Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

Every piece called out here is clearly labeled "opinion" - did they even read the normal news and analysis sections? Countless newspapers and outlets and actual scientific journals have opinion/editorial sections that are generally very well firewalled from the factual content. You could collect the worst hot takes from a few years of nearly any site with a dedicated opinion page and pretend that it has gone downhill. But that this the whole point of having a separate opinion section — so opinions have a place to go, and are not slipped into factual reporting. And many opinion pieces are submitted by others or solicited as a way to show a view that the newsroom doesn't or can't espouse.

Whether the EIC of SciAm overstepped with her own editorializing is probably not something we as outsiders can really say, given the complexities of running a newsroom. I would caution people against taking this superficial judgment too seriously.

The linked article itself is an opinion piece.

Reason does interesting stuff, sure, but no mistake it has a bias and that is a right centre libertarian view that loads factual content toward a predetermined conconclusion that individual free thinkers trump all.

As such they take part in a current conservative habit of demonising "Science" to undermine results that bear on, say, environmental health, climate change, on so on that might result in slowing down a libertarian vision of industry.

I still read their copy, I'm a broad ingestor of content, but no one should be blind to their lean either.

Are you saying the linked is meant to demonize science? The impression I got was that he was doing the exact opposite: saying that SciAm's editorial direction was harming the public perception of science, which could have far-reaching effects. I don't see that as an anti-science stance.

The author's little trans tirade is a great example, and you can start with his "I'm something of a medical expert" line. Pure ideology.

I can't find where the author writes "I'm something of a medical expert". But for myself, I'm not up to date on the research. Does this article misrepresent the current state of scientific understanding?

> Most importantly, [the article] falsely claimed that there is solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates adolescent suicidality, when we absolutely do not know that to any degree of certainty.

There's solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates suicidality. Cherry picking from a single study is dishonest.

> There's solid evidence youth gender medicine ameliorates suicidality.

Not at all true, there is no solid evidence of this. That's why it's so controversial, because ideologues are pushing for these pharmaceutical and surgical interventions on children despite the paucity of evidence.

> ideologues are pushing for these pharmaceutical and surgical interventions on children despite the paucity of evidence.

And you're pushing anti-trans propaganda that surgical interventions are happening on children despite paucity of evidence that it's happening. Not to mention lumping together puberty blockers with surgery, which you should not.

> And you're pushing anti-trans propaganda that surgical interventions are happening on children despite paucity of evidence that it's happening

It is well documented that it's happening.

See for example https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-tran..., specifically the section titled "U.S. patients ages 13-17 undergoing mastectomy with a prior gender dysphoria diagnosis".

That's not propaganda, it's data from medical insurance claims. There is other evidence too, including peer-reviewed research published in medical journals, and recordings of clinicians discussing this.