On Monday, Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world, published an editorial explaining its rationale for endorsing political candidates. This was in the context of a study published in Nature Human Behavior that day, showing that electoral endorsement by scientific journals may lead to a loss in public trust.

In the study, participants were randomly assigned to either receive information about Nature’s 2020 endorsement of Joe Biden for the presidential election, or alternatively, details about the journal’s recent layout and logo redesign. As one can probably imagine, study participants who were supporters of former President Donald Trump, who were given information about Nature’s support for Biden, had a less favorable view of the journal as an informed, impartial source and came away from the study as less trusting of U.S. scientists more broadly.

The study stated that it is unclear, at this point, whether these observed attitudes will endure over time. In its editorial, Nature acknowledged the possible costs associated with voicing a preference for electoral candidates, including a loss of trust in science, but "[c]onsidering the record of Trump’s four years in office, this journal judged that silence was not an option."

As someone who left the academic sciences due to the politicization of research, I can only chuckle sadly at witnessing where intellectual inquiry is headed. Scientists are only human, yes, but a good scientist, regardless of one's voting record, will try to be aware of personal biases and intentionally seek out ways of correcting for them. Mixing science with politics is anathema to the scientific method because unbiased science does not neatly support one political candidate or another.

When purveyors of science begin siding with the political Left (or the Right), it speaks to larger desires and, potentially, predetermined outcomes. Critically minded people, regardless of political affiliation, have every right to become skeptical.

Considering that academia is dominated by left-leaning members, including within the sciences, I don’t expect political bias to be eradicated from this discussion anytime soon. For example, a recent study found, across 150 leading colleges, that for every conservative student, there are 2.5 liberal students. And within the scientific disciplines, 1 in 5 students (and 1 in 10 staff members) identifies as "far-left."

At the end of the day, scientific journals are welcome to endorse whichever political candidates they’d like, but they should forgo any claims to science, impartiality, or objectivity in doing so.