Scientific American Editor-In-Chief Has Spectacular Post-Election Social Media Meltdown
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.
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.
@sciam why is this hateful bigot allowed to represent your magazine? pic.twitter.com/gwLmr2060S
— Jeffrey Philistine (@TejasGator) November 6, 2024
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.
Scientific American editor-in-chief Laura Helmuth has issued an apology, expressing a commitment to "editorial objectivity".
Anyone who has observed the far-left politicization of @sciam's reporting over the last several years knows her words ring hollow.
Laura Helmuth must go. pic.twitter.com/8sRVSL0VVs
— Kevin Bass PhD MS (@kevinnbass) November 7, 2024
But there are signs that Helmuth’s protective bubble has burst.
Signs someone has crossed one leftist bridge too far. pic.twitter.com/L7M74aBvVH
— Leslie Eastman ☥ (@Mutnodjmet) November 8, 2024
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.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Scientific American is neither. .
I think the technical term is dioxymoron.
After running into many Scientific American puff pieces, I blocked search results from them. There was a time when I religiously read it cover to cover.
Can we get back to
XX=woman
XY= man
?
It would be a start
“Men get a different chromosome! Why?!?”
“Yes, that’s correct…”
A whole new Abbott and Costello “Who’s on first?” routine virtually writes itself.
We probably still need a deviant IT classification.
The Left is about Control, everything, all the time. Groceries, guns, how and what you drive. They know how to live your life better than you. A goal would be cradle to grave control.
They are tyrants
How you cook and heat your home as well. Plus “15-minute cities”….
I looked up Laura Helmuth because her name sounded familiar. She’s a cognitive neuroscientist, PhD-credentialed. These types have been a problem in medicine because they tend to believe they should be able to practice clinically without any medical training like a neurology or psychiatry residency or fellowship, or any additional training beyond their benchside research. I’ve had dealings with them before, and none of them have been pleasant. I would not trust that woman farther than I could throw my house. Given how annoying she has turned out to be on paper, one can only imagine how irritating she would be in real life.
Cancelled my subscription to Scientific American long ago and haven’t bothered to look at an issue since that time. They went from a serious scientific journal to just another PopSci magazine on the magazine rack spouting the usual woke agenda and lost me as a subscriber.
Every time a “new” scientific story/theory comes out is not a call to publicize, rather it is a call to verify.
1 – You have a new story you want published. Convince me. You have 15 minutes.
2 – Ok, the theory sounds plausible. Show mw your work.
3 – Ok, your work looks solid. Work with this team and reproduce your results.
If those three steps aren’t followed, you’re not printing science.
“Religion is about faith, science is about doubt.”
Biggs2021 (at the Barnes Brief 12/17/22)
They were never a primary scientific journal, and were always in the realm of science explanation. Their articles were/are not peer reviewed (and take peer review with a grain of salt).
Maybe if she did something with her hair and makeup, and lost 30 pounds she wouldn’t be so angry.
Post of the day!
GMTA — It appears that eschewing makeup and sporting a homeless haircut may not make you a scientist after all.
Roll left and die, Un-Scientific Anti-American.
I recall sitting in the library at Cherry Point Marine base as a second LT reading SA because it was for readers who were not scientists but wanted to know about science. It was written for the public, not scientists. If you try to read it today, you will be immediately lost with complex equations and jargon that are never heard by ordinary people.
It’s going to be very different this time
https://x.com/IvanRaiklin/status/1855232472620941587
That’s interesting. Thank you for posting this.
There are many in FLynn’s team who would remind DJT of the consequences for the republic if these folks remain at large
Early summer he stopped responding “my success will be my retribution” when asked and simply replied “This has to end” when asked
People like Helmuth and Thorp are statists, and they figure that they will be among the folks selected to tell the rest of us what to do.
To be fair, Helmuth is now disavowing her statements.
“Words have weight, something once said cannot be unsaid. Meaning is like a stone dropped into a pool; the ripples will spread and you cannot know what back they wash against.” ~ Philippa Gregory
I guess sometimes we all get caught up in the moment and say things we normally wouldn’t 🤷♂️
Hit submit too soon 😂
I’d be less inclined to think this is just a heat of the moment thing IF she has a record of saying stuff like this on the twitters!
It’s not even so much that she has a history of similar postings. Look at the body of work she has allowed to be published in her rag, and decide if there is a rigorous mind there, or just another propagandist.
I think she misspells her name… It should be “Helminth” since it’s more descriptive.
