<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Chris Mooney</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/chris_mooney/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 01:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Scientists hate the GOP for a reason</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/scientists_hate_the_gop_for_a_reason/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/scientists_hate_the_gop_for_a_reason/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The American Prospect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arizona State]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chris Mooney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13168239</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Arizona State's Daniel Sarewitz says his colleagues should support more Republicans. They may not have the luxury]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.prospect.org"><img style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/10/TAP_new_logo6.png" alt="The American Prospect" align="left" /></a> One of the great political shifts in the past decade has been the move of scientists toward the Democratic Party, a casualty of the Republican Party’s war on reality. It’s not about politics for scientists, it’s about the fact that only one party accepts scientific findings on everything from global warming to evolutionary theory to <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/06/06/the_new_york_times_confirms_that_emergency_contraception_only_works_by_suppressing_ovulation_.html">what does</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/rep-todd-akin-legitimate-rape-statement-and-reaction.html">doesn’t prevent</a> pregnancy. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/only-six-percent-of-scien_n_229382.html">Only 6 percent of scientists identify as Republican</a>, whereas 55 percent identify as Democratic. In October of 2012, <a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/technology/news/2012/10/17/41914/68-nobel-prize-winning-scientists-endorse-obamas-science-policies/">68 Nobel-winning scientists co-signed a strong endorsement</a> of Obama, saying the President “has delivered on his promise to renew our faith in science-based decision making.” Which is why it was so strange to read Daniel Sarewitz, co-director of the Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes at Arizona State University, <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/science-must-be-seen-to-bridge-the-political-divide-1.12119">argue in <em>Nature </em>that it’s wrong for scientists</a> to throw their weight behind electing Democrats.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/scientists_hate_the_gop_for_a_reason/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/scientists_hate_the_gop_for_a_reason/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>112</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Progressives don&#8217;t hold a monopoly on science</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/progressives_dont_hold_a_monopoly_on_science/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/progressives_dont_hold_a_monopoly_on_science/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 23:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific Standard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chris Mooney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science Left Behind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Republican Brain]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13161313</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The conservative co-author of a book on partisan science answers his critic from Pacific Standard]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.psmag.com/"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 0pt 0pt;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/08/PacificStandard.color_1.gif" alt="Pacific Standard" align="left" /></a> Any book that touches upon politics almost automatically angers half of the American public, regardless of what is written inside of it. It takes a special person—an objective, open-minded and self-critical one—to read and learn from a science book that criticizes people with whom the reader likes and agrees with politically.</p><p>Recently, <em>Pacific Standard</em> published a review (<a href="http://www.psmag.com/magazines/january-february-2013/republican-brain-science-left-behind-chris-mooney-alex-berezow-hank-campbell-50439/">“Red Science, Blue Science,”</a>January/February 2013) by Wray Herbert, a pop psychology writer,of political writer Chris Mooney’s book <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Republican-Brain-Science-Science-/dp/1118094514/">The Republican Brain</a></em> and my new book, <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Science-Left-Behind-Feel-Good-Anti-Scientific/dp/1610391640/">Science Left Behind</a></em>, which I co-authored with Hank Campbell.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/progressives_dont_hold_a_monopoly_on_science/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/01/03/progressives_dont_hold_a_monopoly_on_science/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>93</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
