Should Scientific Journals Endorse Political Candidates? Pielke Jr. Argues That It Leads to Increased Polarization and Erodes Public Trust in Science: Counterarguments Say It Depends on Whether the Journal is Privately or Publicly Funded

   

     I remember finding it odd when I read that Scientific American had endorsed Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election. It begged the question whether scientific journals should be doing this. When the magazine endorsed Kamala Harris in 2024, Tom Nichols of the Atlantic noted that “a magazine devoted to science should not take sides in a political contest,” because it undermines public trust in science. Staff of the journal Chemical and Engineering News (C&EN) defended Scientific American’s decisions to endorse:

“{Scientific American} is a for-profit journalistic institution (owned by Springer Nature, but editorially independent), not a publicly funded scientific institution. As such, its editors have the same right as those of any other for-profit journalistic outlet to hold an opinion and endorse whomever they please. The Washington Post, the New York Times, and even the Atlantic itself regularly make political endorsements. Just because Scientific American primarily covers science doesn’t mean it should be apolitical.”

     More specifically, the C&EN staff cited views about gun safety and reproductive rights as key reasons they endorsed Harris. They said her policy positions on those topics were supported by science. They also noted that Scientific American is a popular science magazine rather than a strictly academic journal like Nature, which also endorsed Biden in 2020.

“As a popular science magazine, Scientific American shouldn’t be held to the same standards of objectivity one might expect from an academic journal like Nature. But it is still reasonable to assume Scientific American’s endorsement could reduce trust in science and the publication’s reporting among Trump supporters. It is also reasonable to assume that Scientific American’s editorial board knows this is a possible outcome and chose to proceed with an endorsement anyway.”

     Scientist Roger Pielke Jr., an expert in climate impacts and the science/policy nexus, offers some interesting analysis of the impacts of scientific institutions, public and private, that endorse candidates.  

     Pielke Jr. notes that the 2017 ‘March for Science’ was basically an event to show disapproval of Trump and his attitude toward science. He notes that of 110 scientists surveyed who participated in the event, only 1 identified as Republican, while 72% identified as Democrat.

     He also cites a study that concluded that the effects of the march were an increase in political polarization. He notes:

“New empirical research finds that partisan political advocacy by authoritative institutions comes at a heavy price paid in diminished overall public confidence — not just among conservatives but also independents — as well as increased polarization.”

     Here, he cites a study that found abundant confidence in scientists dropped from 39% in 2020 to just 23% in 2023, and low or no confidence in scientists increased from 12% to 27% over the same period. He also cites some recovery in a 2024 Pew poll where “88% of Democrats express confidence in scientists versus 66% of Republicans, and Republicans remain far more likely to oppose scientists’ active engagement in policymaking.”

     Pielke Jr. has been interviewing presidential science advisors, including many advisors to former presidents, since 2005. He cites a new and larger experiment in Nature Human Behavior that concludes that journal endorsements lower public trust in science. This is especially true for conservatives, but also for moderates.

     Pielke Jr. pointed out that he thinks individual scientists, as U.S. citizens, should be free to speak their minds about political issues. However, he argues against scientific institutions, such as academic journals, endorsing candidates, mainly because doing so tends to erode trust in science, which the evidence clearly shows.

“A journal holds a very different position than an individual expert: It is an institution of expertise. Its authority derives from its claim to serve science — and through science, to serve the public, all of the public whether far left, far right, or anywhere in between. When an authoritative scientific institution — whether a journal, university, or national academy — uses its authority in service of a subset of the public and opposed to another subset, there can be no surprise that those being opposed (or perceiving being opposed) respond by questioning the legitimacy and authority of that institution.”

     It is also true that there are some scientists who are strongly partisan and political. Some of these I refer to as activist-scientists. Some are well-connected into media so that when they co-author a paper giving conclusions that support their partisan views, the press often amplifies them. Pielke Jr. notes that non-partisan scientists are considered more credible than partisan scientists:

“Recent research on 98,000 academics on X/Twitter found that non-partisan scientists draw the most public credibility, and more intense political expression is associated with less perceived credibility. Yet, even so, many scientists recognize this trade-off and nearly half post political content anyway, credibility be damned.”

     He cites his own 2012 book, The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics, where he divides the roles of scientists into four types: pure scientist, science arbiter, issue advocate, and honest broker. By choosing to be partisan, scientists do risk their credibility, and should remain aware of that, since there will be costs.

“Institutional partisan advocacy — overt or stealth — comes with a price paid in the erosion of public trust and increased polarization over science.”

  

References:

 

The Price of Partisan Advocacy by Science Institutions: New evidence should have us asking: is it worth it? Roger Pielke Jr. The Honest Broker. May 6, 2026. The Price of Partisan Advocacy by Science Institutions

Editorial: Scientific American has every right to endorse a presidential candidate: Suggesting otherwise diminishes the role of science to inform policy and our values. C&EN editorial staff, Chemical & Engineering News. September 27. 2024. Editorial: Scientific American has every right to endorse a presidential candidate