Editorial: Scientific American has every right to endorse a presidential candidate

Last week, Scientific American endorsed Kamala Harris for US president. It’s only the second time in the publication’s history that it has made an endorsement for president—the first time was prior to the 2020 election, when it backed Joe Biden’s campaign. But it wasn’t long before some critics slammed the Harris endorsement, most notably Tom Nichols of the Atlantic, who claims that “a magazine devoted to science should not take sides in a political contest,” as it undermines public trust in science. Such thinking is flawed on multiple levels.

For one, Scientific American is a for-profit journalistic institution (owned by Springer Nature, but editorially independent), not a publicly funded scientific institution. As such, its editors have the same right as those of any other for-profit journalistic outlet to hold an opinion and endorse whomever they please. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and even the Atlantic itself regularly make political endorsements. Just because Scientific American primarily covers science doesn’t mean it should be apolitical.

Science is done by people, and therefore politics and science are inseparable. The majority of academic science in the US is publicly funded, and both major political parties attempt to use science to justify some of their policy choices. But when such policies become a threat to conducting good research, or when those policies claim to have scientific merit when they in fact do not, scientists have the agency to speak out.

Nichols actually argues that scientists should do exactly that in a 2017 article about public trust in science he penned for Scientific American. In it, he writes:

“Experts cannot withdraw from a public arena increasingly controlled by opportunistic demagogues who seek to discredit empiricism and rationality. . . .

Experts must continue, as citizens, to advocate for those things they believe to be in the public interest.”

The editors of Scientific American clearly believe that advocating for scientifically informed public policy compels them to make an endorsement in this case.

Another part of Nichols’s argument is that the policy positions outlined in Scientific American’s endorsement are based on personal values, not science. But that ignores the fact that anyone’s personal values can be informed by science. Perhaps the sections on reproductive rights and gun safety in the endorsement could have gone into more detail on why the editors believe Harris’s positions on those issues are backed by science, but the magazine has elaborated extensively in the past (see: gun safety; reproductive rights). Broadly speaking, the policy differences between parties in this election may not be exclusively scientific in nature, but they aren’t completely divorced from science either. Science and scientists do have something to say about these issues, and therefore, so too does Scientific American.

But it is fair to ask whether Scientific American’s support of a presidential candidate reduces the publication’s trustworthiness and trust of science generally. Nichols, in his argument, cites a 2023 study that suggests that Nature’s endorsement of Joe Biden in 2020 made Trump supporters less likely to trust the journal. That study has its own flaws, notably that it didn’t include a Trump endorsement for comparison and that its participant group was representative of a general population and not the audience of experts targeted by Nature. As a popular science magazine, Scientific American shouldn’t be held to the same standards of objectivity one might expect from an academic journal like Nature. But it is still reasonable to assume Scientific American’s endorsement could reduce trust in science and the publication’s reporting among Trump supporters. It is also reasonable to assume that Scientific American’s editorial board knows this is a possible outcome and chose to proceed with an endorsement anyway.

That’s most likely because the editors of Scientific American aren’t seeking to maximize public trust with their endorsement but rather to stand up for their own values and for what they believe the values of scientists at large to be, something Nichols thinks is quite important. An endorsement may not change anyone’s mind, but it does show that Scientific American will not be acting as a passive observer of the events unfolding in our society.

The fundamental roles of a journalist are to uncover the truth, provide essential context, and hold those in positions of power accountable. We at C&EN understand this intimately—we know our coverage has helped shape the global chemical enterprise, thanks to reporting that does take a stance. Our obligations as part of a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization preclude us from making any political endorsements, but we believe our coverage has its place in the conversation.

This editorial is the result of collective deliberation in C&EN. For this editorial, the lead contributor is Max Barnhart.

Views expressed on this page are not necessarily those of ACS.