Political Scientists have decided that they no longer want to be weighed down by the cumbersome baggage of science -- ugh research, as in done by scientists. While political scientists are not necessarily politicians, some are, and many others influence the outcome of politics. An added annoyance is that the activist leftist media typically sympathizes with the thousands of scientists who form a growing chorus claiming that their research is ignored by politicians. It has become painfully obvious that scientists are invariably getting in the way of politics, and as well, the copious science reporting skews public opinion. The public now has the utmost respect for scientists, whereas politics gets none.
Scientists, pffft, what do they do besides complain? The easy life. Write a few research grants, supervise research, submit the papers to peers, jostle for journal publication, prevent loafing grad students from setting fire to toxic reagents in the spiffy new science wings.
Now imagine the unsurmountable strife of the political scientists. Busy fending off ruckus causing scientists, no longer can they retire to "Old South Hall", that ivy smothered granite campus building, where their office is tiered from floor to ceiling with papers, books, thesis drafts, and abandoned term papers - reams of yellowing proof of academic achievement. No time to tutor timid undergrads on the harsh rigors of tenure. No time to venture out, rub tweeded elbows at the faculty club, chuckle with those in the know, vie for those coveted government spots. Now political scientists are wasting precious time fighting the ever pesky bevy of scientists who insist belligerently that everyone "Look At The Data".
Due to all these factors, the political scientists' choice to circumvent science altogether is fairly easy to understand. What can they do? Certainly it would be far easier if political scientists could just publish their own science research.
And so faster than a celebrity changes their name, political scientists are doing just that. It was reported that three political scientists: Dr. John Alford, Dr. John Hibbing, and Dr. Caroline Funk of Virginia Commonwealth University, published their research analysis of twin studies, in which they derived the genetic component of political views, in the political science research in the American Political Science Association journal. The New York Times also summarized their research. These 'scientists' took two research studies done by the other scientists on twins, and "combed" the research for indications as to whether political instincts and party affiliations were genetic. They found that political instincts are. There! No need to argue with their conclusions (though others certainly have) because they are scientists.
It's only several trivial political hurdles before "Political Scientists" up the ante, drop the clumsy "Political" part of their title, and adapt the more streamlined and sexy "Scientist" moniker. There are hefty government grants to win and Nobels to capture. Discussions are ongoing (among men) as to whether to complete the makeover with goatees, or beards. Or perhaps the clean-shaven, innocent looking visage.
It will no doubt make things easier. Science is in need of constant refuting - in schools and courts, on Presidential Advisory Councils, in the portraited halls of the Bush Administration, and at international conferences. Gobbles up precious publishing and hobnobbing time. Think of political redistricting, as one of the authors often does. The possibilities are endless. If political views are genetic. But we don't think they are. Voila!
Leave a comment