Scientific American Must End Its Partisan Activism
“Solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates are celebrating early results because f**k them to the moon and back.”
“I apologize to younger voters that my Gen X is full of f**king fascists.”
Do these sound like the words of a far-left activist? Or the words of the editor-in-chief of one of the country’s most prominent scientific journals?
The answer, sadly, is both.
On Election Day, Scientific American editor-in-chief Laura Lee Helmuth went on an expletive-fueled tirade blasting the 75,000,000+ people who voted for now president-elect Donald Trump. It took a full three days for her to express remorse.
It’s not the first time Scientific American and its staff have publicly expressed political leanings. In 2020, the magazine ended 175 years of nonpartisanship and formally endorsed Joe Biden. The publication likewise backed Kamala Harris in 2024.
In response to the blowback, Helmuth issued a statement asserting she was “committed to civil communication and editorial objectivity” at the magazine.
But under her leadership the damage has been done. It’s bad enough that 27% of Americans say they have not too much or no confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests — up from 12% in April 2020. Scientific American’s partisanship isn’t helping.
Regardless of who you voted for on Election Day, we should all agree: Scientific American should not be a mouthpiece for political campaigns.
Tell Scientific American editor-in-chief Laura Lee Helmuth to resign and publicly declare an end to the publication’s partisan activism!