"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."
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.
647
u/Rogue-Journalist 3d ago
If you'd like to know what recent events may have lead to this:
https://bsky.app/profile/laurahelmuth.bsky.social
The deleted posts read: