Does the antiscientific climate in America affect decisions?

[tripax]

I know bringing up a subject like this on an internet forum is often a bad idea, but I have a question.

Do (international) students studying the sciences (especially evolution and genetics in biology, and sometimes anthrocentricism in physics) have reservations about coming to the United States to study, where things like Inteligent Design and the Templeton Foundation (which does not seem to support ID, but otherwise supports the convergence of religion and science) play such a large role in what is best funded, the direction of policy, and what is being taught in the high schools (and thus, presumably, untaught in recitation sections)?

I am not looking to flame or discuss how big of an effect these issues actually have on graduate level science programs, but rather if these issues are of a conccern to incoming students.

[Guest ogo]

I think the important thing to remember is how large the U.S. is compared to many industrialized countries, by land (vs. European countries) or by population (vs. even Russia, with half the U.S. population.) Only in an abstract way can one 'belong' to such a large and young nation, so people often find their identity by joining interest groups and insulating themselves from the vast outside -- true both of evangelicals and of academics, true also of indie rockers, management gurus, motorcyclists, etc.

The U.S. is rich, so you can find enough funding and support for almost any movement here. The urge to find 'people like me' and a secure identity is hard to resist. Furthermore the U.S. has not completely lost its religion, so many of these groups are religious in nature. But since we live in academia, which has protected itself from outside influence just as well as anybody else has, we're far more likely to hear received slightly-left-of-center opinion than anything particularly inspired by mainline Protestantism.

[PETRAL6]

I don't think he was talking about the feeling of belonging or the sharing of opinions, so much as he was talking about the funding for some sciences being affected by changes in policy that restrict certain types of research by pulling funding or only funding if touchy religious matter will not be affected by results. So, the possibility that areas such as genetics, anything with stem cell, sex research (kind of my field), evolution (and for that matter anthropology), etc. will be faced with reduced funding over the coming years. If I'm wrong in my interpretation of tripax, then let me ask that question. Again, not condemning any view, just wondering if funding possibilities waning in certain areas affect decisions to research in the US.

[tripax]

Petral6, umm, thats exactly what I meant to ask. Thanks.

[Guest Guest]

The concern should really depend on where you go in the US. If you go to the midwest or The South, you're bound to be shackled by stupidity and fundamentalism. However, northern and western states are quite progressive (eg. California defying Bush in its state-funding of stem cell research) .

[Ralphie]

I have to rise to the bait...

I'm just wondering if the questioner is serious? I think "America" has probably come to terms with the existence of evolution theory by now. I know a lot of lefties just love the idea that the US is some kind of fundamentalist Christian state in which their "enligtened" views are quashed (usually by some unholy alliance of capitalists and/or "the religious right" and/or "the Jewish lobby" and/or "the oil industry" and/or "rightwing pressure groups"), but the reality is that the world of academia is almost exclusively leftwing and secular. I have no problem with that. And in a country with literally 100s of top drawer universities, I'm sure anyone can find a niche in which their ideological dogma (whether that's evolution or ID) wouldn't be questioned.

By the way, which country is it that teaches both evolution and intelligent design in science and religious education lessons? Which country is it that has compulsory daily collective worship in state schools? No, not the Evil Empire, but the enlightened, secular, progressive United Kingdom. Religious tolerance. Open debate. All good reasons to be proud of my country, and I'm atheist.

[PETRAL6]

Academia is not the problem. And I'm not saying my views are more "enlightened." Just saying that some ares of science are having government funding decreased because of changes in policy. If you don't want to bring religion or politics into the discussion, you don't even have to. Areas related to sexuality, stem cell research, and several other areas are not being funded as well as in the past and as a result, much of the research in these areas is now being done in other countries. Does this encourage more people to consider other countries to study, and/or make them less likely to want to study in the US if they are in these fields?

