Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

I clicked on the links of the articles linked to by the author as "egregious" examples of Helmuth's editorial bias, and they're both clearly labeled _OPINION_. (Opinion articles are not scientific articles because they are __opinion__.)

May need to choose some better examples if the author wants to support his point.

Why does a scientific magazine have an Opinion section in the first place? Has it always? I would guess the number of Opinion pieces has gone up dramatically in the last decade.

It provides a valuable path to outside perspective? Generally you would expect some credentials and vetting in what opinion you post. But the idea seems fine? Good, even.

Probably because opinions are interesting to most people and people who read pop sci magazines want to read opinions that have more of a science/evidence bent then what they can get out of other magazines and/or newspapers.

"Editorial bias" and "opinion article" aren't mutually exclusive.

Is there bias in what opinions SciAm chooses to print?

>they're both clearly labeled _OPINION_. (Opinion articles are not scientific articles because they are __opinion__.)

People who supported Fox News during it's heyday used the same argument.

> Why does a scientific magazine have an Opinion section in the first place?

Nature has an Opinion section. New Scientist does too. Most magazines do.

> I would guess the number of Opinion pieces has gone up dramatically in the last decade

Did you do any research on this or just throwing out random guesses?

If that was the point the original article was trying to make then they should have provided evidence of that, rather than selecting a couple opinion articles to try to build a case for their own very clear ideological leanings.

There may or may not be editorial bias at SciAm -- no idea since I don't read it, and not really interested either way -- but that article was a shoddy piece.

> Did you do any research on this or just throwing out random guesses?

As I said, I said it was a guess. I tried chatgpt, but no help there. I was hoping that people here who are more regular SA readers than me would have a sense of this.

It is well-known that people do not discern reporting and opinion coverage. IMO this barrier is exacerbated in scientific publications, where science-like language is used throughout. It gives the sense that "science" is behind the opinion.

This may not sway science-savvy readers of the magazine, but when it is reported elsewhere ("Scientific American magazine says XYZ"), it surely misleads people. I'd rather science magazines stick to science, but that's just me.

> As I said, I said it was a guess. I tried chatgpt, but no help there.

"We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas"