[euroPoor]

I was not talking about bad science in general. I could say that in general, science seems to be in crisis [1] and pinning it down to people whose political affiliation does not suit your needs is reductive. Also, because there’s some different distributions does not mean leftwing = bad.

Another interpretation could be: the GOP platform is highly anti-science and most scientists wouldn’t want to be associated to such a horrendous organization which doubts scientific consensus regarding an issue that’s threatening the whole of civilization.

[1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-science-...

[traverseda]

Right, like I say I can show both of those things separately, but I can't demonstrate that they're correlated.

How would you go about finding that evidence? What would be sufficient evidence that they're correlated for you?

[euroPoor]

You put it in your question, right? I’d like to see a study that EXPLICITLY correlates political views and activism with measures of ‘bad science’ like no citations, impossible reproducibility etc

[traverseda]

I found a preprint of a study examining exactly that. I haven't had a chance to really read through it in depth though, so I can't speak to whether or not it's actually a good paper.

https://psyarxiv.com/6k3j5/

My naive first skim seems to demonstrate that political slant does have an effect on reproducibility, although it doesn't matter if that ideological slant is conservative or liberal.

It's not much, but it was tricky to find and it is what you're looking for. More research is needed.