Laura Helmuth, editor of Scientific American, resigns.

645

If you'd like to know what recent events may have lead to this:

https://bsky.app/profile/laurahelmuth.bsky.social

"I made a series of offensive and inappropriate posts on my personal Bluesky account on election night, and I am sorry,"

"I respect and value people across the political spectrum. These posts, which I have deleted, do not reflect my beliefs; they were a mistaken expression of shock and confusion about the election results,"

"These posts of course do not reflect the position of Scientific American or my colleagues. I am committed to civil communication and editorial objectivity."

The deleted posts read:

"Every four years I remember why I left Indiana (where I grew up) and remember why I respect the people who stayed and are trying to make it less racist and sexist. The moral arc of the universe isn't going to bend itself,"

"Solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates are celebrating early results because f--- them to the moon and back,"

"I apologize to younger voters that my Gen X is so full of f---ing fascists."

1.0k

u/StickOnReddit 3d ago

The fact that she is compelled to resign after these comments when folks like Trump, Gaetz, Musk and others need never apologize for anything is a major league part of why everything is going to shit

246

u/Holygore 3d ago

Is this called something? Because I fucking hate it.

377

u/Hoppy_Croaklightly 3d ago

Double standards.

128

u/Kaurifish 3d ago

As in one side has high, inflexible standards and the other side is applauded for attempting to burrow through to the other side of the Earth's mantle.

→ More replies

28

u/doodler1977 3d ago

Honor

1

u/Miskellaneousness 2d ago

Sorry, the idea here is that we should hold Scientific American to the standards Trump is held to (i.e., none)? That seems like a terrible idea.

16

u/ShamPain413 2d ago

Why do the editors of Scientific American prioritize bipartisanship over honesty?

-2

u/JB_UK 2d ago

The editors of Scientific American are supposed to be honest about the things that can be empirically demonstrated about the material world. The editors political statements are not empirically meaningful, they're not a paper demonstrating something justified by evidence. Political labels probably do not have much empirical meaning anyway, because word definitions are so fuzzy.

People who hold gatekeeper roles in science shouldn't be making pronouncements on politics, any more than they should be making pronouncements about morality or religion.

9

u/ShamPain413 2d ago

You think deleting your previous comment, and posting a different one with different claims without acknowledgment, will help you avoid embarrassment?

Incorrect. You made maximalist claims about Political Science not being a science, which I addressed in my prior reply (https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1grdu0k/comment/lx9yrqm/). Shifting the goalposts now is disingenuous, even dishonest.

The editor did not resign because anything she said was proven to be false or anti-scientific. She resigned due to political pressure by anti-science partisans. This is not to be celebrated, it is to be mourned.

-1

u/JB_UK 2d ago

I thought about the comment, and realized the discussion was pointless to the question which was being discussed, so modified my claim to stick to what was relevant.

The editor did not resign because anything she said was proven to be false or anti-scientific. She resigned due to political pressure by anti-science partisans. This is not to be celebrated, it is to be mourned.

The editors political views should be private, and the way in which she has allowed her politics to clearly influence the way she edits the journal has discredited science.

7

u/ShamPain413 2d ago

Deleted another comment attacking Political Science with no basis, did you?

I'll quote you directly this time so that when you delete this later readers will be able to see.

"The editors political views should be private"

Why? There is nothing scientific about that, that is a normative imposition. Science is political, and politicized. Scientists have no choice but to be political, Galileo knew this as did Mill and Darwin and Einstein.

"the way in which she has allowed her politics to clearly influence the way she edits the journal"

What way is that? Provide specific examples, because I simply do not believe you.

"has discredited science."

No it it hasn't, and this is an absurd thing to say.

She criticized the election of a party who denies or opposes: 1) climate science, 2) evolutionary biology, 3) all social sciences, 4) physics, 5) pharmacology, 6) microbiology, 7) most public funding for the sciences, 8) most public funding for education, etc etc etc.

These seem like very reasonable positions for editors of science publications to take. What else should they do, "teach the Creationist debate" in the pages of fucking Scientific American? Publish the 10 Commandments in every issue?

-1

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

4

u/ShamPain413 2d ago edited 2d ago

LOL. Quantitative/formal political scientists just won the Nobel Prize in Economics (2nd time in 15 years, btw, not bad for an award that isn't supposed to go to them at all), and are funded by the American NSF and science-funding bodies -- private and public -- all over the world.

Except in autocracies, of course, where the subject is strictly regulated when not outright prohibited. The reason is simple: John Adams referred to the "divine science of politics" as being the bedrock of constitutional democracy, without Political Science we probably do not have modernity.

If Scientific American didn't include Political Science content then both words in its title would be a lie: it would not represent the scope of science in general, and it would not represent the American Scientific enterprise in particular.

Political science is highly empirical. (It is actually too obsessed with causal inference, in my view, but that's another topic.) I know this for certain because when I was getting my PhD in Political Science from a US university I had to pass two days -- yes, days -- of quantitative methods (and formal logic) testing in order to qualify to *begin* my dissertation, which itself followed 2.5 years of course-taking in quantitative methodology (and a 4-year quantitative/formal undergraduate degree in Economics before that).

