This morning, at American Council for Science and Health, science writer Cameron English blasted Scientific American for endorsing Kamala Harris for President in the upcoming U.S. election: “It’s a senseless, shortsighted move that will inflame America’s disdain for science.”

Image Credit: Premreuthai - Adobe Stock

He added, however, “The upside is that it could incentivize needed reforms in our ideologically slanted academic and public health institutions.”

How?

A poison pill, apparently:

Several high-profile scientists blasted SciAm for once again endorsing the Democratic nominee for president. “A science magazine should not be endorsing presidents,” evolutionary biologist Colin Wright tweeted. “This is why you have lost all credibility. And yes, I’d be equally critical if you had endorsed Trump.” Behavioral scientist Gad Saad was less gentle: “Authoritarian Leftist partisanship has hijacked everything: academia, science, journalism, medicine, business, law, entertainment, culture, Justice system, etc.”

Several other influential academics were equally critical of SciAm’s endorsement on the grounds that it would further undermine the public’s trust in science. They’re correct, but we’re long past the point of pressuring science institutions to revert to ideological neutrality. The only real solution is to allow them to engage in naked partisan advocacy until they erode their dwindling credibility with Americans. After that, we can begin replacing them with credible institutions that actually advance science.

Cameron English, “Scientific American Endorses Kamala Harris. Here’s Why That’s a Good Thing,” ACSH, Sep 17, 2024

English cites a number of areas of serious corruption in science, prefacing his comments with “The unfortunate reality is that mainstream science–the existing cohort of academic journals, universities, popular publications, and regulatory agencies–is ideologically corrupt to the core. Scientific American’s endorsement of Harris is a clear indicator of this devolution, but there are many others worth highlighting.”

Scientific American versus science consensus?

One example English cites: “The American Academy of Pediatrics endorses ‘gender-affirming care’ in healthy children, bucking the growing global consensus of health professionals.” Indeed. Wesley J. Smith noted here recently that a top children’s doctors’ conference featured two speakers pushing that point of view who in no way represent what most pediatricians or parents think (or what the global consensus thinks).

Image Credit: daphnusia - Adobe Stock

And as Smith noted yesterday, the SciAm endorsement also retails urban legends around Harris’s opponent, former president Donald Trump:

For example, the editorial repeats the lie that Trump told people to inject bleach to fight Covid. From the editorial:

“Trump touted his pandemic efforts during his first debate with Harris, but in 2020 he encouraged resistance to basic public health measures, spread misinformation about treatments and suggested injections of bleach could cure the disease.”

No. He. Did. Not …

Trump was floating a half-baked idea — which was not helpful. But he never told people to inject bleach or any other substance into their bodies …

How can an editorial in a supposedly factually based scientific publication be trusted as dispositive when it pushes a lie that has repeatedly been debunked — even by Snopes? This alone should discredit SA as a reliable guide to voting.

That’s one of the problems when scientists engage in political partisanship — they become persuaded that abandoning accuracy is a form of righteousness as long as it helps the Good party win.

But — and this is the point that the scientists-turned-partisans miss — once people come to see them as partisans, one thing is sure to happen: Those people will stop believing the scientists even when they insist that they are speaking as scientists. They may well be right. But how is a layperson to know? And in a serious matter, why should we take a chance?

Trust in science is in steady decline

The public has noticed, sort of. Among Americans, public trust in science has declined sharply in recent years, with further declines clocked in 2023 and in 2024.

Explanations (why, why, why don’t people trust science any more?) are all over the map. Tribal loyalty, too much information, and lack of outreach all strut their stuff — and the decline continues. Maybe English is onto something.

Kudos to Cameron English for raising a serious question that may bear on the future of public funding of — as well as trust in — science.

You may also wish to read:

1. Why many now reject science… do you really want to know? COVID demonstrated — as nothing else could — that the “science” was all over the map and didn’t help people avoid panic. As the panic receded, the government started setting up a disinformation board to target NON-government sources of panic, thus deepening loss of trust.
2. Researchers: Distrust of science is due to tribal loyalty. In Part 2 of 4, we look at a claim arising from a recent study: We blindly believe those we identify with, ignoring the wisdom of science. There seems to be no recognition that researchers, however fiercely competitive among themselves, also have a tribal loyalty that skews their judgment.
3. Researchers: If we tell folks more about science, they trust less. The researchers argue that doubts about science arise from conflict with beliefs. The many COVID-19 debacles suggest other causes… Generally, the remedy for loss of trust after widespread failures is reform of the system, not reform of its doubters. Post-COVID, scientists should take heed.

and

4. Claim: If science were properly presented, trust would grow! The ideas examined in these four short essays all assume that scientists are exempt from the bias and self-interest that governs everyone else. We’re asked to believe that scientists are somehow exempt from the bias problem ingrained in our biology — yet they have the same biology as everyone else…