from legal riots
Laura Helmuth later denied her tirade and vitriol. Unfortunately, this suggests that too many scientists would rather offer elitist insults than address legitimate concerns and diverse ideas.
Leslie Eastman
I have been paying attention The Steady Decline of Scientific Americanboth in terms of its treatment of science and its practical support for policies that would benefit this country.
My last few articles have shown that progressive ideology has all but taken over this once-respected publication.
One of the main reasons for the accelerated descent into madness is that editor-in-chief Laura Helmuth allows pseudoscience and narrative to flow unfiltered with almost no restrictions.
Helmuth and his team are brimming with power after their apparent success in supporting Biden in 2020. scientific american Support Harris this election cycle. Their faulty reasoning and silly clichés were laughed at. But I'm sure Helmuth and her team are convinced they're set up for Harris to succeed.
However, when the popular and electoral votes were counted, President Donald J. Trump clearly won. Arguably, Americans voted against the progressive agenda promoted by the magazine.
Once the scale of Trump's victory became apparent, Helmuth lost all professional decorum and scientific objectivity and suffered a huge meltdown on social media.
Helmut became just another left-wing woman who completely lost it just because another candidate won the presidential election. Doing so would not only embarrass myself, but also further undermine Scientific American’s reputation.
As a woman in science, I’ve been through the same experience myself. However, rather than insulting those who don’t see how terrible Biden and his administration are, I’m doubling down on supporting the solid science we need to create and implement better policies. Granted, after a few drinks and many supportive calls from friends and family, I moved on.
To be fair, Helmuth has now denied her claims.
But there are signs Helmuth's protective bubble has burst.
Ultimately, however, this is not just about the editor or the particular journal. It's a sign that tirades and angry rhetoric have become normalized in scientific fields that intersect with policy and politics.
Scientists are human beings and have the right to express all their opinions and feelings. But those who wish to be taken seriously, especially the general public, must return to the roots of science and embrace the scientific method. They must also be willing to be challenged and debated by those with different views.
There are small signs that some anti-Trumpers in the scientific community may be engaging in a modicum of self-reflection. in an editorial scienceH. Holden Thorpe (Professor of Chemistry at George Washington University) opens with a huge insult to the President and his supporters… but concludes:
People sometimes say that when talking about a loss of trust in science, it's not that concerning because the loss is tied to an overall loss of trust in institutions. And indeed it is: Overall trust in scientists remains strong compared with most other sectors, and the decline is similar to that seen among military and religious leaders.
But why settle for less? If the scientific community stopped acting like an opaque and bureaucratic bureaucracy, public trust in science might far outstrip them. It means being more candid and understandable, showing that scientists do update their thinking as new data emerges, and putting people and the public good ahead of the money and status of those in power.
Perhaps Thorpe will revisit what he has written, perhaps be less insulting and publish more articles challenging the powerful and special interests that impose a particular science-based narrative on this country. Great trust in science is now gone, and says Trump and his supporters are taking advantage of “Xenophobia, sexism, racism, transphobia, nationalism and disregard for the truth” That trust will not be restored.
Scientific publications, institutions, and researchers must return to their roots in the pursuit of knowledge and innovation in a way that serves our country, rather than dictating terms and conditions… and insulting non-scientists who have serious and thoughtful concerns about the information published.
Relevant
