In the last eight years, it has become abundantly clear that much of the credentialed expert class has been absorbed by the ruling progressive political establishment. Doctors, educators, meteorologists – whatever licensed profession you can think of – have leaped into the policy arguments at great cost to their once-respected social standing of being seen as above the fray. The world of science is no outlier in this ongoing development.
Scientific American debuted in 1845. It is the oldest continually published magazine in the United States. Alas, its current editorial staff has spent most of the past decade obliterating whatever remained of the sterling reputation the publication had built up for more than a century.
On Sept. 16, Scientific American did a very un-scientific thing. It formally endorsed Kamala Harris for president. The endorsement is only the second in the magazine’s 179-year history, the editors stressed, as if to emphasize the extraordinary seriousness of its action. Guess who was the first? No, it wasn’t William McKinley.
Enemy of Democracy, Enemy of Science
“Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment,” the editorial’s headline read. If the idea was to put a scholarly veneer on the Harris campaign, it failed miserably. The editors wallowed in the same inflammatory language Americans can easily find – or ignore – across the big-box media spectrum.
With appropriate vagueness, Harris was praised for “relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience.” Her support for “reproductive rights” was hailed, stretching the definition of science beyond rationality. And, of course, Harris was touted for treating “the climate crisis as the emergency it is.”
Trump, meanwhile, “endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies,” the magazine asserted. “He fills positions in federal science and other agencies with unqualified ideologues. He goads people into hate and division, and he inspires extremists at state and local levels to pass laws that disrupt education and make it harder to earn a living.”
It's rather astonishing that the “experts” trotted out to parrot this familiar narrative in the name of their particular profession still don’t understand the consequences of their actions. When science becomes indistinguishable from the shrillest voices on CNN or MSNBC, who is being hurt here?
Scientific Mandate to Resolve Political Issues
Some progressives are starting to catch on. Dominant media organ The Atlantic piled on against Trump and politely scolded Scientific American for its gesture, correctly surmising that “[t]he magazine’s endorsement of a candidate undermines trust in expertise.”
Scientific American, however, adamantly refuses to understand that regular Americans are not going to “trust the science” when its proponents clearly reveal themselves to be promoting a nakedly partisan political agenda.
In October 2020, as the magazine was busy endorsing Joe Biden - yes, that was the first in its long history - it published an opinion piece by four credentialed authors who steadfastly declared, “Yes, science is political.”
The piece argued there is an urgent need for science professionals to steer the general public on political issues of the day.
“As scientists, we’re trained to think of the broader impacts of our research; as citizens, we should make those thoughts concrete with our votes,” the writers stated. “We have been trained [to] think critically, analyze large amounts of data and come up with potential solutions to the problems we discover. We can use these same skills to analyze policy, and we must, because doing so promotes an informed citizenry.”
It's not hard to see how this all fits in with the larger progressive establishment and its efforts to quash “disinformation.” Americans are apparently not smart enough to decide for themselves and should let the experts think for them.
Rest assured, their expertise cuts across all issues. The term "science" can be as elastic as those who control the conversation choose.
“Until recently, scientists could not use federal funding to study gun violence, which is widely recognized as a public health crisis,” the article continued. “And of course, policies have real impact on our lives: immigration bans jeopardize the collaborative nature of scientific research and instead foster fear and uncertainty in researchers.”
This isn’t just stepping out of one’s lane; it’s sawing off the branch they are sitting on. That branch is credibility. Once severed, it crashes down to the ground with a thud. It’s the law of gravity, and it applies to oversized egos as well as apples falling from a tree.
