Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science (reason.com)

Article summary

The article discusses the departure of Laura Helmuth as editor-in-chief of Scientific American and criticizes her tenure for politicizing science. During her time, the magazine published articles that were seen as biased and promoting a political agenda, rather than objective scientific information. The article argues that this approach has contributed to the erosion of trust in scientific institutions. The author suggests that Scientific American should return to its roots of explaining scientific concepts in an unbiased manner.

Main themes

• Politicization of science
• Scientific integrity
• Media bias
• Trust in institutions
• Science communication

What commenters say

• Institutions cannot avoid being political due to their interaction with the government and public affairs.
• Some argue that certain topics, such as studying the mating patterns of beetles, are inherently apolitical and should be treated as such.
• The act of funding, publishing, and integrating scientific research is a political process, even if the research itself is not.
• Scientific American's publication of opinion pieces with a clear political agenda undermines its credibility as a scientific institution.
• The erosion of trust in scientific institutions is partly due to the perception that they are promoting a political agenda rather than objective science.
• There is a distinction between science being influenced by politics and science being used to promote political activism.
• The phrase 'everything is political' can be misleading, as it implies that all aspects of life are equally influenced by politics, which is not the case.
• Institutions should be aware of their reliance on compatible governance and not take their existence for granted.