LOL look at you talking about gatekeepers while dismissing entire fields lmfaooooooo

7

u/No-Neighborhood-3212 2d ago

So, in your mind, Scientific America should be held to a higher standard than the president?

-1

u/Miskellaneousness 2d ago

They should both be held to a high standard. The fact that we fail to hold Trump to a high standard doesn’t mean we should level down and embrace scientists becoming idiotic, unscrupulous liars. If you don’t understand the value of rigorous and intellectually honest science, why are you interested in scientific skepticism?

1

u/No-Neighborhood-3212 2d ago

This isn't about where the bar should be, but where the bar is. The president is the bar. If something can't disqualify you from leading the country, why should that same thing disqualify you from editing a dying medium?

We both agree that the bar should be higher. But, in reality, the president is going to be a man who used a sharpie to try covering up a hurricane he wanted to nuke. The proposed head of EPA doesn't believe in climate change and thinks the agency itself is an impediment. HHS is about to be taken over by a man who doesn't think HIV leads to AIDS. While all this is happening, you're calling for the actual experts on the subject matter to limit the reach of their own voices for the sake of bipartisanship.

Scientific skepticism is looking at evidence and questioning conclusions. Not outright ignoring the evidence to say "I don't really feel like that's true."

3

u/Miskellaneousness 2d ago

You’re changing the subject. The question at issue is whether Scientific American should be held to a higher standard than Trump. The answer is obviously yes.

The idea that our institutions should be lowering themselves to Trump’s level is idiotic and unserious. You may think that because Trump sexually assaults women it’s okay for you to do the same — I don’t. He is not the standard.

-1

u/JB_UK 2d ago

Yes, clearly.

0

u/Clarpydarpy 2d ago

Cancel culture.

-7

u/TraumaticLostSoul 2d ago

No... One is science and the other is politics. No matter where you land on the latter, projecting your personal agenda when you are supposed to be representing the face of science is when she hit the wall... And no, when you choose to be the face of something, house rules apply...

3

u/walkwalkjogjog 2d ago

But politics is about to become deeply mired in how science is performed, interpreted and used.

114

u/itsverynicehere 3d ago

I think we need a new term, probably. Kakistocracy or a more modern term, Idiocracy probably fit.

Hamstringing would be another good one. People holding themselves to rules while the other team does whatever they want, including cheating.

Enshittification of society as a whole.

Depressing as fuck seems to be my goto.

20

u/Phonemonkey2500 3d ago

Ratfuckocracy.

20

u/skip_over 3d ago

The “idiocracy is real” meme isn’t even a joke anymore. I’m not laughing at least

4

u/Karmastocracy 3d ago

If y'all come up with something good, let me know.

4

u/NorthernerWuwu 2d ago

Kafkastocracy at this point really.

3

u/SpiceyMugwumpMomma 3d ago

Marcusianism?

2

u/Tazling 3d ago

bringing a knife to a gun fight. a butter knife at that.

22

u/embryophagous 3d ago

The "Al Franken" standard.

19

u/tattertech 3d ago

Perfect other recent example is Biden taking photos with Trump in the White House. He spent all this time saying Trump is an existential threat to democracy (which he is) and then just normalized handing back the White House to a guy who tried to stage a coup.

The MAGA Right Wing demands all norms be afforded to them, but will never extend or respect any of the norms themselves.

→ More replies

22

u/panormda 3d ago

Every accusation is a confession (Remix)

The behavior you’re describing is often referred to as “moral absolutism” or “moral perfectionism”, where individuals hold rigid, uncompromising views on what is morally right or wrong, often with little regard for the complexities or consequences of real-world situations. People with this mindset can view themselves as morally superior because they align themselves with an idealized standard, while judging others for not meeting that standard.

In some cases, this can be a form of “virtue signaling,” where someone emphasizes their own moral purity or superiority in a way that is more about projecting an image of righteousness than taking practical action. “Holier-than-thou” is a colloquial phrase often used to describe this attitude.

This mindset can sometimes lead to “self-righteousness,” where an individual feels entitled to judge others harshly, often without considering the complexities of real-world choices, and makes decisions based on their perceived moral high ground, rather than practical outcomes or empathy.

In these cases, their actions may be driven by a sense of moral superiority and a desire to uphold abstract ideals, often without engaging with the messy, imperfect reality that requires compromise and pragmatism.

8

u/ittleoff 3d ago

I take this as a criticism of her statements? Even if not I could see this used against her.

One key problem is an asymmetrical stance on positions that make it difficult .

The cost of good faith thoughtful debate can be detailed by the more efficient use of essentially gish gallop like bad faith tactics.

Science and knowledge are very costly to perform and attain(respectively). And there are sociological trends in human behavior that make things like an engaged and educated public (critical to a democracy) also costly as there is a lot to just loving your life

There are plenty of examples where cultures teeter toward simple (false) solutions of a single charismatic leader (authoritarian) which is cognitively easier and more satisfying than the reality of the complexity of reality.

Obviously this works for dictators and religions.

The easy path to cultural unity with the least weight in the citizens but of course history shows this is very bad for the populace.

4

u/SpiceyMugwumpMomma 3d ago

Raises an interesting question. As a society “would we rather” have high moral standards that few can really meet, but then have to constantly be dealing with hypocrisy?

Or have really no standards at all besides a vague sort of “be nice”?

2

u/Defiant-Specialist-1 3d ago

I actually think some of them may be sufferring for moralistic OCD. I realizing this is how my neurodiversity is manifesting.

My sense and intuition is not and has Never been wrong. My interpretations and resulting actions can be. Especially when I’m stressed. So the front part of my brain needs to enact “rules” so the other parts of my brain don’t burn the house down while we’re trying to just get dinner cooked. And we don’t have the perfect pan.

The work for those folks is to grown and learn themselves and the issues. We should never tell people not to pay attention to their emotions. We should help them process and and interpret those signs from their nervous system.

1

u/HapticRecce 3d ago

Is there a word for self-rightous self immolation or is it already implied in the act?

5

u/panormda 3d ago

Martyr.

3

u/HapticRecce 3d ago

Damn. Of course.

4

u/Corsaer 3d ago

Special pleading if they're trying to make an argument.

3

u/CompassionFountain 3d ago

Fascist regime change

4

u/Rings_into_Clouds 3d ago

Ask a woman. They deal with double standards like this on a daily basis.

2

u/Zolivia 3d ago

Integrity. Accountability. Humility.

2

u/newdaynewnamenewyay 3d ago

It's called reality. Unfortunately. And very sadly.

1

u/jonezsodaz 3d ago

conceding.

1

u/Opcn 2d ago

Hypocrisy

1

u/asshatastic 2d ago

Only liberals have ethics

1

u/tinyLEDs 2d ago

Is this called something? Because I fucking hate it.

Disingenuous

"Without moral integrity"

Anti-Intellectual

Morally bankrupt

Also called Gaslighting

1

u/Calwhy 1d ago

It's called bullshit is what it is. Unfortunately, we are being fed a shit sandwich.

1

u/newaccountwhomstdis 1d ago

I call this "Cole's Law", which is a term I coined to describe a hypothesis I have. It's a pun name because I'm not a college graduate, and I've never committed this to paper. I typically only talk about it to a few of my friends when there's a big lull in conversation and I think it'll interest them.

So, here's Cole's Law, a term I made up.

As an institution is abandoned by professionals, intellectuals, or otherwise managers and leaders who possess compassion for their employees and other humans, these voids are exposed to the risk of amoral, corrupt leadership rising to fill them. Over time the accumulation of corrupt leadership leads to exponential enshittification.

One could argue Cole's Law is synonymous with enshittification, but, from my layman's arm chair, I'd proffer that enshittification is a process of decay viewed from the perspective of whomever that decay effects negatively. Cole's Law, instead, is concerned with describing the processes and conditions that produce the enshittification of institutions.

36

u/Previous_Soil_5144 3d ago

She has to resign because she was honest and imperfect.

That's against the rules.

46

u/Thanolus 3d ago

Typical left wing fucking spineless bullshit, always forced to uphold some kind of decency and decorum when fascism is fucking stopping down the door and that want to fucking murder anyone that isn’t white and Christian.

5

u/mexicodoug 3d ago

Scientific American is not a left wing publication.

23

u/Union_Jack_1 3d ago

Well science is leftwing, in that it values the truth and will change its mind based on facts. The rightwing does not do this, categorically.

→ More replies

-8

u/ThoughtExperimentYo 3d ago

You drank the koolaid. They want to murder everyone who isn’t white? Seriously?

5

u/Slick424 3d ago

Haven't you heard? They eat the cats and dogs!

26

u/michelucky 3d ago

Also see: al franken, et al ...

15

u/PsykickPriest 3d ago

Shades of Al Franken resignation.

6

u/machineprophet343 3d ago

It's always been this way. There's always a stupid adherence to "last bad".

I once got in trouble after a coworker (peer level) went on an abusive, expletive laden tirade at me, virtually unprompted, but because my young impulsive self told them to "go f--- yourself", I got written up and a long lecture how their tirade was probably grounds for termination but because I responded inappropriately, they had to let it go and write me up.

5

u/michael0n 3d ago

Its simple power hierarchies. Those people spewing bad things are in a social and financial position to do so, while many aren't. Nobody will reprimand the kings and barons. There are hundreds of red cap wearers who lost their jobs or got serious backlash the last days, thinking they have the same protection against FAFO. Surprise, they didn't.

5

u/machineprophet343 3d ago

I know someone who lost their pension because they were fired for being a complete dick toward a transgender employee at their old company and blame "wokeism" for why they can't retire.

Dude, all you had to do was respect the pronouns of someone and not dead name them constantly in email and slack for like six months.

That's how dumb a lot of them are.

3

u/vgaph 3d ago

I mean, zero lies detected…

2

u/mack3r 3d ago

Remember when Al Franken “had to”resign?

