Scientific American's editor-in-chief is having a spectacular social media meltdown after the election – are you okay with that?

Of legal insurrection

Laura Helmuth then disavowed herself with her screed and her vitriol. Unfortunately, it's a sign that too many scientists would rather make elitist insults than engage with legitimate concerns and other ideas.

Leslie Eastman

I have followed Scientific American's steady decline, both in its approach to science and in its actual support of policies that help this nation.

Some of my recent articles show that progressive ideology has largely taken over this once-respected publication.

One of the main reasons this descent into madness has accelerated is that Editor-in-Chief Laura Helmuth has allowed pseudoscience and narrative to go unfiltered with little to no restrictions.

After the apparent success of supporting Biden in 2020, Helmuth and the Scientific American team were energized and supported Harris in this election cycle. Their flawed reasoning and silly platitudes were met with ridicule. But I'm sure Helmuth and her crew were confident they had set Harris up for success.

However, when the popular vote was counted and the electoral votes were counted, President Donald J. Trump clearly prevailed. Americans probably voted against the progressive agenda that the magazine promoted.

As the magnitude of Trump's victory became clear, Helmuth lost all sense of professional decency and scientific objectivity and suffered a spectacular meltdown on social media.

Helmuth became just another left-wing woman who completely lost it just because the other candidate won the presidential election. In doing so, she embarrassed herself and diminished Scientific American a little more.

As a woman of science myself, I have had the same experience myself. However, instead of insulting those who didn't realize how terrible Biden and his administration would be, I redoubled my work to support the solid science we need to develop and implement better policies. Admittedly, I moved on after some alcohol and lots of supportive calls from friends and family.

To be fair, Helmuth is now denying her statements.

But there are signs that Helmuth's protective bubble has burst.

Ultimately, it's not just about an editor or a specific magazine. It is a symptom that incitement and tantrums have become normal in areas of science that intersect with politics and politics.

Scientists are human beings and are entitled to all their opinions and feelings. But if you want to be taken seriously, especially by the public, you have to go back to the roots of science and embrace the scientific method. You also need to be willing to be challenged and debated by people with different viewpoints.

There are small signs that some Trump opponents in the scientific community are doing a little self-reflection. In an editorial in Science, H. Holden Thorp (professor of chemistry at George Washington University) begins with a massive insult to both the president and his supporters, but ultimately concludes:

When it comes to the loss of trust in science, it is sometimes said that it is less worrying because the loss is related to the general loss of trust in institutions. That's true: Overall trust in scientists is still high compared to most other sectors, and the decline is similar to that of military and religious leaders.

But why should you settle for that? Public trust in science could far exceed that generated by opaque and bureaucratic institutions if the scientific community stops acting this way. That means being more open and accessible, showing that scientists actually update their ideas as new data becomes available, and putting people and the public interest ahead of money and status of the powerful.

Perhaps Thorp will re-examine what he wrote and perhaps offer fewer insults and publish more articles that challenge the powerful and special interests that force certain science-based narratives on this country. Much trust in science has now eroded, and claiming that Trump and his supporters exploit “xenophobia, sexism, racism, transphobia, nationalism and disregard for the truth” will not restore that trust.

Scientific publications, institutions, and researchers must return to their roots of pursuing knowledge and innovating in ways that serve our country, rather than dictating terms and conditions…and insulting non-scientists who have serious and thoughtful concerns about the information being disseminated have.

4.9
18
Voices

Article review

Like this:

How Load…

Related