Scientific American has a long history as a leading science magazine. Founded in 1845, it has published work from over 200 Nobel laureates. But lately, it has shifted from covering science to delving into political issues.
A recent opinion piece, “How feminism can guide climate change by action,” showcases this change. The article claims that feminism provides tools and insights for tackling climate issues. It argues for integrating women’s expertise in environmental policies. However, many readers feel that this falls short of scientific discourse.
Some fans may have hoped for a change with the departure of former editor Laura Helmuth, who left in November. Unfortunately, the magazine’s direction seems to remain the same.
Recent articles include a defense of puberty blockers and a piece about a Just Stop Oil campaigner’s arrest. During Helmuth’s tenure, the magazine even endorsed Joe Biden in the 2020 election, breaking its tradition of neutrality.
Helmuth was known for her strong opinions on social media. Following the 2024 election, she expressed frustration about her generation’s political views, using strong language that some thought was inappropriate for an editor of a respected publication.
These comments raise questions about her judgment. Many wonder if her public outbursts alienated readers who might hold different views.
The magazine’s decline is surprising. It once published groundbreaking work, like Einstein’s theory of gravitation. Now, headlines have shifted to topics like “Modern mathematics confronts its white, patriarchal past” and trending critiques like “Why the term JEDI is problematic for describing programs that promote justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion.”
During the pandemic, the magazine took a strong stance against the lab-leak theory, which is now viewed with more openness by many. It also criticized the Cass Review, which questioned the evidence behind certain treatments for youth in gender-identity services.
A particularly troubling moment came in 2021 after the death of evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson. Instead of honoring his achievements, Scientific American attacked his ideas as “dangerous.” Ironically, Wilson had shared many of his significant thoughts through the magazine itself over the years.
This trend is not isolated. Other notable publications like Nature, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Lancet have also faced criticism for prioritizing social agendas over scientific integrity.
It seems that the golden age of scientific journals is fading. The case of Scientific American illustrates a significant truth: when science becomes intertwined with politics, the essence of science can be lost.
Source link
Opinion,progressives,scientific american
