At City Journal, public health analyst Joel Zinberg argues that one cause of the waning of public trust in science is science media’s foray into partisan politics:

In only the second presidential election endorsement in its history, Scientific American urged readers to “Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment.” Two months earlier, Nature, the prestigious British science publication, extolled Harris’s background as the daughter of a scientist and her support for diversity initiatives in STEM, a single-payer health insurance program, abortion rights, and climate change, enthusing that her candidacy has “stirred optimism among scientists.”

Both publications broke with their traditional nonpartisanship in 2020 when they endorsed Joe Biden. Similarly, the normally nonpolitical New England Journal of Medicine published an October 2020 editorial castigating the Trump administration and unfavorably comparing its pandemic response to that of China, which “chose strict quarantine and isolation.” Trump administration officials, the editorial alleged, were “dangerously incompetent. We should not abet them and enable the deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing them to keep their jobs.”

“Thumb on the Scale,” October 31, 2024

Even at the time, Zinberg points out, the responses the science media demanded from government were not obviously better than the ones the government chose — a fact that diminished the moral authority of the science media.

Trust in science continues to erode, according to Pew Research:

Overall, 57% of Americans say science has had a mostly positive effect on society. This share is down 8 percentage points since November 2021 and down 16 points since before the start of the coronavirus outbreak.

About a third (34%) now say the impact of science on society has been equally positive as negative. A small share (8%) think science has had a mostly negative impact on society. November 14, 2023

It’s not really a bargain

While politicians may benefit from the endorsement of Scientific American, it’s hard to see how Scientific American itself benefits. Political rather than scientific motives will be assumed to drive editorial policy, with continuing erosion of trust.

Interestingly, this is not a typical after-the-fact explanation. Zinberg wrote this item last Thursday, well before U.S. election day and the outcome was widely reported to be in doubt up to the last day.

You may also wish to read: 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 instead of fixing themselves — thus deepening loss of trust.