Theory: The policy learning and advocacy coalition framework emphasize
s the importance of journalists and scientists, as well as policymaker
s, in models of the policy process. At the same time, research from se
veral traditions suggests that elite opinion concerning the safety of
nuclear energy, genetic engineering, and other new technologies derive
s primarily from political ideology. We examine the attitudes of three
elite groups that influence policy governing new technologies. Hypoth
eses: Rothman and Lichter's provocative liberal bias theory suggests t
hat environmental and technological issues are not, as they appear, te
chnical policy issues, but proxies for older conflicts between left eg
alitarians and the corporate ''establishment.'' They expect journalist
s to be most skeptical of technological safety claims because they are
especially liberal and, in contrast, scientists to be free of ideolog
ical bias. Alternatively, differences among elite groups could be due
to more proximate beliefs, socialization or self-selection. Methods: A
telephone survey of random samples of scientists, journalists, and fe
deral government policymakers provides data on attitudes towards new t
echnologies, political ideology, and other characteristics. Ordinary l
east squares is used to estimate models. Results: Members of all three
elite groups are subject to ideological bias in their assessments of
technological safety. Yet, the small effect of profession remains afte
r controlling for a variety of variables.