Which Political Party Is More Science-Friendly?

Published in Science and Technology on Thursday, September 18th 2025 at 15:21 GMT by Time
^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Partisanship, Public Policy, and the Future of Science Funding

A new, nationally representative study has shed fresh light on how U.S. voters view federal spending on scientific research. Published this week by a team of political scientists at the University of Colorado Boulder, the research reveals a stark partisan divide that could shape the next wave of science policy debates in Washington. The Time article—linking directly to the full study, a policy briefing from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and a companion opinion piece in Science—offers a concise yet thorough snapshot of the findings and their broader implications.

How the Study Was Conducted

The researchers surveyed 2,000 adults across all 50 states in a March 2024 random-digit–dial phone interview. Respondents were asked a series of closed‑ended questions about their willingness to increase the federal budget for different categories of scientific research: basic (fundamental) research, applied research, defense and homeland security, space exploration, and public health. In addition to the primary questions, the survey included items that measured participants’ trust in scientists, perceived relevance of scientific findings to everyday life, and support for specific policy proposals such as a “clean‑energy innovation fund” or a “national science education initiative.”

The team used a mixed‑methods approach: logistic regression models to estimate the odds of “strong support” for each category, and a series of subgroup analyses to examine how age, education, income, and regional affiliation interacted with partisan identity. The study’s lead author, Dr. Emily L. Jones of the University of Colorado’s Department of Political Science, explains in the article that the design was chosen to “capture the nuanced ways in which ideological beliefs translate into concrete budget preferences.”

The Partisan Divide

The results were clear: Democrats were overwhelmingly more likely to endorse higher federal spending across all research categories. About 85 % of Democrats indicated they would support a 10 % increase in the overall science budget, compared to 48 % of Republicans. The largest gaps emerged for basic research and climate science—areas that, according to the study, many Democrats see as essential for long‑term innovation, whereas Republicans view them as less urgent or, in some cases, suspect of being “political” or “greenwashing.”

Interestingly, both parties showed relatively similar support for medical and public‑health research. About 78 % of Democrats and 65 % of Republicans said they would back increased funding for vaccine development and disease‑outbreak response. This overlap mirrors the bipartisan backing that has historically kept public‑health research on the federal agenda, even during partisan gridlock.

The study also found distinct priorities within the Republican base. A sizable fraction of Republican respondents (about 32 %) indicated a preference for allocating more funds to defense and homeland‑security research—an area that has traditionally received robust support from the Senate Armed Services Committee. Moreover, space exploration received a modest boost among Republicans (48 % in favor of a 10 % increase), suggesting that NASA’s legacy of “America’s first” can transcend partisan lines.

Ideology, Education, and Trust in Science

Beyond party identification, the study mapped how ideological strength and educational attainment shape attitudes toward science funding. Republicans with a “moderate” ideological profile (self‑rated as 4–6 on a 1–10 scale) were more open to increasing the science budget than their “strong‑right” counterparts, who displayed a pronounced reluctance. Meanwhile, among Democrats, those with a bachelor’s degree or higher were nearly twice as likely to support large‑scale increases as those with less formal education.

Trust in scientists emerged as a powerful predictor across both parties. Those who agreed that scientists “provide reliable information” were 2.4 times more likely to endorse a higher budget. The article notes that this finding aligns with a Pew Research Center survey that found trust in science has been declining among Republicans since the 2010s.

Policy Implications

The study’s authors warn that the partisan gulf could impede bipartisan legislation to modernize the nation’s science infrastructure. The AAAS commentary linked in the Time article argues that “the Senate’s science, space, and technology committees, now controlled by Republicans, may not prioritize the kinds of basic research that Democrats champion.” Yet the paper also points out a potential avenue for cooperation: a 2023 bipartisan bill that proposed a modest increase in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget for medical research—an area that the study shows both parties value.

Dr. Jones underscores that the policy context matters: “Even in a polarized environment, there is room for incremental gains if legislators frame budget proposals in terms that resonate with each side’s priorities. For Republicans, linking basic research to national security or economic competitiveness might bridge the divide.” The article also references a recent Science commentary that calls for “science literacy” as a political neutral ground where both sides can find common cause.

A Broader Conversation

Time’s piece ends by situating the study within a larger national conversation about the role of science in governance. It references a 2024 op‑ed in The New York Times titled “The Politics of Discovery,” which argues that science is not a neutral field but a political one shaped by funding decisions. The article highlights that while Democrats generally push for expansive, curiosity‑driven research, Republicans often emphasize applied, goal‑oriented projects tied to defense or economic competitiveness.

As Congress debates the upcoming fiscal year’s appropriations, this study provides policymakers and advocates with hard data on where partisan consensus might be forged and where ideological rifts remain entrenched. By illuminating the specific contours of public support, the research offers a roadmap for framing future science‑funding legislation that can appeal to both sides—especially in an era where the nation’s scientific competitiveness is on the line.

Links for Further Reading