Not All Scientists Are Happy About the Politicization of Big Science

Scientific American’s endorsement
of a leftist presidential candidate
may be the last straw for some

Investigative reporter John Stossel often debunks pseudoscientific claims, embracing empirical facts, not hype. He will go out on a limb to correct popular misconceptions. And sometimes, he debunks scientists themselves, when they push scare tactics and fail to stick to the ideals of observation and testing. A libertarian and critic of communism, Stossel is often equally critical of Republicans and Democrats, although on Sept 22, he pointed out that the news media are highly tilted away from Republicans because newsrooms typically have 10 times as many Democrats working for them.

When Stossel saw Scientific American endorsing Kamala Harris for president, he was outraged. He sent an X message with a link to a counter-article from the Genetic Literacy Project, an organization that promotes “Science Not Ideology.”

Scientific American breaks precedent, endorses Kamala Harris (20 Sept 2024, Genetic Literacy Project). In this opinion piece, Cameron English called SciAm’s endorsement of Kamala Harris “a shortsighted move that will inflame America’s disdain for science.” His viewpoint is shared by other scientists—even evolutionists—who are tired of seeing scientific publications always leaning left.

Several high-profile scientists blasted SciAm for once again endorsing the Democratic nominee for president. “A science magazine should not be endorsing presidents,” evolutionary biologist Colin Wright tweeted. “This is why you have lost all credibility. And yes, I’d be equally critical if you had endorsed Trump.” Behavioral scientist Gad Saad was less gentle: “Authoritarian Leftist partisanship has hijacked everything: academia, science, journalism, medicine, business, law, entertainment, culture, Justice system, etc.”

CEH has been pointing out the leftist bias in Big Science for years (e.g., see 5 Aug 2024, 9 July 2024, 11 March 2024, or search “Politics and Ethics” under “Issues” on our front page). The capitulation of SciAm to the Democrats is a recent example of note, but certainly not the only one. Cameron English, director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health, is so upset about this latest example of partisanship he thinks it’s time to rebuild scientific institutions from the ground up.

Several other influential academics were equally critical of SciAm’s endorsement on the grounds that it would further undermine the public’s trust in science. They’re correct, but we’re long past the point of pressuring science institutions to revert to ideological neutrality. The only real solution is to allow them to engage in naked partisan advocacy until they erode their dwindling credibility with Americans. After that, we can begin replacing them with credible institutions that actually advance science.

In his article he gives a list of examples of “scientific institutions” capitulating to DEI, Woke ideologies and the latest political fads. It’s not just government agencies, either:

Academic journals are chock-full of fraudulent research; the extent of the scandal is only now coming to light as thousands of peer-reviewed studies are retracted by academic publishers desperately trying to maintain their credibility (and profitability). One major publisher has shuttered 19 of its journals just this year.

“Americans hate ideological science,” English says. Regardless of party, Americans “loathe” seeing scientific elites wading into culture wars. The GLP has “loads of examples” of scientists pushing nonsense in support of leftist ideologies, like gender fluidity and silliness like claiming that “men can breastfeed” with media giants giving them a pass.

This growing intolerance for academia and the media is significant because the public invests billions of dollars every year in America’s multitude of scientific endeavors. The research that academic journals publish is funded largely by taxpayers, who also prop up the universities that employ most academic scientists.

Angry at the situation, English turns his diatribe directly at SciAm and other giants of Big Science in academia and government, warning them not to be shocked and disappointed when courts gut their agencies, “because you were warned time and again to stay out of politics. But you didn’t listen.”

This article is significant because Stossel is an evolutionist and a libertarian, not favorable to intelligent design or Donald Trump. If he can clearly see the bias in Big Science, it’s out there, not just something we here at CEH have been making up. And if he, a man who constantly touts and respects science, is angry about the situation, we should be, too. One shortcoming is that English’s article should have pointed out that nearly ALL the Big Science journals have endorsed Harris (Nature, Science and others), not just SciAm, and with unified voice they despise President Trump, Republicans and conservatives.

Notice also that the GLP accepts evolution uncritically. Its front page features the silly article about Lucy being nude but not ashamed as an evolutionary just-so story about why humans evolved to wear clothes. We obviously do not endorse everything that Stossel or the GLP says, but they at least have the gumption to sometimes criticize Big Science when it has gone awry.

Recommended Reading: “Weaponizing Science, Journals Indulge in Political Partisanship” by David Klinghoffer, Evolution News, 17 Sept 2024.