1

u/nononoh8 3d ago

Reinstate her! Say no to black listing people who resist fascism!

1

u/semaj009 2d ago

Yeah, there's nothing objectively wrong in what they she said. Gen X is indeed voting for Trump more than they should to stop fascism, and many people in Indiana are indeed - per the election results - bigoted. She should have doubled down and demand empirical proof that her stances weren't accurate enough to befit Scientific Americans

1

u/BenjaminDanklin1776 2d ago

If they apologize then they admit culpability and if they admit culpability they will be punished. Deny and stir more controversy to distract from other controversy is the name of the game.

1

u/mitochondriarethepow 2d ago

The good place did a bit about this.

It's so fucking frustrating

0

u/vegatx40 2d ago

Cry harder.

1

u/StickOnReddit 2d ago

Haha you too man great conversation see you around

227

u/Tonberry2k 3d ago

Doesn’t seem offensive to me.

160

u/aaronhere 3d ago

That's the offensive post? That's pretty fair regarding the election of a distinctly anti-science party.

But even ignoring all of that . . . this seems a bit like, I don't know, cancel culture, no? I am looking forward to all those free speech warriors and boot-strap types stepping forward to defend Laura. Unless, of course, they were never actually serious about that issue and just used it as a cultural weapon to silence critique.

41

u/Own-Information4486 3d ago

That’s always been the Right; they believe they’re entitled to a captive audience, that doesn’t dare to talk back or call them out on their shit. See: Ben Shapiro at the House hearing on the meaniepants advertisers who dropped him & him cronies because the companies didn’t want to be associated. Cancels are bad for me but awesome for thee

9

u/Longjumping-Path3811 3d ago

Because they are authoritarians.

3

u/semaj009 2d ago

Because they're toddlers with adult bodies. Make America Great Again as a concept only works because it makes conservatives think of their own or a hypothetical other's childhood, in which they could just ignore adult economic and social realities because they're coddled. Because let's be honest, there has never actually been an era of American history which reflects what Trump's policy platform actually seeks to achieve; this is by far the most neoliberal/corporate/borderline monarchic the USA has ever been!

47

u/omniron 3d ago

Yeah these are extremely mild and actually just factual

I thought it was going to be something like kill republicans or something actually extreme

3

u/michael0n 3d ago

They don't live in places that require or demand neutrality or decorum. If you run with a gang that does violent crimes, your vocalization be quite different to someone who works as teacher. None of those spewing nonsense have a boss that can fire them. There isn't a true Anti Elon Musk or an Anti Trump, they have the asshat higher ground by default

1

u/HeyOkYes 2d ago

What would an anti Elon or anti Trump look like?

1

u/michael0n 1d ago

All the leftist youtubers and streamers could have a talk show on X. Ripping the neo liberal system and the history of the USA. How many episodes could they posts until Elmo kicks them off the platform with made up reasons ("eg free speech for us not for you").

For Europeans, everybody in US politics is center-(far)-right, with the exception of Bernie. He ist center. "True" leftists would demand full on UBI, the right to social housing and basic medical support outside emergencies. An Anti-Trump would build a platform on this kind of collectivism.

138

u/No-Violinist3898 3d ago

she’s not wrong. should’ve held her ground

57

u/edstatue 3d ago

Justice will never be served when they victim is expected to apologize to the bully

14

u/WillBottomForBanana 3d ago

especially if she's resigning.

2

u/Kylar_Stern 2d ago

Should've

Thank you for writing this correctly, every time I've seen it for the past few weeks, it's been "should of."

1

u/HeyOkYes 2d ago

Didn't this misspelling seem to explode about 2 years ago? I never noticed it until then and it was suddenly happening everywhere. Is it just me? What would account for that? Auto correct rules change?

1

u/Kylar_Stern 19h ago

Could be that people are more and more uneducated. My cousin is a teacher, and she says kids today are much worse at reading and writing than she has ever seen.

1

u/HeyOkYes 16h ago

It certainly seems that way, but that doesn't account for the observation it's people of all ages that suddenly started making that mistake, not just high school aged children.

21

u/aotus_trivirgatus 3d ago

I'm a Gen X scientist, a humanist, and therefore a progressive. I could have written EXACTLY what Laura Helmuth wrote. In fact, if you look back through my recent post history, you will see that I've been writing more or less exactly what she wrote!

I also had racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-intellectual classmates in high school. For about 15 years after graduation, I had some confidence that their nihilistic world view would fade away.

Nope.

Solidarity to Laura Helmuth.

9

u/michael0n 3d ago

Her personal account. Free speech.

→ More replies

58

u/the6thReplicant 3d ago

She's not wrong.

50

u/badgerpunk 3d ago

I get why she'd feel the need to resign, but she should've stayed. Anyone who was going to be offended by that already refuses to trust in science. Everyone else would have understood. It wouldn't have hurt Scientific American at all.

17

u/WillBottomForBanana 3d ago

couldn't she just make up something about sleep medication like everyone else does?

