Desperate times call for desperate measures.
And make no mistake: these are desperate times. That’s why Scientific American has to take this desperate measure:
Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in our 175-year history—until now.
The 2020 election is literally a matter of life and death. We urge you to vote for health, science and Joe Biden for President.https://t.co/8TlH7shjFn
— Scientific American (@sciam) September 15, 2020
The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science.
The most devastating example is his willfully ignorant response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives.
— Scientific American (@sciam) September 15, 2020
After invoking COVID19, environmental health, and public health, the editors conclude:
It is not certain how many of these and his other ambitions Biden will be able to accomplish; much depends on laws to be written and passed by Congress. But he is acutely aware that we must heed the abundant research showing ways to recover from our present crises and successfully cope with future challenges.
Although Trump and his allies have tried to create obstacles that prevent people from casting ballots safely in November, either by mail or in person, it is crucial that we surmount them and vote. It’s time to move Trump out and elect Biden, who has a record of following the data and being guided by science.
Whatever you say, guys.
— Lisa Matassa (@Lisa_Matassa) September 15, 2020
Recommended
Lmfao https://t.co/qL0g5q2YjG
— Branson Taylor (@Btaylor74) September 15, 2020
✍?nominated✍?for✍?the✍?List✍? https://t.co/d0B5Zcxx7e pic.twitter.com/PplxtnJ10i
— Siraj Hashmi (@SirajAHashmi) September 15, 2020
Even S.E. Cupp is a little uncomfortable with this:
Everything in this scathing rebuke of Trump's anti-science is true and bad, and a good reason to vote for Biden, like I am.
But boy do I have mixed feelings on whether this is a good use of scientific clout and credibility. ?https://t.co/uYJVrZGqtv via @sciam
— S.E. Cupp (@secupp) September 15, 2020
Its a bad idea.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) September 15, 2020
According to our calculations, Scientific American isn’t doing itself any favors here.
So we’re clear, this is life or death but the election of 1860 wasn’t.
— Sunny McSunnyface (@sunnyright) September 15, 2020
And with this the 175 year-old liberal project comes to and end. https://t.co/bng1OjIW1S
— Anang Mittal अनंग मित्तल (@anangbhai) September 15, 2020
I don't actually care about the politics with this, but this truly hurts their credibility. Getting political means getting biased and a magazine that has "Scientific" in its name should not be biased.
— Original Martian (@PristineMartian) September 15, 2020
This is a fundamental mistake.
Scientists should really try to stay apolitical. They can make a case for Biden, without taking a side; people realize that, right? https://t.co/D37LE3f5RL
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) September 15, 2020
Scientists should learn from journalists.
Years ago (pick your starting point) journalists started giving up all pretense of 'objectivity' and started picking sides.
That is why polling trust in journalists is in the crapper.
Scientists appear to be advocating the same path.
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) September 15, 2020
Watching the train run off the cliff is an experience that's both fascinating and horrifying. https://t.co/65TrCjXRMB
— Avi Woolf, Wilderness Conservative? (@AviWoolf) September 15, 2020
That cliff’s a pretty high one.
I have no doubt this will be happening more and more. Get ready for “never endorsed a presidential candidate” media coverage to be happening for the next 6 weeks … (to little effect but still…) https://t.co/u1r5Zk2zjA
— Steve Krakauer (@SteveKrak) September 15, 2020
***
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member