped

COVID-19 skepticism” was published based on surveys of beliefs about COVID-19 severity

before cases hit the United States and again during the first wave. The research seeks to understand

why people are skeptical of expert opinions, specifically those of medical scientists. Important
conclusions from these studies are that people’s skepticism of medical scientists follows a tradition

of conservative beliefs. Conservatives were more likely to believe misinformation about COVID-

19 due to their political stance toward social issues (Priniski and Holyoak, 2022).

Finally, “COVID-19 and scientific illiteracy, a syndemic” is a short article that discusses

important lessons the scientific communities have learned from the widespread pandemic

misinformation. The article points out that much of the mistrust and misinformation stems from a

lack of understanding of what science is. It also points out the obvious Dunning-Kruger effect at

play with recent politics (Glick et al. 2021).

While an abundance of research exists regarding science and politics, what people think

about specific scientific issues, and how that changes over time, there is no concrete or commonly

agreed upon answer to the research questions posed in this paper. Some studies indicate a

correlation between party affiliation and confidence in science, while others show no such

relationship. Some studies show there might be a relationship in regards to COVID-19 related

issues, but not necessarily for other issues. The lack of consensus points to a need for further

research on this topic.

Data Analysis

This research project focuses on the dependent variable of confidence in science, with the

independent variables being party affiliation, level of education, occupation, age, and gender.

To test the hypothesis, I conducted a survey using the online platform Qualtrics. After cleaning

up the data by removing incomplete responses, there were 36 anonymous respondents. I recoded

the survey responses into numeric data for SPSS entry, and also created a new variable

(ConfidenceScience) by combining the means of four individual survey questions. These

individual questions used a five-point Likert like confidence scale to address scientific
confidence in climate change, COVID-19 vaccines, renewable energy, and biological evolution.

Together, these four topics cover a variety of scientific issues and sentiments, providing a more

complete viewpoint of respondent’s beliefs.

Univariate Analysis

Respondents were asked four specific questions regarding their confidence in science:

• Q1: How would you describe your belief/confidence in Climate Change?

• Q2: How would you describe your belief/confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines?

• Q3: How would you describe your belief/confidence in Renewable Energy?

• Q4: How would you describe your belief/confidence in Biological Evolution?

The following choices were offered for answers to each of the above questions:

1= Not at all confident

2=Somewhat confident

3=Unsure

4=Somewhat confident

5=Very confident

Before analyzing these questions as a group as described briefly above, it is important to

understand each one individually. For this purpose, each of these questions was used as an

independent variable and cross-tabulated with the dependent variable party affiliation.
Party Affiliation and Confidence in Climate Change Tables Description: A cross-tabulation was

ran using party affiliation as the dependent variable and confidence in climate change as the

independent variable. This analysis shows that there is a relationship between these two

variables. 75% of Democrat affiliated respondents were at least somewhat confident in climate
change, while only 33.3% of Republican respondents were at least somewhat confident.

Similarly, 14.3% of Republicans responded that they were not at all confident in climate change,

while 0% of Democrat respondents selected this answer. The Lambda value of .133 suggests that

there is a moderate association between party affiliation and confidence/belief in climate change.

Party Affiliation and Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccine Tables Description: A cross-tabulation

was ran using party affiliation as the dependent variable and confidence/belief in COVID-19
vaccines as the independent variable. This analysis shows that there is a relationship between

these two variables. 62.5% of Democrat affiliated respondents were very confident in COVID-19

vaccines, while only 14.3% of Republican respondents were at least somewhat confident.

Similarly, 23.8% of Republicans responded that they were not at all confident in COVID-19

Vaccines, while 0% of Democrat respondents selected this answer. Independent respondents

selected “Not at all confident” 100% of the time. The Lambda value of .267 suggests that there is

a moderate association between party affiliation and confidence/belief in COVID-19 vaccines.

This association would be stronger if looking only at Democrat and Republican affiliations.
Party Affiliation and Confidence in Renewable Energy Tables Description: A cross-tabulation

was ran using party affiliation as the dependent variable and belief/confidence in renewable

energy as the independent variable. This analysis shows that there is a relationship between these

two variables. 100% of Democrat affiliated respondents were at least somewhat confident in

renewable energy, while 57.2% of Republican respondents were at least somewhat confident.

Independents were less likely than either Republican or Democrat to be unconfident in

renewable energy. The Lambda value of .200 suggests that there is a moderate association

between party affiliation and confidence/belief in renewable energy.

Party Affiliation and Confidence in Biological Evolution Tables Description: A cross-tabulation

was ran using party affiliation as the dependent variable and belief/confidence in biological

evolution as the independent variable. This analysis shows that there might be a relationship

between these two variables. 75% of Democrat affiliated respondents were at least somewhat

confident in biological evolution, and 33.3% of Republican respondents were at least somewhat
confident. Independents were just as likely to be not at all confident as they were very confident.

