ANS -- Why are scientists leftist? Shouldn’t they be neutral?

I am going to give you the URL of a long article. It is called 

Why are scientists leftist? Shouldn't they be neutral?

Find it here: 

Why are scientists leftist? Shouldn't they be neutral?

Why are scientists leftist? Shouldn't they be neutral? Erik Engheim If science is supposed to be objective, then why are not scientists politically neutral?

It's too long to copy and paste when I know most of you won't read it, but this is the part that really struck me as important (besides the line, "We could flip around the question, and instead of asking why scientists are left-wing, instead take the position that they represent the objective center. Thus the question can be rephrased: Why is the average Joe so conservative?")  

In the article he tries to define left and right and show that scientists are, indeed, more to the left than non-scientists.  

 Here is an excerpt from it:

It is in the very nature of science that you cannot know the outcome of what you seek. You cannot know exactly how what you discover will benefit humanity or maybe even hurt humanity. When Albert Einstein developed his famous equation:

He could not have known that this would be an important piece in developing nuclear physics and later harness nuclear energy. Nor could Wilhelm Röntgen have known that his examination of X-rays would later lead to the development of important medical equipment.

Antonie van Leeuwenhoek made microscope lenses to study yarn fabric. He could not have known that he would discover micro-organisms and that medical science would be revolutionized by gaining the insight that desease was cause by tiny organisms we could not normally see.

When physicists Nils Bohr, Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg and Erwin Schrödinger developed quantum mechanics they could not have foreseen how this would enable the creation of the transistor and other semi-conductors which would lead to the computer revolution.

Mathematics is even more obtuse. If you ever venture into reading the history of mathematics, you will be surprised how so much was discovered purely from curiosity and intellectual joy of figuring out intriguing mathematical questions, which had no obvious utility at all. E.g. in the 1700s the great mathematician Leonard Euler defined the theorem:

aᴺ⁻¹≡1 (mod N)

It would take hundreds of years before this became the basis of what we call public-key encryption, which secures most of the internet today. It is the foundation of computer security.

Thus a scientists and a mathematician cannot prove their worth by making something you obviously need right here and now. But over time they make the most radical transformations of society possible. What scientists do fit poorly into a philosophy which places markets above all else. Science cannot be given a market price. When Euler made his theorem or Einstein wrote E=mc2, could a free market system have given these discoveries a monetary value? Highly unlikely.