(This article was originally published at Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science, and syndicated at StatsBlogs.)
I was thinking recently about two subcultures in the United States, public or quasi-public institutions that are central to our country’s power, and which politically and socially are distant both from each other and from much of the mainstream of American society.
The two institutions I’m thinking of are science and the military, both of which America excels at. We spend the most on science and do the most science in the world, we’ve developed transistors and flying cars and Stan and all sorts of other technologies that derive from the advanced science that we teach and research in the world’s best universities. As for the military, we spend more than the next umpteen countries around, and our army, navy, and air force are dominant everywhere but on the streets of Mogadishu. Neither institution is perfect—you don’t need me to give you examples of corruption, waste, and failure in science or in the armed forces—and it’s not my goal here to defend or boost either institution. I think we can all recognize that the U.S. is pre-eminent in both fields.
The other striking thing about science and the military in the United States is their distinct cultures.
When I say “distinct,” I don’t mean “completely separate.” Young people enter the army, navy, and air force for a few years and then return to civilian life. From a recent survey, we estimate that nearly half of Americans would say they know someone in active duty. And lots of Americans have had contact with scientists, whether from taking a science class in college or from informal social networks—maybe you coach Little League and your assistant coach happens to be a scientist, for example.
Both science and the military are part of American life, yet they are distinct communities with their own sets of values. And politically distinct too. Scientists tend to be liberal Democrats; armed service members tend to be conservative Republicans. These are not just correlations; they feel central to the identity of these groups. For a paradigmatic scientist, truth and tolerance and open inquiry are liberal virtues; while for a paradigmatic soldier, duty and honor and patriotism are conservative virtues. I’m sure these points could be made more carefully and with the support of survey data—and there are differences of opinion within each group, too—but I think the general point is right, that the scientific and military communities are political in a way that wasn’t so much the case, decades ago.
Politics and science, and politics and the military, have never been separate—consider, for example, the postwar unmasking of Russian spies in the scientific establishment, the conflict between the generals and the soldiers in Vietnam, and Ronald Reagan’s appointment of an anti-environmentalist to head the EPA, and the revolt against Bill Clinton’s gays-in-the-military plan—but, again, I think we’re now in a new era of heightened polarization.
It’s not about economics—much of science is government-supported, and of course the military is entirely so and has indeed been described as one of the last bastion of socialism in the world. Each group thinks of this as money well spent. And the public by and large agrees.
From a Pew survey in 2015:
– 79% of adults say that science has made life easier for most people and a majority is positive about science’s impact on the quality of health care, food and the environment.
– 54% of adults consider U.S. scientific achievements to be either the best in the world (15%) or above average (39%) compared with other industrial countries.
– 92% of AAAS scientists say scientific achievements in the U.S. are the best in the world (45%) or above average (47%).
– About seven-in-ten adults say that government investments in engineering and technology (72%) and in basic scientific research (71%) usually pay off in the long run. Some 61% say that government investment is essential for scientific progress, while 34% say private investment is enough to ensure scientific progress is made.
I kinda wonder who are the 8% who think that U.S. scientific achievements are not above average in the world . . . but I guess you can get 8% of the people to say just about anything!
What about the military? According to Gallup in 2015:
– One in three Americans say U.S. is spending “too little”
– Another third of Americans think U.S. is spending “too much”
– The U.S. has long held the distinction of having the largest military budget of any nation, and the 2014 budget nearly matched the spending of the 10 next-largest national military budgets. Twenty-nine percent of Americans feel the U.S. budget’s size is “about right.”
The Gallup report notes that there have been times in recent years when as many as 40-50% of respondents have said that we spend too much on the military—but, even then, that’s 50-60% who think we spend too little or about the right amount.
So, overall, it seems that voters feel they’re getting value for the money on our science and military spending, concerns about string theory and $600 toilet seats aside.
I don’t have any particular conclusion here. I just think this is an important topic in understanding current American politics. Other politicized institutions include journalism, education, and health care. It’s natural to consider such institutions and their subcultures one at a time, but I think much can potentially be gained by considering them together as well.
Full disclosure: My research is partially supported by government science funding, including from the Office of Naval Research and Darpa, and I’ve worked with colleagues on a survey of military personnel. I’m not currently working on any military projects but, given that they’re funding me, I have to assume that the work we are doing could well have applications in those areas.
The post How is science like the military? They are politically extreme yet vital to the nation appeared first on Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.
Please comment on the article here: Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