Or, if you’re a Buffy fan…
I started reading SA in the 1950s, and it was always left of center. Finally by the 1980s, I stopped being a regular reader. The sins of both commission and omission became too much to bear. Politics and science don’t mix. Science is process for understanding the “how” of the universe, but not the “why.” We leave the “why” to religion. On the other hand, politics is about power, and if that conflicts with reality, so much the worse for reality.
It’s worse than ever today as we can see with Helmuth. No excuse for insults and outright profanity, Reading her entry in Wikipedia (not to be trusted), it looks like she’s more of a political journalist than a scientist. The entry quotes her: “… you can disagree about what to do about it, but the science of it is completely, comprehensively proven.” If the quote is accurate than she lacks a basic understanding of the scientific method. Anything scientific is never proven. We only have failed to disprove it so far. See Karl Popper for further details. If she thinks catastrophic global warming rests on a sound scientific basis then we have a further indication of her ignorance.
Even serious excellent scientists make fools of themselves when they venture in politics. To wit: Albert Einstein. He wrote articles for a journal called “Science and Society,”which was a mouthpiece for the American Socialist Labor Party. These articles are embarrassingly juvenile. Today we have physicists like Leonard Susskind. His lectures are excellent. His books are excellent too. He’s a major contributor to String Theory. I came across one of his rants against Trump by accident. Embarrassingly deficient. Many highly intelligent people shut off their analytical minds when it comes to political subjects. It’s painful to see a serious thinker run off the rails. Not that I think Helmuth is a serious thinker.
Science provides those with an inquisitive mind a rigid discipline to which to adhere. Politics is a field in which most people make up their minds first, then rationalize their beliefs later. This is why so many people (particularly progressives) are so bad at articulating their politics – their politics are indefensible. They would have figured that out had they conceived their political views after, rather than before, examining the facts.
“As a woman of science myself…”
If I called you a science woman instead would I be guilty of scientism?
Does it then follow that ‘trans women’ would be ‘women of science fiction’? If so who’s gonna tell Captain Kirk?
What an offensive and infantile outburst of malignant narcissism, arrogance and petulance. So embarrassing, but, typical of self-reverential and sanctimonious Dhimmi-crat media shills/lapdogs/trained seals/stenographers and elites.
Goodness gracious! Is there any segment of US society that has not been taken over by such over-sharing adolescents?
— academia?
— journalism?
— military?
— law?
— entertainment?
— politics?
— medicine?
How is it possible that she has not been relieved of her duties? Imagine the staff whom she has surrounded herself with.
Two respectable magazines that I used to read but the left ruined were Scientific American and The Economist.
In all fairness, The Economist is a British publication.
I remember during the 2016 election that the best analysis I read of the race was in British sources. This election cycle (because of the wars in Gaza and Lebanon), I have been following the Times of Israel. Their reporting on American politics is 1.) by obvious leftists (not surprising, Israel is a socialist country) who; 2.) don’t have a clue what motivates the American voter. Very poor coverage of the American scene by ToI in this regard.
My understanding is that Israelis are very pro-Trump. Not necessarily Israeli media which like here is to the left.
I only read Scientific American, which is not a scientific journal but a science-oriented magazine, on airplanes. I’ve enjoyed it much less since I had to scroll past bullshit editorials to get to real articles. Science, however, is a premier scientific journal, and its “wokification” I took as a very bad sign. Likewise the American College of Surgeons’ commitment of DEI, which is why I resigned a few years ago.
I am a physician and PhD-credentialed scientist (microbiologist). Scientists make poor policy makers and politicians because they over-analyze everything and believe their own solutions are the only ones that should be implemented. They also tend to believe that association and correlation mean causality, even though in medicine we don’t have that luxury of making such asinine pronouncements. Overall—don’t make scientists political decision makers: they suck at it!
Women in science go into communications, or organize conferences and talks. Less obsession and more social interaction.
No reputable scientist or STEM major takes Scientific American seriously. If ScAm is silly enough to throw away their reputation as many times as they’ve done over the last 40 years, who would trust their objectivity or data in any published article?
That “apology” just screams; “I was told to do this or I would be fired.”
She has to go. If she is forced out, consider it a start.
Stopped reading SA when anthropogenic climate change and global warming began appearing as the greatest threat to the universe outside of a supernova. If these scientists are so fixed and obtuse that they are unable to discern falsified “evidence”, exaggeration and outright hoaxes, then clearly they contribute nothing of value.
“[Editor-in-chief Laura] 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.”
It is well-established and widely accepted scientifically, and amply supported by recent history, that only men can position Harris for success.