First, academia is not a monolith. While our study may suggest that all academics are liberal, it is important to admit that the data we analyzed – political donations – is only a proxy for what people actually think. We don’t capture every scientist with this method since not everyone donates to political campaigns. In fact, most people don’t donate to any candidate at all.

According to surveys, many academics have traditionally considered themselves moderate. The question, then, is how to communicate to the public the diversity of political views in academia, given the degree of current polarization, and how to elevate these other voices.

Second, the evident left leaning of academia is not necessarily proof of a “liberal bias” that some people worry is corrupting research and impeding the pursuit of truth. Overall, higher education does appear to have a liberalizing effect on social and political views, but universities also play an important role in the formation of political identity for young conservatives.

We believe that clear data about academia’s left-leaning orientation, as well as understanding the underlying reasons for it, could help interrupt the feedback loop of declining scientific trust.

For now there’s a shortage of centrist and conservative scientists serving as trusted messengers. By engaging in public conversation, these scientists could offer visible alternatives to the anti-scientific stances of Republican elites, while at the same time showing that the scientific world is not homogeneous.

This article is republished from The Conversation, an independent nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. The Conversation has a variety of fascinating free newsletters.

Read more:
Why do science issues seem to divide us along party lines?

Scientists need to become better communicators, but it’s hard to measure whether training works

Alexander Kaurov receives funding from Harvard University.