Science knowledge shifted along religious, political affiliations

Science knowledge shifted along religious, political affiliations
Luke Novack, a senior majoring in biology and sociology, and Joseph Jochman, a doctoral candidate in sociology, break down the findings in their latest research, published in the Sociological Quarterly. Credit: Greg Nathan | University Communication

The public's trust in, perception and understanding of science seems to be eroding, according to popular media and some recent studies, but little is known about what may be driving that change.

Sociology at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln published research in the Sociological Quarterly that examined how science knowledge and curiosity are associated with both religious beliefs and political ideologies. They found neither religiosity nor was related to overall scientific curiosity, but differences were found when looking at scientific knowledge.

Researchers culled data from 2011, 2014 and 2015 Nebraska Annual Social Indicators Surveys, which had asked questions relating to such topics as evolution, disease, microbes, vaccinations, science identity and scientific curiosity, among others.

Joseph Jochman, lead author of the paper and doctoral candidate in sociology, said the most salient effects of religious affiliation were found regarding scientific knowledge.

"In line with past studies, we found certain questions have strong religious associations," Jochman said. "People of conservative Protestant faiths tend to answer questions such as humans and apes share a or death is a part of the biology of life with less accuracy than people who identify as mainline Protestant, Catholic or other religious faiths or no religion."

Political affiliation associations with scientific knowledge were split on specific topics. For example, liberals in Nebraska were more than four times as likely to answer accurately how vaccinations work than conservatives, but those with other were less likely to answer accurately that a vaccine helps rather than harms.

On the flip side, conservatives were more likely to answer accurately that disease can result from interactions between genes and environment.

"The results show a very complicated picture, but that's understandable because science is many different facets," Jochman said. "As do religion or politics."

Julia McQuillan, professor of sociology and co-author of the paper, said the results demonstrate that science has been politicized.

"Scientists hope that science is apolitical," she said. "But we take in and code information based on our perspectives – including political ideology and ."

McQuillan said the communicating to the public is increasingly important, but that this research demonstrates the need for scientists to be aware of predispositions and biases in the audiences with whom they are communicating.

"People do have these filters and if we want to share evidence-based information, we need to pay attention to those filters, often based in religion and politics," she said.

The study was also authored by Alexis Swendener, a recent doctorate in sociology, and Luke Novack, a senior majoring in sociology and biology.

Explore further

Exploring the ideological antecedents of science acceptance and rejection

More information: Joseph C. Jochman et al. Are Biological Science Knowledge, Interests, and Science Identity Framed by Religious and Political Perspectives in the United States?, The Sociological Quarterly (2018). DOI: 10.1080/00380253.2018.1481726
Journal information: Sociological Quarterly

Citation: Science knowledge shifted along religious, political affiliations (2018, November 26) retrieved 22 September 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 26, 2018
Among other things, answer questions with "less accuracy"? Meaning, answer questions less in line with the dogma the "scientists" insist on. Galileo was not accepting of the unquestioned philosophies of his day, but is respected now. Alfred Wegener said continents move and no one believed him. East European women practiced inoculation before Jenner proposed vaccination. Saying death is a part of the biology of life sounds like trying to convince the gullible that death is necessarily inevitable. Note the playing with words, saying "vaccines don't cause harm". Vaccines should not cause harm, but what they dispense today are not vaccines! They also have powerful chemicals! Colorations alone in some medications can cause serious reactions! And note the discovery that a "peer reviewed" article on "climate change" was wrong. And billions of dollars in projects are based on the unproved claim that blacks are necessarily the same as whites.

What a missed opportunity of properly interpreting the findings. What they really tell us is, that beliefs in a dogma, be that religious or a political party worldview, cut us off from reality, force us to mentally censor what we read, see and otherwise witness in nature and life. They make us like Julian believers in overpopulation and resulting overexploitation of our planet incl. climate damage not happening, because Church officials preach that all what counts are the more the better believers. More followers mean more profit and power for the cult.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more