今天部: 你是怎么对这个话题感兴趣的？

卡拉汉说: We’re political scientists who work in the field of public health. We’ve noticed, over the course of the pandemic and the research we’ve done, that partisanship mattered to a lot of health attitudes and behaviors. 我们认为这是一个适当的时机，开始推动公共卫生官员、领导人和澳门威尼斯人注册网站研究人员开始在他们的调查中纳入政治和党派关系的措施。 几乎没有澳门威尼斯人注册网站研究这样做。 我们自己的调查澳门威尼斯人注册网站研究将包括这些措施，它们很重要。

莫塔: There just aren’t that many political scientists doing public health research. 我们所有人都倾向于相互了解，并经常在一起工作。

今天部: 除了疫苗接种，两党还在哪些健康措施上存在分歧？

莫塔: 我们看到，在获得生殖健康方面，这也在发挥作用。 在《平价医疗法案》（Affordable Care Act）下扩大医疗补助计划（联邦和各州为穷人提供的医疗项目）的问题上，蓝州渴望接受； 许多红色州拒绝了。 在将医疗保险扩展到一些最弱势的社会成员方面，存在明显的党派动态。

I published some research suggesting that even if we were to develop a cure for cancer, if Joe Biden’s name were attached to it, Republicans would be more likely to reject it than Democrats. I’d go so far as to say that there’s often an asymmetric form of partisanship, where Republicans tend to be more likely to take aim at science.

卡拉汉说: Matt and I have done research recently in the area of mental health—the 988年的生命线 is the 911 alternative for those in mental health crises. Republicans are less apt to support it [and] to use the lifeline because Republicans, being more conservative, are distrustful of mental health medicine, the way they’re distrustful of vaccination medicine. Republicans tend to be more individualistic—pull yourself up by your bootstraps—whereas Democrats tend to be more egalitarian, viewing society as a place where we’re trying to pull others up as well.

We’re not trying to say that partisanship is the only thing that matters. 地理位置很重要。 无论你住在城市还是农村地区也很重要。 你的教育，你的收入，你的种族，所有这些事情仍然很重要。 党派之争与所有这些都息息相关。 你住在哪里，受教育程度，所有这些都受到你的党派倾向的影响。

莫塔: 今年秋天我有一本书即将出版，我在书中探讨了对科学权威的信任在左翼和右翼的政治化。 共和党人和民主党人在对科学界、政府、卫生和科学机构的信任方面存在很大差异。

今天部: 医生和其他临床医生也应该问他们的病人这些问题吗？

莫塔: I’m not a clinician. [But] inasmuch as partisanship puts people at risk of not adhering to the best, evidence-based health behavior, I do think that’s something that is worth asking in those initial intake surveys. 它可以帮助医生进行更有建设性的对话，以了解他们的病人来自哪里。

卡拉汉说: 医生获得额外的信息可能是一件好事。

今天部: 不问党派关系有什么缺点？

卡拉汉说: If we’re not accounting for it in our efforts to explain health attitudes and behavior, we’re missing a potentially relevant explanatory factor, which may elevate the role that other factors appear to play, when in fact they don’t. 不询问党派关系也会让你错失与人沟通的机会。 If Republicans and Democrats differ in their receptivity to evidence-based medicine, then that should help formulate the ways in which we try to communicate with people and speak to them on their own terms, to portray the science in a way that’s amenable to their world needs. We can’t do that if we don’t know the role that their different worldviews play in shaping them.

今天部: 调查对象是否会因为有关所属组织的问题而犹豫不决？ 一些调查者和临床医生会不会不愿意问这个问题？

莫塔: 这69项调查中的大多数都是在线匿名的。 这减少了在别人面前调整自己行为的倾向。 In an anonymous survey that I take online, no one’s watching me.

卡拉汉说: One of the reasons government agencies and nonprofit organizations have been hesitant to ask questions about partisanship is, they don’t want to appear to be partisan themselves—由于我们的税收状况，我们有强制要求，我们不想看起来像是在推动某一方而不是另一方。 We understand why you need to maintain a nonpartisan status. But asking a question about whether someone is partisan doesn’t make you partisan. It makes sure you’re collecting as much information as you can, so that we can make a healthier world.

党派之争包含了很多东西——社会取向，对政府规模的看法，你的一些道德信念。

莫塔: 例如，疫苗因宗教身份而被极度道德化。 Tim and I have done research suggesting that people who strongly value bodily purity, who have a tendency to view their bodies as a temple, don’t want to put any foreign substances into it for risk of doing bodily harm. 这些人往往都是高度虔诚，高度保守的人。

今天部: Virtually 没有宗教 objects to vaccination.

莫塔: 他们的宗教没有，但他们的政党有。 蒂姆和我的一个朋友有一本书即将出版，书中说人们倾向于根据他们的党派关系来更新他们的宗教信仰，而不是相反。 We’re literally talking about questions of life and death and the afterlife being shaped by our partisanship.

今天部: I’ll leave a church if I don’t like its politics?

莫塔: 是的。 我认为，在塑造社会行为方面，党派之争是世界上最强大的力量。