Science is used differently by political decision -makers in different parties, discovers a new study

Societal challenges, from climate change to public health crises to progress in artificial intelligence, have been intrinsically linked to scientific progress for generations. But as politics becomes more polarized, the role of science in the creation of law is increasingly disputed.

A new northwest study published in Science This has analyzed the reports of the Congress Committees, the hearings of the Committee and the political documents of the reflection groups across the country have revealed that even if the political quotes of science have increased regularly over the past 25 years, the Democrats have the propensity to cite more often the impactful science than their republican counterparts in the development of policies.

The research team, led by the Kellogg School of Management, Dasnun Wang and Alexander Furnas, observed systematic differences in the quantity, content and character of the scientific data cited in politics by partisan factions in the United States

Wang is the president of Kellogg technology and professor of management and organizations in Kellogg and industrial engineering and Management sciences At the McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science, director of Kellogg’s Center for Science of Science and Innovation (CSSI), Northwestern Innovation Institute and Codirector of Kellogg’s Ryan Institute on Complexity. Furnas is an assistant research professor at Kellogg Cssi.

“Despite the recent cases of bipartite support for science, our study revealed partisan differences in the use of science which highlights a deep tension in the bond of science and politics,” said Wang.

Never mind political partyThe use of science in the development of policies has increased in the past 25 years. “In society today, many societal challenges are intrinsically linked to the latest scientific developments we have seen,” said Wang. “It’s welcoming to see that political decision -makers And the political documents they generate are increasingly based on scientific evidence. “”

Who quotes science, when and how?

Science is perhaps more adopted in the public sphere now against then, but when the researchers have analyzed the political documents created by leftist politicians against their republican counterparts, there was a clear disparity. They observed systematic differences in the quantity, content and character of the science they have used.

“We have found that the political documents of the Democrat controlled committees are almost 1.8 times more likely to cite science than those of the Republicans’ committees,” said Wang. “Regarding reflections, those on the left are five times more likely to cite science than those produced by those on the right.”

The researchers noticed that under democratic control, the Chamber’s Energy and Trade Committee cited science on abortion, driving in a state of intoxication, young people and electronic cigarettes, energy production and infrastructure, armed violence and mental health. When the Republicans checked the Committee, they were more likely to cite the insurance sciences of health care, air pollution, opioids or sports injuries in high school. But even when they focus on the same policy or problem, they do not cite the same science.

“All the items cited by construction are supporters, but we found that only 5% to 6% of scientific quotes are shared by the Republicans and Democrats,” said Wang. “This means that there is much less bipartite engagement with scientific literature than expected. They do not seem to quote the same articles.”

Confidence is often understood as the reason why science can be cited or not in the development of policies. Researchers have found that the marked decline in conservative confidence in science in recent decades, following increasing political polarization in the United States, can be confidence in science.

“Science is supposed to be considered as a politically neutral and confidence source of information,” said Wang. “But as our study suggests, different political parties cite different scientific sources to support their assertions.

Break the figures

The researchers have analyzed all reports from the Congress Committees since 1995, committee audiences since 2001 and 191,118 political documents published by 121 ideological reflections based in the United States after 1999. They also examined a database of publications and large-scale quotes which captures 122 million scientific publications through disciplines. Link of the two gave them the opportunity to examine the partisan differences in the use of science in politics.

Reflection groups – groups of experts who provide advice or ideas on economic and political issues – were an important set of data for researchers to examine during the analysis where and what type of science was cited.

“Reflection groups are a sub-studied field that has an extremely deep influence in the United States, unlike other democracies,” said Furnas. “Political production, generation of ideas and the construction of evidence occur in these private institutions. It was important to bring them into conversation with formal government institutions.”

Researchers also interviewed 3,500 United States political elites And the civil servants, asking how much they trust or be wary of science, whatever the political party. They found that 96% of the democratic elites made scientists fully or partially trust to disseminate impartial knowledge, compared to 63.7% of republican elites.

Real implications of the world today

Researchers continue to explore how political dynamics shape the relationship between science and the development of policies, including how evidence is produced, interpreted and used in different institutional contexts.

There are also real implications when scientific evidence is questioned. Furnas said the current rate and economic conflicts are a blatant example.

“There are economics on the impacts of prices. There is a vision of the consensus of economists on American trade policy based on evidence,” said Furnas. “But because different partisan actors have different commitments, this is when we could see people pick scientific facts. This is how you get the uncertainty of politicians.”