A small storm broke out on social media this week when scientific americanIn a late-night rage, Laura Helmuth made profane and disparaging comments about those who voted for Donald Trump.
As often happens in social media uproar, many called for Helmuth to be fired from his editorial position.
Yet this isn’t just about a highly partisan editor at a magazine, and firing her won’t solve the deeper problem.
quite, The incident reflects the normalization of partisanship, often accompanied by intolerance and vitriol, in a field of science that is particularly closely tied to policy and politics.
Every day I point you to comments on social media from prominent scientists that make Helmuth’s diatribes seem tame.
Leaders of important scientific institutions, including journals, universities, and colleges, not only condone partisanship and intolerance, but often reward it.
Consider the actions of leaders of the most prestigious scientific journals:
I can go on (go on).
The growing partisanship among many leadership roles in science is well known.
For example, a study of 2022 campaign donations by American scientists found that donations to Democrats increased dramatically during Trump’s first campaign, while donations to Republicans decreased:
An analysis of Federal Election Commission data confirms that U.S. scientists who donate to political candidates favor Democratic candidates and organizations over Republican candidates and organizations. In fact, their approach was dramatic. However, this is a relatively new phenomenon. From 1984 to 2000, the share of donations to the Republican Party among all university and college employees was fairly stable, about 40 percent. Academia employees support Democrats, but not by much. (There were no data before 2002 to analyze scientists separately from other academic staff.)
But from 2000 to 2021, Republican donations dropped significantly, to less than 10% (Figure 1). Since 2016, professors have donated even less to Republicans than university employees, with only about 5% of professors’ donations going to Republicans. Ivy League professors give even less — about 2%.
The total dollar value of total contributions increased dramatically in 2019, when academic donations to Republicans were at their lowest levels in recent history. Thus, over the past three years, donations from academic scientists have gone almost entirely to Democratic candidates.
I have no doubt that Helmuth and Thorpe’s comments about those Americans who voted for Donald Trump represent their deep and sincere views of their fellow citizens.
Mann, a climate scientist, goes further, often invoking the language of war against his fellow citizens.
We must also choose to fight the forces of darkness and push back against a malicious movement representing fascism, authoritarianism, racism, misogyny and bigotry that uses anti-scientific disinformation as its weapon of choice. We don't do this because our success is guaranteed. Given the forces mobilized against us, we are clearly at a disadvantage.
I cite Mann not because he is an outlier in the scientific community, but because he is representative of many who hold positions of leadership and authority — not to mention he’s blissfully unaware of how offensive his daily public rants are to those who don’t share his extreme political views.
… The scientific community has ostracized and abandoned from its own ranks those who are considered to deviate even slightly from the orthodoxy of their views.
There are huge differences in political views across the United States, both on the left and on the right. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any scientist holding extreme political views or expressing these views publicly – this is a free country and I support anyone who wishes to engage in public debate and discussion.
The bigger issue is whether the scientific community chooses Elevate into leadership positions many scientists who oppose and even denigrate the majority of our fellow Americans who will vote Republican in 2024.
At the same time, the scientific community has excluded and expelled from its own ranks those deemed to deviate even slightly from this orthodoxy.
Some scientists even consider the scientific community to be part of a “resistance” against their fellow citizens.
Not surprisingly, as the scientific community increasingly organizes itself against ordinary Americans, Many ordinary Americans increasingly distrust scientists and scientific institutions.
For example, (emphasis added below):
[F]From January 2019 to May 2023, the share of Hispanics expressing a great deal or some confidence in scientists fell from 82% to 61%. The situation is similar for black Americans – rising from 85% to 69% during the same period. In general, nonwhite Democrats are half as likely as white Democrats to express a great deal of confidence in scientists.
With the red wave that just swept across the United States, There are some encouraging early signs within the scientific community that the extreme partisanship of its leaders must now change.
Popular photos from March for Science by Vlad Tchompalov on Unsplash
The Honest Broker is written by climate expert Roger Pielke Jr and is reader-supported. If you value what you read here, please consider subscribing and supporting the work.
Read the break from The Honest Broker
