More on the topic of weaponizing science to non-scientific ends. Both Nature and Scientific American have now endorsed the same candidate for President. With science, especially the public health area, having lost so much credibility since Covid and the lockdowns, you might think these well-known journals would keep a distance from what Wesley Smith calls “self-harm.” At National Review, he has commented on both endorsements (here, here):

Science journals do the sector no favors by becoming so overtly political. If “science” is perceived by the public as being monolithically on one side of our great national political and cultural divides — and then, the “wrong” side wins — the sector will not, shall we say, benefit. Moreover, becoming overtly progressively political destroys trust in the science sector among those who are not fellow political travelers. Indeed, earlier this year, a Cambridge professor warned that “science” and “activism” are being conflated around the issue of climate change — published, in of all places, Nature.

Apparently, Nature’s editors forgot to read it. Too bad. Swooning over Harris’s candidacy as a cause for optimism among scientists doesn’t benefit science and could add to the widespread public distrust that has afflicted the sector in recent years.

It seems so obvious that science loses public trust when it engages in political activism. I’d say the same thing if they abused the name of science to wrap a Republican, or a Democrat, in it. Why do the journals do it, then, and so fulsomely? Probably for the same reason that Hollywood behaves as it does. Years ago in his book Hollywood vs. America, Michael Medved, who had covered Hollywood as a TV and print journalist, offered an astute insight. He pointed out that movies that are apolitical and rated G make more money than edgy films that push politics, or push sex, and earn a rating of R.

The Lure of Esteem

If moviemakers valued money above all, they would stick to safe G-rated fare. But they don’t. Medved argued that more than profits, filmmakers valued the esteem of their friends in the film business — the prestige within the industry that comes from pushing at those very same edges. They were willing to give up money in the pursuit of feeling special about themselves. And only their peers, not the public, could provide that as an emolument.

I suppose that much the same is true of these politicized journals, and they’re not alone in the science world. Generally, these folks are in pursuit of esteem inside the industry, more than anything else. Remember the highly politicized and self-congratulatory March for Science? That’s the vibe I’m talking about. You might think they would steer clear of “self-harm,” damaging the trust that the public places in them, when they claim to care so much about being trusted. But no, they’d much rather indulge in activism, whatever the cost. It’s just too tempting to shine in the eyes of others in your business, and to feel special.