Laura Helmuth, the chief editor of Scientific American, found herself in hot water after posting some not-so-classy comments about Donald Trump and his supporters on Election Night. She later apologized, but some serious soul-searching is still needed, not just for her, but for the entire scientific community.

Helmuth's posts were filled with expletives and showed a lack of the scientific detachment one might expect from a chief editor. For instance, she wrote, "Solidarity to everyone whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high school classmates are celebrating early results. " It's surprising to see someone in their 50s still so hung up on high school drama.

She made these comments on Bluesky, a platform favored by liberals who can't stand differing opinions. This isn't the first time Helmuth's magazine has waded into politics. In 2020, it broke a 175-year tradition of neutrality to endorse Joe Biden. Other major science journals like Nature and The Lancet also endorsed Biden.

This political involvement has consequences. Surveys show that Trump supporters became more suspicious of these journals' COVID-19 coverage after the endorsements. Yet, Scientific American and Nature did it again this year, endorsing Kamala Harris.

This kind of virtue-signaling might make editors feel good, but it harms the journals' credibility. If they can't resist politics in public, what's happening behind the scenes? Nature even called Trump, who oversaw Operation Warp Speed and the rollout of COVID vaccines, "anti-science. "

Claiming science is "settled" on issues like climate change or gender transitions isn't scientific at all. It's ideological. So, it's time for these "science" journalists to prove they understand what science is really about.

Is Science About Politics or Facts?

Actions