I'm veering off-charter a bit. Do read the sidebar to your right for a learn to program gameplan.
I'm struck by a few things though, reading Mike Dwyer's Conservatives and Science at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen.
Dwyer quotes a bit about "the growth of regulatory science," and then says "we have a scenario where science is allowing itself to be politicized." He's talking from his perspective as a archaeologist and anthropologist. My question to him would be, what if you had been a fisheries scientist?
I think a parallel world Mke Dwyer, one who became a fisheries biologist, would view all this very differently. I don’t think he’d view the loss of North Atlantic cod as a “political” issue. I mean, politics are a reality of the mind. They are philosophy. A fishery that is gone for good is gone for good.
(For those who don’t track fish news, the North Atlantic has sadly entered a stable state without the return of cod. For a good read, see Cod: A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World)
Also for what it’s worth, I think “young earth evangelicals” were the wedge that split conservatism from science. I got a chem degree in the 70′s myself, and at the time that was compatible with Republicanism. Now, not so much.