Scientific American Endorses Biden and Risks Losing Whatever Readership It Has Left
By: Alex Berezow, PhD (American Council on Science and Health)
President Joe believes in science. And scientists believe in President Joe. There's a whole lot of back scratchin' going on.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
One of the biggest mistakes that scientists have made in recent years is to become overtly political. Scientific American has taken it a step further and endorsed Joe Biden for President.
In its editorial, SciAm admits that it has never endorsed a presidential candidate in its 175-year history. There's a good reason for that. Science is not a partisan endeavor. But in recent years, it has increasingly become one, with scientists (and especially science writers) openly rooting for one side of the political spectrum.
For instance, a group called 314 Action has the mission of electing scientists into public office -- provided that they are Democrats. The March for Science, which began in 2017, was and continues to be a rudderless cabal of scientists and scientist wannabes united by meaningless progressive platitudes. Academia as a whole has become increasingly lopsided in terms of political diversity, and some even celebrate this fact.
At least the SciAm editorial is thoughtful and substantive. It rightly criticizes President Trump for exercising poor and inconsistent leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. But it should have stopped there. By endorsing Joe Biden, SciAm is further politicizing the scientific community, and in the process, the once preeminent magazine risks losing whatever readership it has left.
The Many Misdeeds of Scientific American
And that's assuming SciAm still has readers. We have written previously of the many misdeeds of Scientific American. In December 2019, I wrote:
SciAm published an article that made one outrageous claim after another. For instance, the authors wrote that climate change was turning vegetables into sugary snacks; GMOs and glyphosate are responsible for a multitude of chronic diseases, from diabetes to autism; and the true pathway to health is to tinker around with our gut microbiome. As I wrote at the time, "I've never before seen an article that so egregiously twisted and misrepresented a whole host of sciences -- from nutrition and agriculture to biotechnology and microbiology."
How something that egregious could make it through their editorial process is befuddling. That it happened over and again is a scientific abomination. SciAm later published a conspiratorial anti-5G article and another one ranting against modern medical science.
Visiting the SciAm website is sort of like a box of chocolates or playing Russian roulette; you never really know what you're going to get. Right now, one of the top stories is about how a molecule called phosphine suggests that there might be life on Venus, despite the fact that anyone with a basic grasp of astronomy knows that Venus is a completely inhospitable hellhole. There's nothing there.
Yet, instead of debunking the story, SciAm promoted it. Their subheadline read: "The unexpected atmospheric detection of phosphine, a smelly gas made by microbes on Earth, could spark a revolution in astrobiology." No, not exactly. Because SciAm is no longer in the business of practicing science journalism, that job fell (as it often does) to the excellent astrophysicist and writer Dr. Ethan Siegel, who wrote, "[B]etting that [alien life] is the answer is like buying a single lottery ticket and expecting to hit the jackpot."
There was a time when we would have expected much more of SciAm. But that time is long gone. Now, we get pseudoscience and politics. What a shame.
Tags
Who is online
134 visitors
Scientists are not only participating in politics, they're participating in partisan politics. Has Scientific American corrupted science? Or is Scientific American only giving its readership what they want?
It is important to note that the political discussion is presented in an editorial, which is essentially an opinion piece and nothing more. It does not relate to a specific scientific article or discussion. But the larger point being made is the hostility towards science, especially from the right end of the political spectrum. That hostility, especially with regards to the pandemic, only propagated ignorance, misinformation and confusion. What's truly sad is when people gravitate towards politicians for science related information over that of actual scientists.
Do not ignore that main stream scientists are increasingly becoming involved in political advocacy. Scientists are becoming politicians. There really are organized efforts within the scientific community to elect scientists to political office.
The 'hostility' toward science is taking place within the political arena. That's because main stream scientists are intruding into the political arena.
Do not ignore that such individuals are within a small minority and likely due to political influence and pressure. I would love to see scientists in political office. That means a potentially greater advocacy and support for science and education. A nation (and individual) cannot go wrong with that. Because clearly some politicians do not seem to care about science.
I'd say it's taking place within the general population.
More like the other way around.
Scientific American made the rational and reasoned decision to support the candidate who believes in science, especially in light of another candidate who denigrates science at every turn.
I plan to start reading it now.
Popular Science is another good read too.
Exactly. Science is probably the most important area of academics and learning. The economy, acquired knowledge, and even the future is based on science and scientific endeavors. Hostility or rejection of science only leads to stagnation, ignorance, and possibly even regression.
That's it? That doesn't seem like nearly enough. SA should be required reading in schools. Something to get kids interested and/or more exposed to science.
They reach over 10 million people. You have to take into consideration that there is a huge portion of the population in the US that don't believe in science as can be seen on a regular basis when Trump speaks.
I could go on but that should be good for a starter.
PS. I agree that it should be required reading in schools.
Indeed, which is a sad commentary on our society.
I wonder how many genders “scientific american” thinks there are?