On Monday, Scientific American, a once esteemed science magazine established in 1845, tarnished its credibility by endorsing Kamala Harris for president.

The publication has only endorsed presidential candidates twice, the first being in 2020 when it supported Joe Biden, who is known for his (ahem) intellectual and scholarly approach. Consequently, the backlash began soon after SciAm made their endorsement known.

The advancement of science really does not depend on who occupies the White House. However, it is absurd that a scientific journal, especially one that aims to uphold its authority and credibility, decided to engage in politics so bluntly for a candidate who is neither impressive nor intelligent.

Ultimately, Scientific American‘s endorsement carries little weight with the average voter and a short time ago, Skeptic Society head Michael Shermer (who was once a columnist for Scientific American for many years) recently thrashed the publication for having gone woke as well.

For quite a while now, it appears that The Science has become a safe haven for opportunists and charlatans, ideologues and self-righteous individuals, as well as bureaucrats, like Tony Fauci, and lesser-known personalities.

The scholars who expressed strong criticism of SciAm‘s endorsement are right arguing it would further damage public trust in science, but the time has passed for urging scientific institutions to return to ideological neutrality. The most effective approach now is to let them fully engage in overt partisan advocacy until they lose the remaining credibility they may have with the public. Only then can we start to replace them with trustworthy institutions that genuinely promote true scientific progress.