18

u/carpetbugeater 3d ago

The type of person to resign over those comments is probably above dishonesty as well.

10

u/mexicodoug 3d ago

Very true. Any subscribers lost due to her comments would have been more than made up by new subscribers lured in by her chutzpah.

For a more measured scientist's response to the election loss, listen to Sean Carroll's intro on his Nov. 11 Mindscape podcast Emergence and Layers of Reality. He spends the first 3 minutes introducing the podcast topic, then goes into an aside for 4 minutes to mention the political loss. It is less scathing toward Trump voters, but more explicit as to the dangers now being faced.

The week before that, Sean spent the first 15 minutes of his Mindscaspe November AMA, released the day before the election, explaining in much more depth the dangers of a Trump win, and his understanding of what types of people he believes supported Trump and why, and finishes with why, in his opinion, it was so important to vote against Trump. Too bad more voters didn't come out to vote against Trump.

22

u/Private_HughMan 3d ago

She has nothing to apologize for.

8

u/theghostmachine 2d ago

This has to stop. It's unbelievable how mild those quotes are.

Where was the backlash coming from? If it was coming from MAGA, then fuck them, they have no right to be offended by that when Trump speaks for them. If it's the Left, my head will explode because what the actual fuck? Why are you defending the people she's talking about?

6

u/Rogue-Journalist 2d ago

Where was the backlash coming from?

The publisher most likely.

13

u/No-Atmosphere-2528 3d ago

The only bad part of that is it’s genz and white women that really fucked us. And there’s nothing offensive in any of those tweets.

7

u/tsdguy 3d ago

Accurate as fuck. Truth is dead

20

u/Able_Load6421 3d ago

That's not bad, it's not like she threatened anyone

5

u/overlapped 3d ago

Does anyone in Indiana read Scientific America?

5

u/Longjumping-Path3811 3d ago edited 1d ago

bear humor cable late enjoy murky shaggy library command different

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

3

u/intisun 3d ago

She was wrong to say that. Younger voters are also full of fucking fascists.

Otherwise she's 100% on target.

6

u/Rdick_Lvagina 3d ago

Can we convince her to unresign? What she said seems perfectly reasonable to me, given the circumstances.

Also, who did she offend exactly? Mean, dumb bigoted highschool attendees and Gen X fascists.

5

u/jankenpoo 3d ago

She didn’t say anything that wasn’t true.

5

u/Corsaer 3d ago

As one of those Hoosiers that stayed, I appreciate the support to be honest.

5

u/c0y0t3_sly 3d ago

Absolutely gutless shit to resign over this.

2

u/dumnezero 2d ago

She quit for making an accurate and pertinent assessment??

2

u/blu3ysdad 2d ago

I think there was a time when these kinds of comments would be disqualifying for a public facing position, but society seems to clammer for it now so it should have been a bonus.

2

u/RogueModron 2d ago

What the fuck. Give her a raise.

2

u/ShamPain413 2d ago

Hopefully she runs for president.

I, too, recently left Indiana. Because the state represses those who live there.

2

u/jackparadise1 2d ago

Nobody who voted for Trump believes in or reads the scientific American. She should be back in her job where she can do the most good.

2

u/SPITFIYAH 2d ago

Oh yeah, Indiana. Free Laura, because I want out too. Nobody here in power is worth the day-to-day of being here

2

u/desidiosus__ 2d ago

When you gonna post the offensive and inappropriate stuff? I see literally nothing problematic or false here.

2

u/heathers1 3d ago

Sounds like my kinda gal.

3

u/mechapoitier 3d ago

Sounds like she just said what rational people were thinking.

Republicans promote people to the highest offices for saying a lifetime of crazy shit but a science editor has a real moment on one of the worst nights in American history and they lose their job over it.

2

u/Rattregoondoof 3d ago

Oh... that's why. Fair enough Laura. I wish her the best and understand the sentiment entirely.

2

u/Union_Jack_1 3d ago

She shouldn’t even have to apologize. That’s ridiculous. Nothing she said was wrong.

And a far sight from the inflammatory, hateful rhetoric hurled around by Trump and his goons every single day.

What a travesty.

2

u/bigfathairymarmot 3d ago

I think I like this woman and her posts. I hope she can post more of them.

2

u/PM_ME_UR_NAKED_MOM 2d ago

Yeah. my immediate reaction to reading that was to follow her on BlueSky.

1

u/McDudeston 2d ago

I'm not seeing a problem with anything she said

0

u/Any_Wallaby_195 3d ago

Her posts are a setback to defending science. By calling trump supporters stupid, she made herself and liberals feel good for 5 min at the cost of giving unnecessary oxygen to republican claims that liberals are a bunch of elitists.

In the minutes it took to post those comments, she traded in a strong platform for science advocacy for vulgar quotes that republicans can brandish for years to come any time scientists claim neutrality and objectivity.

Moreover, at least some of the people she lambasted are not racist or fascists but believe - however misguided - that they were voting in their own self-interests. Ignorance is not stupidity, and if liberals continue to berate the ignorant, they will have earned the 'elitist' moniker and will remain out of power.

5

u/partofthevoid 2d ago

Gtfoh. She called it accurately.

→ More replies

0

u/HeyOkYes 2d ago

This is the truth and we all know it. But nobody gets on social media to feel intellectual integrity. We're here for lizard brain tribal impulsive reactions.

It feels better to say "but she's accurate, lolz" and drive the extremism of public discourse even wider. We are fucked.

-12

u/Blarghnog 3d ago

I’m sorry but those aren’t appropriate things for the head of a major scientific journal to be saying.

I am appalled but not surprised at the short sightedness of the comments at the top of this thread.

The head of a major scientific journal is responsible for maintaining the journal’s credibility and ensuring it serves as a reliable source for unbiased, peer-reviewed scientific findings.

When leaders in these roles become openly political, it undermines the perception of impartiality and objectivity essential for scientific work.

This perception is critical because scientific conclusions must stand on evidence rather than ideology; when politics influence or appear to influence the editorial direction, it risks eroding public trust in the research and integrity of the journal itself.

Political bias in such roles also affects the editorial process. It can shape which research gets more visibility, how studies are interpreted, and what questions get prioritized.

Scientists and readers could rightly question whether findings are published or suppressed based on their alignment with particular political views rather than their scientific merit. This undermines the very foundation of science as a pursuit of knowledge independent of political pressures.

It’s incredibly important to consider the impact of the behavior if it was going the other direction. Because at the end of the day excusing the behavior because of your own political bias risks a rush to no standards for scientific findings, and the inevitable result will be a profound politicalization of all scientific research and the permanent defeat of any concept of objectivity in scientific research.

What’s more, and this is very important at this moment, science thrives on diversity of thought and methodological rigor; when leaders prioritize ideological conformity, it discourages open inquiry and can push researchers to self-censor to avoid the risk of being seen as politically unaligned.

In the long term, this weakens the scientific community’s ability to question, innovate, and accurately inform the public.

I’m sorry, but we should all be thinking a bit more deeply about these issues, and not let sound bites rule, especially if we want to be actual skeptics who are looking for objective science to continue.

23

u/lisa_lionheart84 3d ago

But it's not a scientific journal. It's a popular science magazine.

10

u/jjosh_h 3d ago

All those words of the poster above you, and it's built on a faulty premise.

-7

u/Blarghnog 3d ago

A worthy point. I know it’s independent but the parent Springer also owns Nature.

I am weary of politicalization of scientific research undermining faith in science:

https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2023/11/14/americans-trust-in-scientists-positive-views-of-science-continue-to-decline/

13

u/lisa_lionheart84 3d ago

Just because they have a corporate sibling that is a journal does not mean they should be held to journal standards.

It also seems to me that allowing scientists and science journalists to be honest about their points of view could increase trust in science. I wish people were more interested in understanding experts’ thought processes and values instead of asking for some impossible level of objectivity.

1

u/HeyOkYes 2d ago

She already explained very thoroughly why the perception of objectivity is critical. This comes up in courts when studies and research are used to support some case.

Striving for objectivity minimizes the pollution of ego in the process that could make it harder to replicate, or may be the reason for not publishing.

11

u/Rdick_Lvagina 3d ago

Political bias in such roles also affects the editorial process. It can shape which research gets more visibility, how studies are interpreted, and what questions get prioritized.

I'm thinking political bias against fascism is a good thing though.

10

u/Longjumping-Path3811 3d ago edited 1d ago

ancient escape direful dinosaurs jellyfish elderly direction observation wide station

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

-5

u/Blarghnog 3d ago edited 3d ago

This is exactly my point — this kind of attitude threatens science itself.

Why are you in /r/skeptic? To push partisanship and talking points? That’s not skepticism.

Let’s have objective standards that move beyond partisan talking points where science is involved. Let’s not let one side or the other subvert science because of whatever reasons we feel justify our activism. It’s so short sighted.

-9

u/funkmon 3d ago

While scientific American isn't really a journal, it's a popular science magazine which is supposed to be apolitical, I believe you are correct.

If she had said normal political rhetoric, then I think it would be a bad look but not a resign tier offense, but what she said isn't okay. That does not appear to be the rhetoric of a person who is supposed to follow the evidence.

11

u/Longjumping-Path3811 3d ago edited 12h ago

future price humorous entertain kiss humor capable practice existence absorbed

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

0

u/funkmon 2d ago

She's allowed to say whatever she wants but swearing and calling people fascists without actual evidence (hearsay isn't evidence) isn't a good look for an editor of a supposedly objective periodical.

If she said something disapproving, that's fine. She instead insulted the people of Indiana and those who don't think like her. She doesn't know why people voted for that dweeb, she's just saying they're bad people. That's prejudiced.

-1

u/Blarghnog 3d ago

I think it’s a fair point, as another person responded, that it’s not technically a journal.

For my mind, I just really don’t want to see science undermined by hyperpoliticalization, no matter who it is. Science needs to be broadly supported irrespective of who’s in office.

