There are now over 400 responses to the survey. Here is a link to the responses in CSV format. If you import this into R, an extra parameter in regards to encoding may be necessary:
responses=read.csv(“responses.csv”,sep=”\t”,header=TRUE,fileEncoding = “UCS-2LE”)
I decided to separate the respondents into two categories, biologists and non-scientists (therefore, excluding other types of scientists from further analysis). You can see the filtered responses for biologists and non-scientists yourself. Below are some comments on interesting differences.
Non-scientists
Biologists
Completed Doctorate
57
19
Completed University
23
38
Feminist
36
46
Important to prenatala screen?
83
75
Abort if 90% chance Down syndrome?
79
83
Abort if 90% chance 80 IQ?
58
54
GMO should be labeled
45
39
Drink every day
16
30
Never drink
13
3
Non-environmental race differences in personality
64
54
Non-environmental race differences in intelligence
69
57
Non-environmental sex differences in personality
85
77
Non-environmental sex differences in intelligence
58
39
Overpopulation is a major problem we are neglecting
28
44
Believe in policy responses to fertility differences across groups
33
13
Gattaca is unrealistic
28
41
Blogs read regularly
Bad Astronomy
26
24
Cosmic Variance
19
15
Loom
22
32
Ed Yong
24
47
Pharyngula
16
24
Why Evolution is True
15
28
Marginal Revolution
36
18
Kevin Drum
11
3
Instapundit
14
6
Steve Sailer
48
26
Matt Yglesias
17
10
DailyKos
7
7
RedState
2
3
Sandwalk
4
15
John Hawks
43
43
Dienekes
47
40
Panda’s Thumb
8
3
It makes sense that people who say they’re biologists tend to be very well educated. One thing not evident explicitly in the table is that the biologists who read this weblog tend to be more conventionally Left-liberal in their views, and I think that explains some of the differences in response to questions such as …