←back to thread

Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

(reason.com)
490 points Bostonian | 5 comments | 18 Nov 24 22:04 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
agentultra ◴[19 Nov 24 20:39 UTC] No.42187856[source]▶
I can't really speak to the author's credentials but they link to two of their own articles and seem to be sour that SciAm didn't publish their work under this out-going editor's direction.

In general though, it seems like publications such as SciAm are under a lot of pressure in this political environment. Maybe more than ever. I'm sure they've no doubt faced criticism from scientists that wanted to publish climate-denialist "science," over the last 40-some-odd years.

It seems like the folks clamouring for "neutrality," in science are those that were most often marginalized for their unscientific writing and claims. This whole environment of "both sides," and pseudo-scientific conspiracy theories, and alternative-facts must be absolutely exhausting for editors.

I hope SciAm manages to stay progressive and continue to publish good stuff.

replies(2): >>42188285 #>>42188305 #
rurp ◴[19 Nov 24 21:29 UTC] No.42188285[source]▶
I feel like you missed a big chunk of the article. The author points out a number of cases where SciAm published outright false or misleading information, which always echoed progressive activist talking points. This has nothing to do with publishing climate denialism or other pseudoscience, it's about not publishing poor information just because it aligns with a particular world view.

SciAm is hardly an isolated example of this. It is wild to me how many organizations have twisted themselves around to promote various trendy progressive social causes that have no connection to their actual mission over the past decade or so. Mozilla is the poster child for this in tech.

I used to shake my head at this stuff, finding it mildly annoying but not all that consequential. After seeing the results of the last election and what voters have been telling pollsters for years, it's clear that this sort of activism is a massive albatross weighing on every single liberal politician and cause.

replies(1): >>42188643 #
agentultra ◴[19 Nov 24 22:10 UTC] No.42188643[source]▶
Turns out the author has no scientific credentials of any kind. They've been criticized for having an anti-trans bias in their writing [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Singal

replies(1): >>42196718 #
1. xp84 ◴[20 Nov 24 18:22 UTC] No.42196718[source]▶
It's obvious that he would be criticized for "having an anti-trans bias" because saying anything that doesn't directly support the 'progressive agenda' about trans issues is, to those activists, an "anti-trans bias."

Many trans people have an 'anti-trans bias,' by those same criteria.

replies(1): >>42198337 #
2. agentultra ◴[20 Nov 24 21:34 UTC] No.42198337[source]▶
I think his credentials speak for themselves. He cites, as expertise, two articles (in popular magazines mind you, not scientific journals) and a book he wrote. That makes him an expert on gender health issues?

He has no medical degree, no published research to speak of.

GLAAD reviewed one of the articles and catalogued it: https://glaad.org/gap/jesse-singal/

The conclusion and many points in the article hinge on his self-claimed expertise. There is no expertise.

replies(1): >>42198755 #
3. xp84 ◴[20 Nov 24 22:24 UTC] No.42198755[source]▶
The article doesn't rely on the author's own credentials at all -- it lays out a few pieces that came out under this Helmuth's watch and opines that those were pretty poor quality. It does not take a Ph.D to know that thinking the normal distribution is a racist idea, is a dumb take. His complaints about the trans-related stuff relies on logic (the article details the argument clearly and it's not an appeal to his own authority, only to logic).

The type of junk Helmuth allowed into Scientific American shows that the right-wing is not the only party who will amplify and push any nonsense that happens to agree with or support its pet causes, without the slightest regard for facts or real science.

replies(1): >>42199089 #
4. agentultra ◴[20 Nov 24 23:07 UTC] No.42199089{3}[source]▶
> But what really caught my eye was SciAm's coverage of the youth gender medicine debate. This is one of the few scientific subjects on which I've established a modicum of expertise: I've written articles about it for major outlets like The Atlantic and The Economist, and am working on a book.

That’s the line where he flashes credentials that supposedly gives him credibility to critique SciAm’s coverage of gender health.

He makes the claim that SciAm’s progressive stance is dangerous to people. Wild claim from someone that hosts a podcast and wrote some terrible articles. What an expert.

replies(1): >>42208086 #
5. xp84 ◴[21 Nov 24 20:08 UTC] No.42208086{4}[source]▶
His 'modicum of expertise' amounts to him having read Cass Review that the SciAm article was critiquing, which was something the SciAm contributor had clearly not done. Since the Cass Review was saying "WPATH and AAP guidelines are flawed and here's why" and the SciAm response was "Cass Review doesn't comport with WPATH and AAP guidelines"

So yes, I'll consider the analysis of someone who has read the document in question, over the hack who didn't even read or get it and just wants to parrot the Progressive Dogma by denouncing everything they disagree with, using appeals to authority (WPATH and AAP).