Anti-science, party lines, and GMOs

http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/4/1/2158244013518932

            I think this study might be especially relevant when considering the intersection of science and policy.  If you do not have the time to read the entire study, the discussion is especially worth reading as it summarizes the main points.  If you do not have the time to read the discussion, then just read these two sentences:

“…party identification is virtually irrelevant to skeptical attitudes toward science issues. With the sole exception of the relationship between Democratic identification and support for stem-cell research, partisanship is not significantly related to any of the issues considered here. Given the nature of elite-level discourse on evolution and climate change, this is a rather unexpected finding.”

            As a left-leaning college student, I have always had the perception and bias that conservatives were the “anti-science group”.  This was especially reinforced by perceptions surrounding the climate change and evolution debates.  However, after considering the GMO debate and this article, it seems better to view the conflict between policy and science not in terms of which groups are “anti-science”, but looking at which groups hold stakes that would be threatened by a specific scientific issue.

            In the GMO debate, it seems that Republicans are actually pro-GMOs, which aligns with national and international scientific organizations that show GMOs do not pose any inherent risk, while Democrats are anti-GMOs.  While the factors influencing these views are complex, I think some guesses can be made as to why party lines predict which group is “anti-science” in this specific case.

            For example, farmers tend to be Republican and may form a constituency that Republicans need to consider.  To farmers, GMOs are a clear benefit.  They help increase yield and help protect against loss.  The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, for example, officially supports regulating GMOs, but not the mandatory labeling of GM foods.  A study conducted at Illinois State University and a study conducted by Economic and Social Research Council in the UK show that farmers tend to judge GM crops based on their benefits and merits and regard GM as a simple extension of previous plant breeding techniques.  On the other hand, the opposition towards GMOs of liberal and Democratic groups may have its roots in general skepticism of large corporations like Monsanto and interest in protecting consumers from such corporations.