The Lambda value of .067 suggests that there is a weak association between party affiliation and

confidence/belief in biological evolution.

Confidence in Science: It is important to consider that individuals may have very strong feelings

or beliefs about one of the questions, but not another. With the above analysis, we can see that

there are moderate correlations with some of the topics, but only a weak correlation with

biological evolution. By combining the four primary confidence questions, we have a better

understanding of respondent’s views as a whole. For the remainder of the analysis, the combined

question variable will be used.

Confidence in Science Descriptive Statistics Table Description: The mean indicates that the

respondents’ average level of confidence in science (from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest and 5
being the highest) is a 3.33. The standard deviation of .996 indicates that 68% of respondents

will be within ~1 point lower or ~1 point higher on the confidence scale.

Independent variables descriptive statistics table description: the above table provides an

overview of the central tendency and dispersion for the independent variables in this study. For

political affiliation, we can see that the mode, or the most common response, was Republican.

We can also see that the minimum level of education that respondents reported was high school,

and the most common level of education for participants was a Bachelor’s degree. When looking

at occupation, several categories tied for the most common: Management, Business and

Financial Operations, Educational Instruction and Library, Healthcare Practitioners, and the

Farming/Fishing/Forestry industry. The single age group with the largest number of participants

for this survey was the 45-60 age group. The youngest age group was 18-24 and the oldest age

group was 61-75. Finally, the table indicates that more females than males participated in the

survey.
Frequency Distribution for political affiliation table description: this table shows that of the 36

total respondents, 58.3% (21) were registered Republicans, 22.2% (8) were registered

Democrats, 5.6% (2) were Independents, and 13.9% (5) were not affiliated.

Frequency Distribution table for level of education: this table shows that for 11.1% of

respondents, high school was their highest level of education. 30.6% of respondents indicated

that they had completed some college, 30.6% had completed a bachelor's degree, and 27.8% had

completed a Master’s degree or above.

Frequency Distribution table for occupations: the above table describes the number and

correlating percentage of respondents who selected each occupation label, as categorized by the

U.S. Department of Labor (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/).

Frequency Distribution table for age: 5.6% of respondents were age 18-24, 36% were 25-34,

8.3% were age 35-44, 38.9% were age 45-60, and 11.1% were age 61-75.
Frequency Distribution table for gender: 44.4% of survey respondents identified as male, and

55.6% identified as female.

Bivariate Analysis

Two tests will be performed to understand the relationship between the dependent and

independent variables of this study. Both the t-test and analysis of variance, or, ANOVA test are

used when the independent variable is nominal or ordinal (as in this study), and the dependent

variable is interval or rational (as in this study). These tests both compare the means of two

groups in order to determine if there is a significant differences.

ANOVA

Political Affiliation

Description: this table shows that respondents were not equally distributed across political

parties, as there are more Republicans than other affiliated parties. The means value column

shows the difference between party affiliation and respondents’ confidence in science.
Description: this test of variances concludes that equal variances across samples (homogeneity)

has been met, as the p-value for the Lavene’s test is >.05.

Description: the F statistic is 4.419 with 3 degrees of freedom, and is statistically significant at

.010. This indicates that the political affiliation of respondents had a significant impact on their

confidence in science.

Level of Education
Description: this table shows that respondents were not equally distributed across levels of

education, as more individuals responded with at least some college than respondents with only a

high school level education. The means column shows the difference between party affiliation

level of education, with the master’s degree or above level having the highest mean and the high

school level having the lowest mean.

Description: this test of variances concludes that equal variances across samples (homogeneity)

has been met, as the p-value for the Lavene’s test is >.05.

Description: the F statistic is 2.906 with 3 degrees of freedom, and is statistically significant at

.05, but it is right on the border. This indicates that the education level of respondents may have

had a significant impact on their confidence in science.

Occupation
Description: this table shows that respondents were not equally distributed across occupations,

however the number of samples per category is closer in size that previous variables. The means

column shows the difference between party affiliation and occupation.

Description: this test of variances concludes that equal variances across samples (homogeneity)

has been met, as the p-value for the Lavene’s test is >.05.

Description: the F statistic is 3.118 with 12 degrees of freedom, and is statistically significant at

.009. This indicates that the occupation of respondents had a significant impact on their

confidence in science.

Age

Description: this table shows that respondents were not equally distributed across age groups.

The means column shows the difference between party affiliation and age groups, with the 61-75

age group having the lowest mean and the 45-60 age group having the highest mean.
Description: this test of variances concludes that equal variances across samples (homogeneity)

has been met, as the p-value for the Lavene’s test of means is >.05.

Description: the F statistic is 1.252 with 4 degrees of freedom, and is not statistically significant

at .310. This indicates that the age group of respondents has no significant impact on their

confidence in science.

