“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?
Podcast:
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Share this article
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
