Scientific American Editor-In-Chief Has Spectacular Post-Election Social Media Meltdown

From Legal Insurrection

Subsequently, Laura Helmuth disavowed her screed and vitriol. Unfortunately, it is a sign that too many scientists would rather offer elitist insults then address reasonable concerns and different ideas.

Leslie Eastman

I have been following Scientific American’s steady decline, both in terms of its handling of science and its actual support of policies helpful to this nation.

A few of my recent articles show that progressive ideology has pretty much captured this once-respected publication.

• Scientific American Article Claims There’s No Difference Between Male, Female Athletes
• Scientific American Covers Itself with Shame Again, This Time by Using Term ‘Birthing Parent’
•  Scientific American is Now the Bud Light of Science Journals
• Scientific American Colludes with Other Major Media to Normalize ‘Climate Emergency’ Terminology

One of the primary reasons this descent into madness has accelerated is that the editor-in-chief, Laura Helmuth, has allowed pseudoscience and narratives to flow unfiltered with little if any restraint.

Flush with power after the apparent success of endorsing Biden in 2020, Helmuth and the team at Scientific American endorsed Harris in this election cycle.  Their faulty reasoning and inanity-filled platitudes were met with mocking. But I am sure Helmuth and her crew were sure they positioned Harris for success.

However, when the popular votes were counted and the electoral ones tallied, President Donald J. Trump clearly prevailed.  Arguably, Americans were voting against the progressive agenda that the magazine was pushing.

Once the magnitude of the Trump win became apparent, Helmuth lost all sense of professional decorum and scientific objectivity, and had herself a spectacular social media meltdown.

Helmuth simply became another leftist woman, completely losing it simply because the other candidate won the presidential election. In doing so, she embarrassed herself and diminished Scientific American a little bit more.

As a woman of science myself, I went through the same experience myself. However, instead of insulting those who failed to see how awful Biden and his administration would be, I doubled down on the work I did to support the solid science we need to develop and implement better policies. Granted, I carried on after some alcohol and many supportive calls from friends and family.

To be fair, Helmuth is now disavowing her statements.

But there are signs that Helmuth’s protective bubble has burst.

Ultimately, however, this is not just about an editor or a particular journal. It is a symptom how screed and rage-posting has become normalized in areas of science that intersect with policy and politics.

Scientists are human, and are entitled to all their opinions and feelings. But those who wish to be taken seriously, especially by the public, must return to the roots of science and embrace the scientific method. They also must be willing to be challenged and debated by those who have different viewpoints.

There are small signs that some anti-Trumpers in the scientific community may be doing a wee amount of self-reflection. In an editorial in Science, H. Holden Thorp (professor of chemistry at George Washington University) opens with a massive insult to both the President and his supporters..but finally concludes:

It is sometimes said when talking about the loss of trust in science that it’s less worrisome because the loss is tied to the overall loss of trust in institutions. That is true: The overall trust in scientists is still strong compared with most other sectors, and the decline is similar to that for the military and religious leaders.

But why settle for that? Public trust in science could far exceed that engendered by opaque and bureaucratic institutions if the scientific community stops acting like them. That means being more forthcoming and accessible, showing that scientists indeed update ideas when new data come along, and putting people and the public interest ahead of money and status for the powerful.

Perhaps Thorp will re-review what he wrote, and perhaps offer less insults and publish more articles challenging the powerful and the special interests foisting specific science-based narratives on this country. A great deal of trust in science has now evaporated, and saying Trump and his supporters tap into “xenophobia, sexism, racism, transphobia, nationalism, and disregard for truth” isn’t going to restore that trust.

Science publications, institutions, and researchers must return to their roots of questing for knowledge and innovating in ways that serve our country, rather than dictate terms and conditions…and insulting non-scientists who have serious and thoughtful concerns about the information being dished out.