Scientific American’s Shock Endorsement Of Kamala Over Trump Sparks Outrage

In a historic move, Scientific American magazine has endorsed Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris for president.

after having made its then-sole exception by endorsing Joe Biden in 2020 — citing science, healthcare, abortion, gun rights, technology, and climate action as key reasons. [emphasis, links added]

On Monday, Scientific American, one of the oldest and most respected science publications in the U.S., made headlines by endorsing Kamala Harris for president. “Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment,” the publication advocated.

In what was only the second time in the magazine’s 179-year history that it has backed a presidential candidate — the first being Joe Biden in 2020 — the editors cite Harris’s dedication to science-based policy, public health improvements, and environmental protection, as well as her support for “reproductive rights,” as reasons for their rare political stance.

The editorial drew sharp contrasts between Harris and her opponent, former President Donald Trump, who they described as one who “endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”

The magazine also expressed concern over Trump’s “dangerous” and “disastrous” record, particularly his handling of public health during the COVID-19 pandemic and his rollback of environmental protections.

Insisting that “Only one [future] is a vote for reality and integrity,” the piece concludes with a plea: “We urge you to vote for Kamala Harris.”

The move by the major science magazine, which is particularly notable given its traditionally neutral stance, sparked outrage.

“Authoritarian Leftist partisanship has hijacked everything: academia, science, journalism, medicine, business, law, entertainment, culture, Justice system, etc.,” wrote Evolutionary behavior scientist Dr. Gad Saad.

“An utterly predictable and worse boring “revelation” from the pathetic and self-destructive woke mob that captured @sciam,” wrote clinical psychologist and bestselling author Dr. Jordan Peterson.

“You endorsed a candidate, Joe Biden, in the last election. Your science publication has been compromised by ideologues, and it’s reflected in the unscientific and disgraceful content you’ve published in recent years,” wrote journalist Andy Ngo.

A science magazine should not be endorsing presidents. This is why you have lost all credibility,” wrote evolutionary biologist Colin Wright. “And yes, I’d be equally critical if you had endorsed Trump.”

“I will never forgive you people for destroying a once great science magazine,” wrote independent journalist Christina Buttons.

In 2020, the magazine backed 2020 Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden in its first-ever presidential endorsement in the magazine’s 175-year history.

The editors wrote that they felt “compelled” to support Biden in his effort to defeat President Donald Trump, citing Trump’s handling of the coronavirus crisis and his skepticism on issues such as climate change.

“The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people — because he rejects evidence and science,” the editors wrote in the magazine’s October issue.

In June, the long-standing science magazine called for federal regulations for homeschooling, even suggesting that parents of homeschooled children “undergo a background check.”

Last year, a Scientific American piece claimed that a world with fewer people means a changed climate and better outcomes for the remaining population – human and otherwise – of the planet.

See more here Climate Dispatch

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATI ONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (4)

  • Avatar

    Saeed Qureshi

    |

    Modern-day science and its journalism: objective, unbiased, and fearless. LOL!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Koen Vogel

    |

    The rot started a long time ago at “Scientific” American, but I was hoping it peaked around 2020/2021 with the publication of such fact-free gibberish that argued that:
    1) white privilege/fragility induced climate anxiety “is literally suffocating to people of color”
    (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-unbearable-whiteness-of-climate-anxiety/). The asphyxiated body count ran in the millions.
    2) the Scientific Method should be replaced by “science”-by-consensus (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-idea-that-a-scientific-theory-can-be-falsified-is-a-myth/). Why even bother doing novel research? Everyone knows you’re wrong.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    RockyTSquirrel

    |

    Modern day humanity has lost it’s integrity, it’s honor, it’s selfless proclamation of Truth.
    Modern day humanity has turned to greed, pride, lust, and all thing anti-god..
    . . .
    (as requested, this is an opinion and or SARCASM)

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Realist

    |

    Scientific American USED to be a highly respected journal, but that was decades ago.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via