Scientific American's endorsement of political candidates is a significant departure from tradition, suggesting a desire to warn the public about the dangers of anti-science political leaders. Historically, the magazine has focused on science and technology journalism for 179 years, and this endorsement reflects a sense of urgency regarding the implications of scientific ignorance in leadership. The frustration with political figures like Donald Trump has likely fueled this decision, as his actions during a pandemic showcased profound neglect of scientific advice.
Endorsing political candidates can undermine trust in expert institutions like Scientific American. By aligning with specific political figures, such publications risk alienating readers who may explore scientific content with skepticism. Instead of being seen as neutral arbiters of science, they may be viewed as partisans, which could ultimately detract from their credibility and influence in promoting science and technology issues.
This magazine endorsement reflects deep discontent with current political leadership, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, where misinformation and ignorance led to widespread harm. The editorial decision to endorse Kamala Harris—only the second in the magazine's history—implies a perceived necessity to push back against anti-science attitudes that threaten public health and trust in expertise, marking a significant shift in its approach over nearly two centuries.
The endorsements from Scientific American are indicative of a broader trend among media and scholarly institutions grappling with the intersection of politics and expertise. As the political landscape becomes increasingly polarized, there are pressing questions regarding how these organizations can maintain their integrity while addressing the dangers posed by ignorance in governance, thus calling into question the balance between advocacy and neutrality in the pursuit of scientific truth.
Collection
[
|
...
]