Kamala Harris endorsement by Scientific American magazine sparks criticism: 'Extremely problematic'
An Atlantic writer expressed a desire to see more scientists addressing the trade-offs involved in the current situation.
On Monday, the Scientific American magazine faced criticism after it declared its support for Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee for the 2024 presidential election.
The outlet also slammed Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
The magazine has made its second presidential endorsement since its founding 179 years ago, with the first being four years ago when it supported Joe Biden in 2020.
The editors stated that Harris' plans aim to enhance the nation's health care system, tackle gun safety, climate change, and reproductive rights.
The new president presents a promising future for the country by focusing on science, evidence-based policies, and a willingness to learn from past experiences. She advocates for job growth through the adoption of technology and clean energy.
Trump, Harris' contender, was written to have ignored the climate crisis in favor of more pollution.
The magazine published that in the future, the new president poses a threat to public health and safety by disregarding evidence and promoting baseless conspiracy theories.
A medical journalist pointed out the "danger" of the scientific community aligning with political factions, as many critics on X have reacted negatively to the endorsement.
Liz Highleyman, a medical writer, stated that science is political.
"Science funding and public policy are influenced by political decisions, while scientific data impacts political decisions. However, there is a risk that the perception that science belongs to one side in political and cultural conflicts can lead to danger."
Derek Thompson's post about Scientific American's endorsement prompted a reaction from Highleyman and others.
Thompson wrote that he wished he saw more scientists grappling with the tradeoffs at stake, citing a study that showed how Nature magazine's endorsement of Biden hurt trust in scientific expertise during the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to Thompson, a 2023 study found that the endorsement of Joe Biden by the journal Nature led to significant decreases in stated trust among Trump supporters.
The study's endorsement lowered the demand for COVID-related information from Nature and reduced Trump supporters' trust in scientists in general, according to him.
A software engineer who is another account holder stated that the endorsement was "very problematic."
An academic journal's impartiality is its credibility, but it fails to convince and alienates many.
An author, Paul Midler, observed that the outlet's focus has shifted from scientific writing to public policy.
According to Midler, Scientific American has historically emphasized the study of hard sciences such as astrophysics, physics, and biology.
"Its articles have increasingly focused on social sciences and public policy due to a lack of interest in science among Americans."
Anna K. Gorisch, an immigration attorney, stated that science should remain neutral in politics.
Earlier this year, Scientific American faced criticism and mockery for an article stating that Harris's mother's cancer research background would give her a scientific perspective as president.
media
You might also like
- Kamala Harris defies the stereotype of a typical Democrat.
- The Biden-Harris administration remains silent on certain issues.
- Kamala Harris was criticized for using a repetitive phrase in her speech, prompting the question: "Why does she do this?"
- Trump admits he regrets not confronting ABC moderators during the debate: "I wish I had"
- CNN's Bash suggests that you could play a drinking game for every time Harris repeats the same talking points.