T-TEST

The t-test analysis is used when the independent variable only has two categories, as is the case

with the gender variable.

Description: the mean score for males is 3.2188 and the mean for females is higher at 3.4350.

However, females also have a higher standard deviation at 1.06.

Description: the t-test is not significant at .272, indicating that there is no significant difference

between the groups. The lower and upper confidence levels cross zero, indicating as well that

there is no difference.

Data Analysis Summary

The results of these data analysis indicate that the political affiliation of respondents does have a

significant impact on their confidence in science. The additional independent variables level of

education and occupation also had a significant impact on confidence in science. Respondents

age and gender did not have a statistically significant impact on their confidence in science.

Conclusion

The significance of understanding correlation between party affiliation and one’s belief in

science should not be underestimated. The scientific topics addressed in this study are not

hypothetical debate topics or fuel for another one-liner party platform. They are issues that

impact human lives, our environment, and our future. Climate change—human’s impact on it

and responsibility toward it—has long been accepted by the scientific community but remains a

challenge for public policy. Similarly, people continue to ask what our role is in implementing

renewable energy—and what are the benefits, the necessity, and the avenues? While many
private sector companies are moving toward renewable energy in recent years, public policy has

the potential to help be a catalyst. COVID-19 has highlighted the strength of our medical staff

and public health employees—but it has also highlighted scientific illiteracy and major divides in

public opinion regarding the role of public health, and distrust in modern medicine. Public policy

has already changed over the past two years due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the long-lasting

impacts on politics is to be seen.

Out of all the addressed topics, biological evolution might be the most long-lasting and

far-reaching. Evolution has been debated, accepted, rejected, and amended frequently since

introduction of the idea, and it is tied so closely to religious beliefs that many people find it

impossible to separate the two. In the United States especially, evolution is the quintessential

example of varying opinions on the role of religion in education and separation of church and

state. The literature and research from this study do support a correlation between party

affiliation and belief in science, leading the author to believe that education and outreach efforts

centered around these topics could have a lasting impact on public policy.
 References

Flood, A. (2016, November 15). 'post-truth' named word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries. The

Guardian. Retrieved March 17, 2022, from

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/nov/15/post-truth-named-word-of-the-year-by-

oxford-dictionaries

Funk, C. (2021, May 25). Key findings about Americans' confidence in science and their views

on

scientists' role in society. Pew Research Center. Retrieved February 20, 2022, from

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/12/key-findings-about-americans-

confidence-in-science-and-their-views-on-scientists-role-in-society/

Gilkey, M. B., McRee, A.-L., Magnus, B. E., Reiter, P. L., Dempsey, A. F., & Brewer, N. T.

(2016, July

8). Vaccination confidence and parental refusal/delay of early childhood vaccines. PLOS

ONE. Retrieved February 16, 2022, from

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0159087

Glick, M., Wolff, M. S., & Carrasco-Labra, A. (2021, December). Covid-19 and scientific

illiteracy, a syndemic. Journal of the American Dental Association (1939). Retrieved

February 18, 2022, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8501218/

Kennedy, B., Tyson, A., & Funk, C. (2022, February 15). Americans' trust in scientists, other

groups

declines. Pew Research Center Science & Society. Retrieved February 20, 2022, from

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/02/15/americans-trust-in-scientists-other-

groups-declines/
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., & Kotcher, J. (2021). Climate change in the

American mind.

Retrieved from https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-

content/uploads/2021/11/climate-change-american-mind-september-2021.pdf

McPhetres, J., Bago, B., & Pennycook, G. (2021, December 10). Science beliefs, political

ideology, and

cognitive sophistication. IAST. Retrieved February 18, 2022, from

https://www.iast.fr/publications/science-beliefs-political-ideology-and-cognitive-

sophistication

Priniski JH, Holyoak KJ (2022) A darkening spring: How preexisting distrust shaped COVID-19

skepticism. PLoS ONE 17(1): e0263191. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263191

Roberts HA, Clark DA, Kalina C, Sherman C, Brislin S, Heitzeg MM, et al. (2022) To vax or not

to vax: Predictors of anti-vax attitudes and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy prior to

widespread vaccine availability. PLoS ONE 17(2): e0264019.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264019

Saad, L. (2021, November 20). Global warming attitudes frozen since 2016. Gallup.com.

Retrieved

February 19, 2022, from https://news.gallup.com/poll/343025/global-warming-attitudes-

frozen-2016.aspx

Schoof, B., LaSalle, G., Schiff, E., & Zawora, M. (2021). Surveying the effect of the covid-19

pandemic ...
 - aafp.org. Retrieved February 18, 2022, from

https://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/patient_care/immunizations/vaccine-survey-

pandemic.pdf

Taussig, K. (2019). Science, Truth, and the American Way. American Anthropologist, 121(1),

196–200.

https://doi-org.ezproxy.fhsu.edu/10.1111/aman.13193