[Ralphie]

To be anything more than logically sound, you'd have to demonstrate that funding is being withheld from research on issues such as sexuality for "policy" reasons. I find that unlikely. Even within geography queer theory (not to mention queer theorists) flourish -- good research projects are funded irrespective of the "Bush administration" (or whatever malevolent homophobic force is being blamed). I'd love to know what sexuality-based research we're all missing out on because of the Dark Forces of Conservatism. Stem cell research is a different matter, I can accept. The US has chosen largely not to participate in what many see as a global market in commoditized human life, so presumably anyone interested in nurturing and destroying stem cells would be unlikely to feed their desires in the US. (In the same way, the US government has chosen not to participate in the lucrative process of training the next generation of Jihadists at taxpayers' expense.) I think the position on stem cell research is confused at best. How that is extrapolated to "America" being "antiscientific" though I'll never know.

[PETRAL6]

Research on social issues such as sex education research IS being withheld. Studies that seek to discover the effects of different types of sex education can not be done because only the programs that are abstinence only are funded. Also research that studies biological differences versus social origins of homosexuality is often not funded if it might suggest a biological difference. Other instances of a trend toward less government funding can be found at the following sites:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr03/obstacles.html

http://www.aegis.com/news/ap/2004/AP040144.html

http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/vnews/ ... cfb88ad9b7

http://www.hivdent.org/researcht/resnNDDG022004.htm

http://www.aegis.com/news/bayw/2003/BY031001.html

http://www.taconic.net/re-search/kinsey ... search.htm

http://research.unc.edu/rs/archive/betw ... _sexuality

http://www.uwire.com/content/topnews112304002.html

Mind you, I do not agree with everything that is said on all of these websites, but they show a trend in funding away from and attempts to defeat funding for sexuality research even where public health is affected. If you read a few of these, I think it will demonstrate that policy is affecting these decisions. Also, I personally never said that polcies were un-scientific, I said some areas of science are being affected. I also made no reference to homophobia or a dark force, only in this post (and not before) did I mention a publishing bias in studies of nature v. nurture in homosexuality because of funding. Your extrapolation is what is causing this extremist view, so that I look like I am some extreme left wing nut. You put words into my mouth so that you can justify thinking I have some kind of conspiracy theory and completely ignoring that there is a trend in decreasing funsing because you have not ever seen evidence of this (and I'm assuming never attempted to, because this would affect the way you want to think). If you want evidence against my claim, I will concede head of the NIH is currently supporting research in these areas and fighting congressional attempts to decrease funding. However, it is ultimately in the hands of congress in many instances. There are people on both sides of the aisle and throughout the country who believe this type of research is frivolous. I don't agree. I also believe that the democratic system insists that the majority rule, and feel that if the country agrees in not funding these issues they shouldn't be funded. Back to the original question, before I was questioned on the veracity of my claims and then told I was basically demonizing the conservatives, does this affect where some scientists in this field choose to go. For me, the answer is no because I feel I can still do some research and don't want to leave my country, but international students may be more affected in a decision to move here if they are in these fields.

[Ralphie]

Yes, sorry -- the "antiscientific" comment referred to the title of the thread.

Anyways, I dragged it way off-topic. Have a moral victory

I also believe that the democratic system insists that the majority rule, and feel that if the country agrees in not funding these issues they shouldn't be funded.

I haven't read through those links too thoroughly, but so far as I can see the objections are largely based on the utility of the research rather than ideology. I haven't asked "most Americans" what they think, but I wouldn't mind betting that they would oppose having their tax money spent on seeing if pornography arouses people. I'm glad it doesn't work in that way though. If majority rule were the only criterion, I should think the only publicly-funded research that would ever take place would be to cure cancer. Remember, with reference to the evolution/ID issue "the majority" believes literally in the bible's account of creationism. Additionally, the majority probably opposes -- rightly I would say -- having its children used to test "the effects of different types of sex education". I wouldn't want any child of mine randomly assigned to the "let's see what happens when we have an amoral "health educator" dolling out free contraceptives like sweeties from age 11" group [for the results of that trial, see British sex education, and teen pregnancy rates, since c. 1960].

As to the question, whether it would put off international students -- I doubt it. Unlesss, in the case of the UK, they read The Guardian or watch the BBC they wouldn't be aware of this "issue". But such people hate America and everything it stands for anyway, so I'm sure it would not be the deciding factor.

