GLP podcast: Should scientists endorse political candidates? Debate erupts over Scientific American’s support for Kamala Harris

“Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment,” Scientific American wrote in an incendiary September 16 editorial. The magazine’s decision to endorse a presidential candidate, for only the second time in its 179-year history, drew intense criticism from some quarters of the science community, where researchers fear partisanship will undermine the public’s already wavering trust in health and scientific institutions. But that perspective isn’t universal. Other academic scientists counter that Harris is indeed the more pro-science choice between the two major candidates.

How should we think about the interplay between science and politics? Is it best for researchers to remain apolitical, or is it acceptable for experts to advertise their partisan commitments?

• Viewpoint: ‘It’s a shortsighted move that will inflame America’s disdain for science’: Scientific American breaks precedent, endorses Kamala Harris

Podcast:

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Related on the SLP

Viewpoint: Toxic politics and the culture wars—MIT’s ‘Undark’ caves to the MAHA—RFK, Jr.—predatort lobby Daubert for Dummies—Scientific Reliability in U.S. Courts: Daubert, Rule 702, and Made-for-Litigation Evidence

Viewpoint: Democratic tsunami: As the red tide recedes, here are the most likely shifts in food and agricultural policy

$7.35 billion PFAS settlement: 3M to pay people who blame health problems on ‘forever chemicals’ phased out of firefighting foam for more than 20 years

Collagen supplements are not a wrinkle-reducing silver bullet, but they sure cost a lot

Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Visit his website and follow him on X @camjenglish