Follow the Science
Bubba
18 Sep
Is the dividing line between science and politics eroding? (National Review)
The latest: On Monday, Scientific American made its second-ever endorsement by coming out in support of Kamala Harris.
The long-running popular science magazine endorsed President Biden in 2020.
Nature, a prominent science journal, endorsed Harris in July and Biden during the 2020 cycle.
The Scientific American Editorial Board:
In the November election, the U.S. faces two futures. In one, the new president offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience. She pushes policies that boost good jobs nationwide by embracing technology and clean energy. She supports education, public health and reproductive rights. She treats the climate crisis as the emergency it is and seeks to mitigate its catastrophic storms, fires and droughts. …
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.
The vibes: Studies have shown that the scientific establishment has experienced a decline in trust, partially due to its wading into politics.
Zoom in: A 2023 study analyzing the effects of Nature’s Biden endorsement found that it “caused large reductions in stated trust in Nature among Trump supporters.”
It also "reduced Trump supporters’ trust in scientists in general," but had little to no positive effects on Biden supporters.
Bubba’s Two Cents
Ironically, I think it’s extremely anti-science to venture outside your lane of expertise and make a pronouncement that puts your professional credibility into question. Scientific American’s statement (which confuses a moral question like reproductive rights with a scientific matter) shows its editors have no interest in seeing the world outside their blinkered perspective. Where is the humility and respect for open inquiry that lies at the heart of science?