The politicization of science during the COVID-19 pandemic by the likes of Dr. Anthony Fauci brought about a notable decline in public trust in scientific institutions. Thankfully, these institutions have learned their lesson and are now steering clear of the political fray to maintain their objectivity.

Just kidding.

The publication Scientific American, which covers science news and regularly publishes scientists sharing their findings with the world, just endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president. The editors cite everything from abortion to gun control to random economic policies, breezing over what any of this has to do with, well, science. 

“Only one of these [candidate’s visions] will improve the fate of this country and the world,” the editorial reads. “That is why, for only the second time in our magazine’s 179-year history, the editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president. That person is Kamala Harris.”

The editors of Scientific American are of course entitled to vote privately for whomever they please. But to weaponize the credibility of their scientific institution to denounce one side of the political spectrum and endorse another is short-sighted and irresponsible. It accomplishes nothing but the destruction of the magazine’s hard-earned reputation.

“If Scientific American truly cared about science, they’d know that political endorsements by ostensibly scientific publications do not affect people’s views of political candidates and actually undermine public confidence not just in those publications but in science as a whole,” evolutionary biologist Colin Wright explained.

He wasn’t the only expert to criticize the publication’s move. 

“It took [Scientific American] almost two centuries of dedicated, creative, principled effort, by thousands of scientists, writers, & editorial staff, to build up its reputation & credibility,” psychology professor Geoffrey Miller said on X. “The new editors & staff are happy to throw away every ounce of that credibility if it can buy them even a tiny sliver of transient advantage in a political election.”

The most pathetic thing about this ploy is that it likely won’t even have any effect. This isn’t speculation; we can simply look at what happened when another scientific publication, Nature, endorsed Joe Biden in 2020. 

A study examining the impact of this endorsement found that its effect on Biden supporters was “mostly statistically insignificant” and that there was “little evidence” that the endorsement changed anyone’s views of Biden and former President Donald Trump. However, it did find ample evidence that it caused Trump supporters to lose trust in not just Nature as a publication but also in scientists in general.

“These results suggest that political endorsement by scientific journals can undermine and polarize public confidence in the endorsing journals and the scientific community,” the study’s author concluded. 

No kidding. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Scientific publications have no business wading into partisan politics and are no more equipped to litigate disputes over abortion, guns, and other hot-button issues than anyone else. Their endorsements accomplish nothing except empty virtue-signaling, yet they do real harm to the scientific community, which, rightly or wrongly, gets blamed for their bias. (These publications are adjacent to scientists but aren’t typically run by scientists themselves.)

What Scientific American is doing is a disgrace. When the last shreds of its credibility disappear and its readership inevitably declines, it will have only itself to blame.

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is an independent journalist, YouTuber, and co-founder of BASEDPolitics.