Scientific American Endorses Kamala Harris for President
Is that meaningful for scientists and the public?
I just read the editorial in Scientific American endorsing Kamala Harris for President. As is widely reported, it is only the second time since 1845 (it is the oldest continually published magazine in the country) that the magazine made such and endorsement. The first time was in 2020 when SciAm endorsed Joe Biden for President. What does that mean for science, scientists and the public? Not an easy question.
I have read Scientific American since before I trained as a scientist. I continue to read it to this day. I appreciate that SciAm articles are well chosen and edited covering a wide range of issues in science and technology and their role in society. I have never viewed SciAm as an academic journal, but as filling a difficult and important role between academic publications and popular press. It is a magazine about science that everyone can read. SciAM doesn’t sensationalize or minimize the challenges and accomplishments of science and scientists; it provides solid science-based information in an accessible format to a huge distribution (by their reckoning 10 million people a month).
Is this endorsement politics not science?
The editorial is actually quite detailed in laying out the reasons for endorsing VP Harris. It contrasts the candidates positions on some issues in public health, environment, health care, reproductive rights, education, public safety and technology development. The conclusion is in the endorsement, but the reasoning is in these contrasts.
What struck me is that on the chosen issues, the editors didn’t find a contrast in how each candidate addresses a societal challenge or what policy approach would be taken. It was a contrast between addressing the challenge at all – with VP Harris discussing the issues or former President Trump essentially ignoring that the challenge exists at all.
Take health care. VP Harris has called for strengthening and extending the Affordable Care Act to more people. She supports expanding Medicaid to cover more people that can’t afford basic care. And she calls for paying for these policies with higher taxes on high income earners (over $400,000 per year). Former President Trump has called for eliminating the Affordable Care Act, cutting Medicare, and cutting taxes. But none of his actions are even intended to address the problems of health care for Americans. Rather they essentially deny there is a problem.
On climate change, VP Harris has been and vows to continue to take actions that directly address some of the challenges of global warming including reducing emissions and working with international partners on mitigation and adaption. Former President Trump has denied that climate change is a problem or that it is anthropogenic.
This dichotomy carries through all the issues considered in the editorial. I think scientists certainly disagree on the impact of different policy actions given the evidence. But much less so on whether evidence should be ignored.
Has SciAm compromised its “objectivity”?
Of course, there was immediate reaction from Fox News claiming SciAm was facing a backlash. What a surprise! It is worth noting that the “backlash” was from a couple of science journalists and commenters on X. None identified as scientists. No scientific societies or other science-based organizations. And no substantive criticism of the actual reasoning in the editorial. I am sure more is to come.
But, is it a loss of objectivity to acknowledge overwhelming evidence? I don’t think so. I think scientists should strive to interpret the weight of evidence without prejudging the outcome. That’s a far cry from a loss of objectivity because one expresses an opinion given the evidence.
Then the question is, is acceptance that a societal issue exists at all a political statement? From a science perspective, it depends on the evidence. For all of these issues the evidence is overwhelming that there are major challenges and impacts of the lack of affordable care, the ongoing and terrifying effects of global warming, the need for reproductive health care and so on. But, it is also true that our political divide now indeed makes acceptance of fundamental scientific evidence and facts a political statement of sorts. As a scientist I think that is ridiculous. As an American, I bemoan that our politics has devolved to this.
And if an endorsement by SciAm on these grounds is political then I applaud them taking that stand.
That’s it for today - Thank you so much for reading SciLight!
If you enjoyed today’s post, please like it or share it with others. You can also support the work we do to shine a light on the politicization of science by becoming a paid subscriber!
If you want to share today’s post as a web page with your network, click this button:
If you have suggestions, questions, comments, or want to drop us a line - send it all to scilightsubstack@gmail.com