For the second time in its 179-year history, Scientific American, which has become increasingly lame in its science reporting but increasingly “progressive” in its politics (see all my posts about this rag here), has decided to endorse a political candidate. I consider this endorsement—or any ensorsement—an abrogation of institutional neutrality that should go with science journals and magazines. I am opposed to science magazines making political or ideological statements in general. Of course Sci Am endorsed Harris, but I’d be just as opposed if they had endorsed Trump.) My main objections to an endorsement per se are fourfold:

1. It’s performative, designed to show the virtue of the magazine, and will accomplish nothing.
2. It’s been shown that when science journals endorese political candidates, it reduces not only the credibility of the journal, but of science itself in the eyes of the public.
3. The purpose of a science magazine is to present science, not endorse ideologies or politics. If ideological endorsements becomes normal—and they are becoming normal—then science magazines will morph into political magazines.  It’s as if the National Review published an editorial endorsing string theory.
4. If you argue that the endorsement is simply because Trump would do more damage to the scientific enterprise than would Harris, then why does the endorsement include a lot of issues that have nothing to do with that mission: like approving of Harris’s stand on abortion? (Again, I’m firmly on her side in this, but science magazines shouldn’t be giving endorsements for debatable issues like abortion.)

Blame editor Laura Helmuth, who has taken the magazine to its present depths and must have approved this endorsement.

But let someone more articulate than I give his critique: writer Tom Nichols writing in The Atlantic. I’ve also put a link Scientific American’s long endorsement below. Click to read, or find the Atlantic piece archived here.

Like me, Nichols considers Trump a scientific ignoramus and someone whose actions, during the pandemic, almost certainly injured people:

I understand the frustration that probably led to this decision. Donald Trump is the most willfully ignorant man ever to hold the presidency. He does not understand even basic concepts of … well, almost anything. (Yesterday, he explained to a woman in Michigan that he would lower food prices by limiting food imports—in other words, by reducing the supply of food. Trump went to the Wharton School, where I assume “supply and demand” was part of the first-year curriculum.) He is insensate to anything that conflicts with his needs or beliefs, and briefing him on any topic is virtually impossible.

When a scientific crisis—a pandemic—struck, Trump was worse than useless. He approved the government program to work with private industry to create vaccines, but he also flogged nutty theories about an unproven drug therapy and later undermined public confidence in the vaccines he’d helped bring to fruition. His stubborn stupidity literally cost American lives.

It makes sense, then, that a magazine of science would feel the need to inform its readers about the dangers of such a man returning to public office. To be honest, almost any sensible magazine about anything probably wants to endorse his opponent, because of Trump’s baleful effects on just about every corner of American life. (Cat Fancy magazine-—now called Catster-—should be especially eager to write up a jeremiad about Trump and his running mate, J. D. Vance. But I digress.)

Catster??!  Was Cat Fancy considered politically incorrect, perhaps implying that people were having sex with cats? But I digress, too. For after noting the above, Nichols still disagrees with Helmuth’s decision to endorse Harris.

Strange as it seems to say it, a magazine devoted to science should not take sides in a political contest. For one thing, it doesn’t need to endorse anyone: The readers of a magazine such as Scientific American are likely people who have a pretty good grasp of a variety of concepts, including causation, the scientific method, peer review, and probability. It’s something of an insult to these readers to explain to them that Trump has no idea what any of those words mean. They likely know this already.

And here are the reasons Nichols opposes political endorsements in general. The bold headings are mine.

They won’t sway the readers. Nichols has already said that the readers are too savvy to be influenced by the magazine. Indeed, I felt patronized when I read the endorsement, even though I agree in the main with the article’s opinions about Trump. And, Nichols says, Trump voters have pretty much made up their minds and won’t be swayed by what this magazine says:

Now, I am aware that the science and engineering community has plenty of Trump voters in it. (I know some of them.) But one of the most distinctive qualities of Trump supporters is that they are not swayed by the appeals of intellectuals. They’re voting for reasons of their own, and they are not waiting for the editors of Scientific American to brainiac-splain why Trump is bad for knowledge.

Well, there are people on the fence, and perhaps they might be influenced, right? Perhaps. But one of the biggest arguments about science magazines taking ideological stands is that they reduce the public’s trust in both the magazine and science. This is pretty well known from the Nature study cited next:

Political stands of magazines reduce public trust in science.

In fact, we have at least some evidence that scientists taking sides in politics can backfire. In 2021, a researcher asked a group that included both Biden and Trump supporters to look at two versions of the prestigious journal Nature—one with merely an informative page about the magazine, the other carrying an endorsement of Biden. Here is the utterly unsurprising result:

The endorsement message caused large reductions in stated trust in Nature among Trump supporters. This distrust lowered the demand for COVID-related information provided by Nature, as evidenced by substantially reduced requests for Nature articles on vaccine efficacy when offered. The endorsement also reduced Trump supporters’ trust in scientists in general. The estimated effects on Biden supporters’ trust in Nature and scientists were positive, small and mostly statistically insignificant.

In other words, readers who supported Biden shrugged; Trump supporters decided that Nature was taking sides and was therefore an unreliable source of scientific information.

To me this is the most important issue, and is why I keep my political views out of lectures on science, like when I’m defending evolution. I could go on and on in such lectures about how Republicans oppose evolution far more than do Democrats, and thus the audience should vote Democratic, but that would accomplish nothing save reduce my credibility about evolution. “Coyne must be pushing this issue because he’s a Democrat,” they’d say.

The Scientific American editorial ventured into fields that had little or nothing to do with science, and also dealt with debatable issues that can’t be “scientifically” settled.

But even if Scientific American’s editors felt that the threat to science and knowledge was so dire that they had to endorse a candidate, they did it the worst way possible. They could have made a case for electing Harris as a matter of science acting in self-defense, because Trump, who chafes at any version of science that does not serve him, plans to destroy the relationship between expertise and government by obliterating the independence of the government’s scientific institutions. This is an obvious danger, especially when Trump is consorting with kooks such as Laura Loomer and has floated bringing Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s crackpot circus into the government.

Instead, the magazine gave a standard-issue left-liberal endorsement that focused on health care, reproductive rights, gun safety, climate policy, technology policy, and the economy. Although science and data play their role in debates around such issues, most of the policy choices they present are not specifically scientific questions: In the end, almost all political questions are about values—and how voters think about risks and rewards. Science cannot answer those questions; it can only tell us about the likely consequences of our choices.

. . . . Also unhelpful is that some of the endorsement seemed to be drawn from the Harris campaign’s talking points, such as this section:

An endorsement based on Harris’s tax proposals—which again, are policy choices—belongs in a newspaper or financial journal. It’s not a matter of science, any more than her views on abortions or guns or anything else are.

This implies that it might be okay if the magazine endorsed Harris because her election is better for science than the election of Trump. That might well be true, but we can’t be sure (after all, both candidates are making promises they can’t keep). More important, even if the endorsement were based on the proposed effect on science in the U.S., it’s still based on politics and ideology (Scientific American is hardly politically neutral!), and is outside the ambit of what the magazine should be about. Readers may disagree, of course, and feel free to do so in the comments. But I’d feel the same way not only if they endorsed Trump, but also if a journal like Nature of Evolution endorsed any presidential candidates.

Here’s Nichols’s conclusion:

I realize that my objections seem like I’m asking scientists to be morally neutral androids who have no feelings on important issues. Many decent people want to express their objections to Trump in the public square, regardless of their profession, and scientists are not required to be some cloistered monastic order. But policy choices are matters of judgment and belong in the realm of politics and democratic choice. If the point of a publication such as Scientific American is to increase respect for science and knowledge as part of creating a better society, then the magazine’s highly politicized endorsement of Harris does not serve that cause.

But have a look at Sci Am’s endorsement below (click on the headline or find it archived here):

The topics covered in the endorsement are healthcare (a debatable issues on what kind to provide), reproductive rights, gun safety, environment and climate, and technology.  Except for the undoubtable presence of anthropogenic climate change, which is a scientific reality that Trump has denied, all of these issues involve political differences.  Now I agree with Helmuth Scientific American and Harris on nearly all these issues, and, indeed, I go further than most in my permissive views on abortion (I favor unrestricted abortion up to term). But I know that many regard abortion as murder, and how up to what point in gestation we should permit abortion is simply not a scientific issue. Gun issues, too, are a debatable proposition, and, of course, if you’re going to bring up issues that bear on science, then Title IX and gender ideology, in which I think the Trump administrator has done better than Biden, should make an appearance (they don’t).

Further, the op-ed gives credit to Harris for things that the Biden administration actually did, referring to the accomplishments of the “Biden-Harris” administration, as if they were one person and as if Harris had a major role. As Harris has emphasized repeatedly, “I am not Joe Biden.”

But this is all pilpul.  The main point is that, in my view, science magazines should stay out of politics. If they want to publish articles about global warming, or the effect of gun laws on human lives, that’s fine, but let the readers absorb the scientific information and make their own judgments.  To tell them how to vote is both patronizing and a slippery slope that could lead to the politicization of all science journals and magazines. (In fact, that’s already happening; have a look at the Lancet or Nature.)