Conservatives Lose Faith in Science over Last 40 Years

A new academic analysis finds conservatives expressing more and more distrust in science in recent decades, particularly educated conservatives

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Conservatives' trust of science has gradually decreased over the past 40 years, beginning perhaps when empirical research was increasingly used to justify government regulations, according to a new academic analysis.

The study, appearing this week in the April edition of the journal American Sociological Review, identifies a 25 percent drop among conservatives who express trust in the scientific community since 1974. That decline is striking to researchers because conservatives were more trusting of science than other political groups when data were first collected nearly four decades ago.

Today, they are the most distrustful, while the attitudes of liberals and moderates have held steady. The conservatives' migration into negativity makes liberals the most trusting group now, by default.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


"[T]his study shows that public trust in science has not declined since the 1970s except among conservatives and those who frequently attend church," the study concludes.

The research also challenges popular beliefs that increased academic achievement and educational outreach will persuade people to believe in the scientific underpinnings of issues like climate change and evolution. It doesn't work that way, says Gordon Gauchat, the author and a postdoctoral fellow at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Conservatives tend to be about even with liberals in terms of attaining high school and undergraduate degrees, he said. But the research suggests that well-educated conservatives are more skeptical of science than their less-educated counterparts.

"That was the biggest surprise finding," Gauchat said in an interview. "Highly educated conservatives are more fluent in what the [conservative] ideology means and its relationships with institutions. So they understand where the conflicts lie, what the value system is. In other words, they're more ideological."

'Regulatory science' cools support
The research also casts doubt on a social science hypothesis that predicts a wide-ranging decline in public trust in science across all social groups. The idea that there would be a backlash against a rising "technocratic authority" that uses science is challenged by the exclusive scope of conservative distrust, the paper says.

Instead, Gauchat settles on a third concept proposed among social scientists -- the "politicization thesis," which predicts that conservatives alone will feel alienated from science as it is increasingly used to justify regulatory regimes.

"Regulatory science directly connects to policy management and, therefore, has become entangled in policy debates that are unavoidably ideological," the paper says. "The shift toward regulatory science that began in the 1970s could account for conservatives' growing distrust in science, given this group's general opposition to government regulation."

In recent years, that disdain for regulations is perhaps illustrated nowhere as sharply as in the debate around climate change, Gauchat said. By coincidence, the paper is being published the same week that the Obama administration released its landmark rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants.

The study also provides a warning about the potential impacts of losing conservative support for science.

"Transformations in the organization of science could change how the scientific community relates to large transnational corporations and private venture capital," the paper says. "These concerns are particularly relevant when we consider global climate change -- and growing public skepticism toward the problem."

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe