Clarifying anti-reflexivity: conservative opposition to impact science and scientific evidence

Abstract

The recent study reported by McCright et al (2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 044029) extends current research on conservatives’ distrust of science by distinguishing between public trust in production versus impact scientists (i.e. those whose work yields new technologies and marketable products versus those assessing the health and environmental impacts of such technologies and products). As expected, they find that conservatives are significantly less trustful of impact scientists but somewhat more trustful of production scientists. In the process they provide support for the Anti-Reflexivity Thesis, a perspective that attributes conservatives’ (and Republicans’) denial of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) and other environmental problems and attacks on climate/environmental science to their staunch commitment to protecting the current system of economic production. McCright et al’s innovative study deserves replication, and their approach should prove useful in accounting for divergent views of ACC. It is also important to keep in mind that anti-reflexivity is an institutional and structural issue, becoming more consequential when it is employed by political elites such as the George W Bush Administration in the US. Institutional anti-reflexivity is further illustrated by the widespread denial of ACC and a range of other problems among current Republican members of the US Congress.