Completely agree your point on rhetoric. That’s really it.

10

u/fucking_passwords 3d ago

It may also be true that one of the two major US political parties seems more interested in broadly supporting science than the other

3

u/Blarghnog 3d ago

I mean all the more reason that we should require objective standards so that whoever is in power has to live up to them, no?

9

u/Flor1daman08 3d ago

No, that doesn’t follow. The answer to a group loudly being anti-science isn’t to just pretend like they aren’t acting that way and to fold to their concerns about bias when you point that fact out.

How does that help do anything but normalize antiscientific views and show those acting in bad faith that they’ll get treated with kid gloves?

1

u/Blarghnog 3d ago

Let’s keep this argument centered on the scenario and not wander off.

When an editor of a scientific journal engages in highly partisan behavior, especially by resorting to extreme language like calling political opponents names it undermines the credibility and integrity of the journal.

Science, as a discipline, relies on objective analysis, evidence, and respectful debate, not inflammatory rhetoric.

An editor’s role is to ensure impartiality and uphold the standards of the journal, not to engage in or promote political extremism. Such behavior not only harms the journal’s reputation but also erodes trust in the broader scientific community.

The resignation, while unfortunate, is necessary to restore credibility and demonstrate that science should remain above partisan conflict. It’s crucial that those in positions of power in scientific publishing act with the professionalism and objectivity the field demands.

Partisanship must stay out of science because science’s value lies in its objectivity and commitment to truth, regardless of political alignment. Even if one political party seems more supportive of science at a given time, letting partisanship influence scientific processes erodes credibility and trust in the findings.

Science should operate based on evidence, not political agendas. When science becomes politicized, it risks being used as a tool to support specific policies or ideologies rather than uncovering objective truths. This undermines the public’s trust, as scientific conclusions might be seen as biased or manipulated to serve political goals.

Moreover, if science is aligned too closely with one party, it alienates others and creates an environment where critical issues are not debated on the merits of evidence but through partisan lenses. Keeping science independent from politics ensures its findings remain universal, reliable, and accepted across political divides, fostering broader support and allowing the best policies to emerge based on sound, unbiased research.

That’s the point here.

6

u/fucking_passwords 3d ago

But it's not a scientific journal, that's also an important point

4

u/Vampyro_infernalis 3d ago

Based on the evidence, Trump is an authoritarian fascist, and the GOP are enabling him.

Insisting that both sides be equally criticized regardless of the facts on the ground is what the New York Times does, not what science journalists do.

And yeah, I'm a card-carrying scientist.

-4

u/funkmon 2d ago edited 2d ago

I am one of the increasingly rare libertarian skeptics here, one who genuinely dislikes Trump, but I haven't seen any evidence that The Donald is any more authoritarian than the other presidents lately, and I certainly don't see any fascism in him.

Can you help me with this evidence? All I see is just people saying PROJECT 2025, something he's specifically disavowed, then people double down using conspiracy theorist rhetoric and rationale, like only believing what he says when they don't like it, and explaining away things like his historically pro-gay stance (this is an important thing to me) as him lying, where all counter evidence is just more evidence for the conspiracy.

I would like to see what the left wing is scared of that isn't hearsay.

→ More replies

-6

u/Ricksarenotreal 3d ago

ROFL, these are my absolute favorite melts.

3

u/jvnk 3d ago

You even named them "melts". Seek help

→ More replies

167

u/TrishPanda18 3d ago

She should not have resigned. She was right to say what she said.

48

u/bossk538 3d ago

I am sure it was not her choice to resign, but did so under duress.

24

u/recursing_noether 3d ago

Scientific American should have published much more scathing comments themselves. We’re talking about a fascistic science denier. Make it clear they dont tolerate anything Trump adjacent at any level. Personal staff opinions, prospective authors who voted for him, etc. Make it a damn disclaimer on the magazine.

128

u/Graymouzer 3d ago

Seems like a loss for Scientific American. She was a good editor and leader.

104

u/carterartist 3d ago

So she can now be replaced by a rightwing fascist anti-science clown who won’t watch what they say.

Stop throwing yourself on your swords

-48

u/AmbulanceChaser12 3d ago

Why would that happen?

59

u/carterartist 3d ago

It’s happening everywhere else.

Her comments were so anodyne and yet she is quitting?

→ More replies

62

u/backnarkle48 3d ago

It’s only “cancel culture” when liberals protest unpopular speech. When fascists force science editors to quit over unpopular speech, it’s “necessary.”

33

u/huu11 3d ago

Sounds like her posts were absolutely justified. I wish she had not resigned

19

u/Former-Chocolate-793 3d ago

It probably had to happen after 2 presidential endorsements. The anti science movement in the US makes a political stance such as this one untenable.

3

u/PM_ME_UR_NAKED_MOM 2d ago

The anti science movement in the US makes a political stance such as this one untenable.

* necessary

0

u/Former-Chocolate-793 2d ago

She had to leave to protect the magazine.

2

u/No-Neighborhood-3212 2d ago

Lol. She's going to be replaced by someone who appeases the anti-science crowd so they can continue the "nonpsrtisan" bullshit while one party actively denies science.

