Scientific American, renowned for its historical commitment to science journalism, has faced criticism for straying into political activism. After the resignation of Laura Helmuth, recent op-eds have sparked debate over the blend of feminism, climate policy, and science. Critics point to articles advocating for gender-focused environmentalism and psychosocial arguments regarding puberty blockers as evidence of the magazine's departure from its founding mission. Many observers worry that this trend undermines the publication's reputation and legacy as a trusted source of scientific knowledge, leaving loyal readers concerned about its direction.
Feminism gives us the analysis, tools and movement to create a better climate future... We must redistribute resources away from male-dominated, environmentally harmful economic activities towards those prioritizing women's employment.
Since its founding in 1845, it has published articles by more than 200 Nobel laureates. Yet for some time now, it has been wandering from science to politics.
Other articles published since her departure include a defense of puberty blockers... and a first-person perspective of a Just Stop Oil campaigner's arrest.
It appears that little has changed... this kind of activist journalism would leave the magazine along with former editor Laura Helmuth.
Collection
[
|
...
]