The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September. He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment. These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous and more equitable future.The Editors, “Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden” atScientific American
The former vice president “comes prepared” with a multitude of plans to control COVID-19, they write.
His $2 trillion plan to create an emissions-free power sector by 2035 will help reduce carbon emissions, and he will restore the role of science in policymaking.
“These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous and more equitable future,” the editors say.
Hmmm. They can break with tradition in this way if they want, of course. But then they will no longer be able to say that their science is not tainted with (drenched in?) politics. Which is why, no matter what the crisis, no one did it in the past.
True, popular media endorse candidates. But then they don’t pretend to anything like the objectivity that science writing aspires to. The outcome, no matter who wins the U.S. election, will be reduced public trust in science. Scientific American could well find itself down there with “media” generally, in terms of public trust.
Note: Scientific American is owned by Springer Nature
See also: Will respect for science survive the polarization of our era? Alternatively, it may become possible to have a discussion about what, exactly, science is. For example, in the case of the ATP turbine, “Natural selection did it” has the same explicit explanatory value as “God did it.” But natural selection is somehow science and God is not. Why? How?