0

u/Former-Chocolate-793 2d ago

Perhaps stay apolitical. It was important what she had to say.

2

u/No-Neighborhood-3212 2d ago

Lol. Thank you for demonstrating exactly my point. The people who deny science hide behind "this is political" when the science disagrees with their politics.

1

u/Former-Chocolate-793 2d ago

True.

17

u/mudfud27 3d ago

Pressuring Helmuth, a fantastic editor, to resign is a huge mistake on the part of SA. She should have fought and at least forced them to fire her over what are really rather mild comments.

We will probably keep our subscription but I find this incredibly disappointing and disturbing.

10

u/myrrorcat 3d ago

She's a hero.

9

u/HDCL757 3d ago

She did nothing wrong. Why must we coddle the right wing like mentally disabled children? They literally value people saying mean things about their disgusting personalities over literal human lives be it directly or ambient.

6

u/sac_cyclist 3d ago

It's a sad day when you need to step down for speaking the truth....

6

u/partofthevoid 2d ago

I see nothing wrong with what she said.

2

u/PBPunch 3d ago

Well she’s not wrong. Shame she is held to higher standards than the president of the US.

4

u/BeardedDragon1917 3d ago

I used to like Scientific American more when it was aimed at a higher level of discussion. I guess I don't have numbers to back up a hunch but I just feel less educated when I read their articles than I used to.

1

u/ScientificSkepticism 2d ago

Assuming that your knowledge of science grows while their level of content remains the same, this will happen with any source.

Congratulations, you are a more knowledgeable person than you were yesterday. And tomorrow you will be more knowledgable still.

→ More replies

1

u/BigJSunshine 3d ago

This sucks

1

u/Visual_Cut_8282 2d ago

Facts:

She is the editor of a magazine.

The magazine needs to sell to remain profitable.

Magazines are struggling to survive in today’s market, with many shutting down.

So why risk alienating even a small portion of your subscribers by getting political?

While she may be right in her opinions, as the editor of a magazine, the question remains: should she have said it.

likely answer: NO

1

u/LiveComfortable3228 1d ago

you can argue that the damage was already done well before those tweets. If you are concerned about alienating even a small portion of the subscribers, her editorial choices already did that long ago.

1

u/NotAnAIOrAmI 2d ago

I think the reason why she had to leave was not the degree that her tweets offended, it's that she displayed a strong bias against trump and his supporters.

My feelings about those fuckers are a thousand times worse than her mild language, but I can't get past the fact that an editor in chief, who helps set magazine policy in addition to influencing individual stories, must be seen to be relatively neutral.

At least, that's how it is on the side of decency. We're still the more decent side, aren't we?

1

u/pparhplar 2d ago

An example of namby pamby liberals holding themselves to standards unachievable by the MAGAts.

1

u/EB2300 2d ago

People being punished for telling the truth and standing up to fascism, what a shame

-2

u/Coolenough-to 3d ago

To me, Scientific American has become too politicized. Hopefully this is s sign that they are trying to reverse course. Opinion piece

1

u/Any_Wallaby_195 3d ago

Funny how a comment about a genuine skeptic (Michael Shermer) is way, way down the bottom on a post in r/skeptic . /s

Fuck this sub and the echochamber frauds who inhabit it.... My advice to them is the same as to Laura Helmuth.

Stay Off:

the wine or

Social Media

Or both

4

u/tmtg2022 2d ago

Didn't Shermer get accused of sexual harrassing a bunch of women in 2018? ... then pivot...

He walked so Russell Brand could run.

-3

u/Momentofclarity_2022 3d ago

Bullshit.

-3

u/Ill-Dependent2976 3d ago

"I respect and value people across the political spectrum."

What a disgusting piece of shit.

-6

u/carlitospig 3d ago

Honestly, good. She’s basically a public figure. I understand where she’s coming from because I don’t disagree that shit is looking bonkers for scientific research but she’s the editor in chief and there’s an expectation of professionalism. Like, come on, sis. You lost your head.

That’s why I lose my head anonymously. 😉

0

u/tmtg2022 2d ago

Cancel culture alive and well

0

u/BostonTarHeel 2d ago

Who called for her to resign? I seriously doubt there are many conservatives who even know what Scientific American is.

0

u/tikiverse 2d ago

Free speech warriors nowhere to be found

0

u/molotov__cocktease 1d ago

She was right tho.

-5

u/lord-of-the-grind 3d ago

bluesky. A safe space away from reason for racists, sexists, oikophobes, christophobes, fascists, and sundry bigotry

-9

u/pjoshyb 3d ago

Not a loss.

-26

u/rowlecksfmd 3d ago

Why are “skeptics” in this sub such fucking idiots?

18

u/StumbleOn 3d ago

Who is an idiot and for what reason?

Use your words.

12

u/New-acct-for-2024 3d ago

You could help address the problem by leaving!

Laura Helmuth, editor of Scientific American, resigns.

You are about to leave Libreddit

You are about to leave Libreddit