Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T00:49:18.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Scientists: A Profile of Congressional Candidates with STEM Backgrounds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2020

Matthew Motta Open the ORCID record for Matthew Motta [Opens in a new window]
Matthew Motta*
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Candidates with STEM backgrounds ran for Congress in record numbers in 2018. Understanding who participates in this form of “mobilized science,” and whether they are successful, is important because these candidates may campaign—and ultimately take action—to advance science-informed policies. However, whereas there is ample journalistic coverage of individual candidates, few scholars have studied them collectively. I constructed a novel dataset that allowed me to descriptively profile almost 200 STEM candidates who ran in 2018 and to explore correlates of their electoral success. I find that three quarters of the candidates were first-time congressional candidates, most of whom were Democrats and men. Democratic incumbents and candidates endorsed by the 314 PAC were significantly more likely to advance to the general election. I also find that women Democrats with STEM backgrounds are as likely (and perhaps more likely) to advance to the general election. I conclude by discussing how these findings advance the study of mobilized science in an increasingly partisan era.

Type
Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 202 - 207
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Brulle, Robert. 2017. “Critical Reflections on the March for Science.” Sociological Forum 33 (1): 255–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conroy, Meredith. 2018. “Primary Candidates 2018.” FivetThirtyEight (Data Repository). Available at www.github.com/fivethirtyeight/data.Google Scholar
Davenport, Coral. 2017. “Federal Agencies Told to Halt External Communications.” New York Times, January 25. Available at www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/some-agencies-told-to-halt-communications-as-trump-administration-moves-in.html.Google Scholar
Donner, Daniel. 2018. “Standard Congressional District Maps.” Daily Kos Elections. Available at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1whYBonfwlgTGnYl7U_IH31G0JNYQ9QBIjDfqkZHkW-0/edit#gid=0.Google Scholar
Fisher, Dana R. 2017. “Scientists in the Resistance.” Sociological Forum 33 (1): 247–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Dana R. 2019. American Resistance: From the Women’s March to the Blue Wave. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guarino, Ben, and McGinley, Laurie. 2018. “2018 Is the Year of Scientists Running for Congress.” Washington Post, March 4. Available at www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/03/04/2018-is-the-year-of-scientists-running-for-congress.Google Scholar
Koerth, Maggie. 2018. “Science Candidates on the Ballot.” FiveThirtyEight, November 6. Available at https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/2018-election-results-coverage.Google Scholar
Ledford, Heidi, Reardon, Sara, Mega, Emiliano Rodriguez, Tollefson, Jeff, and Witze, Alexandra. 2019. “Trump Seeks Big Cuts to Science Funding Again.” Nature. Available at doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00719-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maestas, Cherie D., Fulton, Sarah, Sandy Maisel, L., and Stone, Walter J.. 2006. “When to Risk It? Institutions, Ambitions, and the Decision to Run for the US House.” American Political Science Review 100 (2): 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mervis, Jeffrey. 2014. “U.S. Political Scientists Relieved That Coburn Language Is Gone.” Science, January 23. Available at www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/01/us-political-scientists-relieved-coburn-language-gone.Google Scholar
Mervis, Jeffrey. 2018a. “Meet the Scientists Running to Transform Congress in 2018.” Science. Available at doi:10.1126/science.aat3783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mervis, Jeffrey. 2018b. “A House Too Far: Two Scientists Abandon their Bids for Congress.” Science. Available at doi:10.1126/science.aau0136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mervis, Jeffrey. 2018c. “The Science Candidates: Kosper Builds Big Tent After Win in Texas.” Science. Available at doi:10.1126/science.aau3328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motta, Matthew. 2018. “The Polarizing Effect of the March for Science on Attitudes Toward Scientists.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51 (4): 782–88.Google Scholar
Motta, Matthew. 2020. “Replication Data for Political Scientists: A Profile of Congressional Candidates with STEM Backgrounds.” Available at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/2ASZ9B, Harvard Dataverse.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyhan, Brendan. 2017. “How Marching for Science Risks Politicizing It.” The Upshot, New York Times, May 2. Available at www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/upshot/how-marching-for-science-risks-politicizing-it.html.Google Scholar
Rauf, David S. 2018. “For Scientists Running for Congress, Victory Doesn’t Depend on Science.” Scientific American, July 17. Available at www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-backed-congressional-candidates-rack-up-wins-and-losses1.Google Scholar
Riley, Kim. 2019. “Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense Considers Cyberbiosecurity Threats.” Homeland Preparedness News, September 23. Available at https://homelandprepnews.com/countermeasures/36927-bipartisan-commission-on-biodefense-considers-cyberbiosecurity-threats.Google Scholar
Roberts, Timmons. 2018. “One Year Since Trump’s Withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement.” June 1. Available at www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2018/06/01/one-year-since-trumps-withdrawal-from-the-paris-climate-agreement.Google Scholar
Sifferlin, Alexandra. 2018. “Why More Scientists Are Running for Office in 2018.” Time Magazine, February 7. Available at https://time.com/5134417/scientists-running-for-office.Google Scholar
Stenhouse, Neil, and Heinrich, Richard. 2019. “Breaking Negative Stereotypes of Climate Activists: A Conjoint Experiment.” Science Communication 41 (3): 339–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoni, Terese, and Livingston, Jasmine E.. 2019. “Going Beyond Science-Policy Interaction? An Analysis of Views Among Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Actors.” Critical Policy Studies 12 (4): 448–68. Available at doi:10.1080/19460171.2019.1665564.Google Scholar
Wasserman, David. 2018. “New Pennsylvania Map Is a Major Boost for Democrats.” The Cook Political Report, February 20. Available at https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/house/pennsylvania-house/new-pennsylvania-map-major-boost-democrats.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Motta Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/2ASZ9B
Link