I'm not American (Canadian), but I've always found it peculiar how organizations in the US will openly back certain candidates in elections. Wouldn't this be considered taboo by bringing politics into the workplace?

At some point it's dangerous and immoral to stay neutral, particularly for those dealing with hard facts and science.

The desire for "balance" just meets a hard end when one political party wants to openly destroy and deny science.

> At some point it's dangerous and immoral to stay neutral, particularly for those dealing with hard facts and science.

Relevant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

So which party denies science? The big scandal on this site most recently was the Zuckerberg letter where the whitehouse administration asked Facebook to censor posts relating to Covid they didn’t approve. This staffer is now apparently a deputy campaign official. Previous to that this site discussed the lab leak coverup facilitated by the government. The journals themselves assisted in these operations. Then there was tons of misinformation from the government on vaccine efficacy such as “it prevents transmission” claims though this was never proven and in fact now seems obviously limited if true.

"Bringing politics" may typically be "expressing liking"; there also exists an "expressing judgement, based on available elements, of which candidates seem to be progressive towards a cause".

Top 3 Hacker News Threads on SA...

  The Demise of Scientific American (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29778348) 413 comments

  The Shameful Decline of Scientific American (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29951406) 235 comments

  Scientific American does an hit job on E. O. Wilson, calling him a racist (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29741171) 45 comments

And the last HN discussion on SA endorsing Joe Biden...

  First time in 175 years, Scientific American endorses a presidential candidate 
 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24485394) 99 comments

I'm a totally moderate extreme left winger, but I think this is a big mistake. Science has always been about logic and experimental proof, not political gamesmanship. Yeah, I know politics is part of everything, but I think this hurts the cause for science in a big way. Better to be neutral.

> Better to be neutral.

Is it? Should Scientific American take a neutral stance on creationism, or healing crystals, or the Time Cube theory? Or should they take a factual stance?

It's funny how people can clearly see what Trump is, and yet argue on an abstract level as if he was just like any other candidate. Staying neutral now could mean fighting an endless uphill battle later on when science and intellectuals are attacked for stating studied facts, and nonsense is served from the highest office.

Endorsing a candidate isn't a factual stance. It's politics. There's a factual answer to Abortion is right or wrong? Or we should have more immigrants or fewer? We should spend money stop global warming or not? Unearned capital gains should be taxed?

Facts are used for all of those things because they all devolve into arguments and facts are handy in an argument. That's not what they're really about though. They're about trade offs and preferences. They're about deciding what's right and wrong.

SA or Science in general gets involved in that and they won't be helping to win an argument. They'll be destroying trust.

> Endorsing a candidate isn't a factual stance.

Rejecting an obscurantist, anti-science candidate is in line with supporting and defending basic science.

You are not defending the importance of evidence-based science if you do not call out the candidate with a blatant obscurantist and anti-intelectual agenda, which already negatively impacted millions of people.

And I'm not even touching on the systematic threats against basic education.

If I say candidate X is an idiot whose policies will impoverish millions then everyone understands I'm making a value judgement. I can use facts to back up that judgment but at heart it's not about facts, it's about goals. It's politics.

I think there's a plausible argument that Science shouldn't be value neutral but the opposite of that is just as dangerous. Historically it's not to think that a lot of harm has been caused by people with an agenda who either claimed or even genuinely believed they were just looking at facts.

Large organizations staying neutral is why y'all got into this mess in the first place. Climate change denialism should have been met with hard resistance when it first appeared.

Taking a stand now is the bare minimum. Assuming the GOP wins, it's game over for a lot of science in the US - anything that goes against Big Oil is first on the chopping block. Always remember Sharpiegate [1], that was just an indication of what will come.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Dorian%E2%80%93Alaba...

I have always believed that sharpiegate was the result of Trump being told the Bahamas would be hit by the hurricane (they were), him misunderstanding it as Alabama and later being incapable of admitting his mistake.

You can have my cup of koolaid - I'm not thirsty.

> anything that goes against Big Oil is first on the chopping block.

You realize that the US is producing the most oil in history under the current administration, right?

The Biden administration's approach to energy is mostly an "all of the above" approach. Expand oil and natural gas, expand solar and wind, promote more efficient cars and appliances, encourage EVs, etc.

The Trump approach is to expand oil, gas, and coal and hostility to wind, solar, and efficient cars and appliances.

But current administration does it with love and DEI.

It does not seem very "Scientific" in the same way OpenAI does not seem very "Open".

Honestly, it is a bad move in my opinion. If you want to be seen as impartial, you should stay impartial.

seems like they are doing it for the subscriptions. smart marketing

Debatable if this should be flagged? (politics) I'm personally pro-science but this does seem to be intended to sway voters.

It is definitely interesting that Scientific American takes a stance.

> (...) but this does seem to be intended to sway voters.

I don't know what point you tried to make. All discussions comparing candidates are intended to contribute to the decision-making processes followed by voters. What exactly do you think takes place in an election?

I mean,the article leads with this observation:

> Kamala Harris has plans to improve health, boost the economy and mitigate climate change. Donald Trump has threats and a dangerous record

If you're deciding who to vote for, you're still undecided and those values are important to you personally, don't you think this information is decisive?

Only that AIUI HN is meant to be politics-free.

You don't understand it. HN isn't meant to be politics free[0].

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38623321

lol Scientific American