Scientific American magazine is facing significant backlash after announcing its endorsement of Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in the 2024 U.S. presidential race. This marks only the second time in the publication’s 179-year history that it has endorsed a candidate for president. The first time was in 2020 when it backed Joe Biden. In its endorsement, the magazine expressed its support for Harris’s policies, particularly highlighting her focus on science, evidence-based decision-making, and clean energy.
The magazine also criticized Harris’s opponent, Republican nominee and former President Donald Trump. According to Scientific American, Trump ignores the climate crisis and promotes policies that increase pollution. In its editorial, the magazine framed the election as a choice between a future where evidence-based policies lead to nationwide job growth through clean energy and technological advancement and a future where public health and safety are compromised by leadership that disregards science.
Criticism of the Endorsement
The announcement sparked widespread debate, especially on X (formerly Twitter), with many criticizing the magazine for taking a political stance. Several critics argued that a scientific publication endorsing a political candidate risks alienating readers and undermining public trust in science. Medical journalist Liz Highleyman emphasized the potential danger of the scientific community appearing to align with one side of the political spectrum. “There’s no doubt science is political,” Highleyman said, acknowledging that political decisions often affect science funding and policy. However, she warned that when science is perceived as taking sides in political and cultural wars, it risks diminishing its credibility.
Highleyman was not alone in her concerns. Atlantic writer Derek Thompson echoed these sentiments, referencing a study on the negative effects of political endorsements by scientific publications. Thompson cited a 2023 paper that found Nature magazine’s endorsement of Joe Biden in 2020 led to a significant reduction in trust in the journal among Trump supporters. The study also indicated that the endorsement lowered the demand for COVID-related information from Nature and reduced trust in scientists more broadly among those who supported Trump.
More Read
Impact on Scientific Credibility
The broader criticism centered on the idea that Scientific American’s endorsement may contribute to the growing perception that science is becoming entangled with political agendas. Paul Midler, an author, noted that the magazine’s focus has shifted over the years from hard sciences such as astrophysics and biology to include articles addressing social sciences and public policy. “Scientific American was historically focused on hard sciences. Increasingly, its articles have addressed social sciences and public policy,” Midler wrote. He suggested that this shift may reflect changing interests among American readers, who he claimed are less interested in pure science.
The debate over the endorsement raises questions about whether scientific institutions should remain neutral or engage in political discourse, especially in a time when science itself is often politicized. Supporters of the endorsement argue that it is essential for the scientific community to weigh in on political decisions that affect public health, climate change, and technological progress. However, critics worry that endorsements risk alienating segments of the population and eroding trust in science.
A Continuing Trend?
This latest endorsement by Scientific American highlights a broader trend of scientific publications stepping into the political arena. With climate change, public health, and technological innovation all playing critical roles in national and global policy, many scientists and institutions feel compelled to advocate for leaders who they believe will make decisions based on evidence and scientific research. However, as the backlash to this endorsement shows, the intersection of science and politics remains a contentious and polarizing issue.
In the coming months, it remains to be seen whether Scientific American will face any long-term consequences from this decision or if other scientific publications will follow its lead in taking political stances ahead of future elections.
