News/Commentary

Scientific American mag slammed for rare presidential endorsement and criticism of Trump: ‘Very problematic’

September 17, 2024 | | Print Article

The argument that science shouldn’t take sides in the political landscape led to pointed criticism of one magazine’s endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris.

In its nearly two centuries of publication, Scientific American magazine made its second presidential endorsement on Monday, announcing the historic move as they formally backed the Democrat ticket.

“For only the second time in our 179-year history, the editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president. That person is @KamalaHarris,” the magazine’s social media account posted.

The endorsement along with the magazine blasting Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump sparked backlash as many warned of the “danger” of the scientific community openly taking sides in the political arena.

The editors touted a potential Harris presidency as one that “offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience” while Trump in office again “endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”

Amazingly, the editors claimed that they “evaluated Harris’s record as a U.S. senator and as vice president under Joe Biden, as well as policy proposals she’s made as a presidential candidate” and still deemed her the one to back, claiming Trump’s record in office was “disastrous.”

Covering the topics of healthcare, reproductive “rights,” gun “safety” and the environment, Scientific American laid out the lengthy op-ed with all the glowing reasons why Harris is the best choice.

“One of two futures will materialize according to our choices in this election. Only one is a vote for reality and integrity. We urge you to vote for Kamala Harris,” they concluded.

“I wish I saw more scientists grappling with the tradeoffs at stake here,” Atlantic writer Derek Thompson posted about the Scientific American endorsement.

“In fact, a 2023 paper found that the journal Nature’s endorsement of Joe Biden caused large reductions in stated trust in Nature among Trump supporters,'” he added, citing a study of Nature magazine’s endorsement of Joe Biden in 2020.

That endorsement “lowered the demand for COVID-related information provided by Nature” and “reduced Trump supporters’ trust in scientists in general,” according to the study.

Thompson’s comments and the Scientific American endorsement prompted more concerns on X.

Acknowledging that “science is political,” one medical writer warned that there is still a real risk in having science tied to political or cultural causes.

“Political decisions affect science funding & scientific data influences public policy. But there’s a real danger in the perception that science ‘belongs’ to one side in the political & culture wars,” Liz Highleyman wrote on X.

Author Paul Midler lamented that the magazine pivoted from writing about science to “public policy.”

“Scientific American was historically focused on hard sciences like astrophysics, physics, and biology,” he wrote. “Increasingly, its articles have addressed social sciences and public policy. They had no choice since ‘Americans’ weren’t really interested anymore in ‘Science.'”

Others on X sounded off on the “very problematic” endorsement.

Frieda Powers
Latest posts by Frieda Powers (see all)

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Latest Articles