[PETRAL6]

More extremism... ok... all sex research is watching porn and handing out condoms to little kids. Also, sex education which does do things like give advice on birth control/ condom use (maybe not at 11, but some places... yeah, it's needed that young to make sure that they are told to use protection before having sex) doesn't reduce the amount of sexual activity but does reduce pregancy and stds somewhat. Abstinence only does neither. Sorry, this is off-topic, but I am not going to allow false information stated as fact when it is opinion. Mine is opinion supported by studies.. You can be against my opinions, but you better have evidence before you make everything so extreme. I am against kicking puppies for fun... does that mean that all animal research is bad and immoral, because thats the types of comparisons you're making here.

[Ralphie]

[Just to clear one thing up first -- I did not suggest that teaching abstinence is necessarily effective or desirable. So no "false information" there, nor even an opinion for that matter.]

I don't want to do a Bill O'Reilly and claim that because you brand me "extremist" I win automatically -- although he's got a point about that being a fairly common reflex position -- but it is tempting .

I'm not even a conservative for God's sake!

You're against kicking puppies for fun? Well, we can agree on that :shock:

Leaving any rhetoric aside -- which part of this is wrong?:

1. You stated that the majority view on whether research is acceptable should determine whether it receives public funding. No doubt.

2. You gave examples [in your links] of where funding was being withheld from (or at least opposed for) particular types of projects: the differential responses of lesbian/straight women to porn, and "experimenting" with liberal sex education programs in schools. You may have chosen different words, but substantively, that''s uncontroversial.

3. I suggested that the majority would probably oppose their money being spent on research into the differential responses of lesbian/straight women to porn. Additionally, I suggested that the majority would probably oppose "experimenting" with liberal sex education programs on their children. Almost certainly the case.

4. If you accept 1-3, I suggest, logically, that you should oppose such research. Personally I don't buy the value-for-money argument (particularly as it would render virtually all geography [my subject]research dead). I do, however, draw a moral line in the sand when it comes to "what if?" questions about whether new forms of permissive indoctrination "work". You flinch at age 11, but that's precisely how it is here, so hardly an horrific exaggeration.

[PETRAL6]

I said first of all that you were labeling me an extremist. Second, I said your examples were extreme... which they are with the context you used. Watching porn and measuring arousal with no context, and giving out condoms to 11 year olds like candy. I didn't flinch at 11... I was admitting that some people think it unecessary at 11 to give out condoms. However, that again was an extreme example that is not the same as educating at 11 about birth control at a level they may understand. Also, the abstinence only thing has been the experiment. Up until recently public schools often taught other options and policy has made it abstinence only despite research. I could care less about your stance. i like to play devil's advocate as well ( and don't even try to make that that I am calling conservatives the devil... it's a common phrase), but you have to have support for your views, not outrageous claims that make many people recoil at the suggestion to get them to agree to your other stances by reflex.

[PETRAL6]

Also, I never said that this research should be funded by the government. I was the one who said majority opinion should rule. However, that does not mean that I cannot oppose it withj my votes or not allow people to get gut reaction votes for the other side by not saying the other side. Why does letting the research not be funded by the government mean I personally should oppose it. TYhat's just nonsense. If I think public money should be determined by the majority, that does not mean my viewpoint should be passively determined to be that of the majority (voters and/or congress members). I was just stating the point that the direction leads scientists interested in doing the work to go to other countries.

[yasmine]

I said first of all that you were labeling me an extremist. Second, I said your examples were extreme... which they are with the context you used. Watching porn and measuring arousal with no context, and giving out condoms to 11 year olds like candy. I didn't flinch at 11... I was admitting that some people think it unecessary at 11 to give out condoms. However, that again was an extreme example that is not the same as educating at 11 about birth control at a level they may understand. Also, the abstinence only thing has been the experiment. Up until recently public schools often taught other options and policy has made it abstinence only despite research. I could care less about your stance. i like to play devil's advocate as well ( and don't even try to make that that I am calling conservatives the devil... it's a common phrase), but you have to have support for your views, not outrageous claims that make many people recoil at the suggestion to get them to agree to your other stances by reflex.