In September, I wrote about how that month’s issue of Scientific American issued its second-ever presidential endorsement. Not shockingly, the first endorsement was for Joe Biden in 2020, and the second one was for Kamala Harris.
What was surprising was the downright caricatural portrayal of both candidates and what their administrations could bring. Harris would offer “the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence, and the willingness to learn from experience,” while a Trump administration “endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”
Scientific American broke down the issues it believed the country faced in different “scientific” categories and took a predictably far-left position on everything. It was embarrassing and silly, and it demonstrated the magazine’s commitment not to science, but to scientism.
“It’s telling that the scientists at Scientific American are so beholden to the left, which means that there’s no room for other opinions or theories in their closed minds,” I wrote at the time. Toby Young went further, calling the endorsement “not a choice dictated by science, but by theology.”
Related: The 'Science' Has Spoken
Of course, we know how the election went. Voters repudiated the unscientific assessment of what either a Harris administration or a Trump administration would bring. Americans saw in Trump a return to sanity and reasonability.
Scientific American’s editor-in-chief Laura Helmuth took to Bluesky, the left’s latest attempt to create a social media echo chamber, to trash Trump supporters and generally stomp her feet and pout that the election didn’t go her way. She called Trump voters the “meanest, dumbest, most bigoted group of fascists.” I wonder what scientific study she has to prove that hypothesis.
In one post she wrote, “I apologize to younger voters that my Gen X is so full of f***ing fascists.” In another, she expressed her wish to “f*** [Trump voters] to the moon and back.”
Conservatives and reasonable liberals on X caught wind of the rants and roasted her. Bringing her wildly disgusting rants to light led her to resign from her post.
CNN reports that “Helmuth said Thursday that she’s ‘decided to leave Scientific American after an exciting 4.5 years as editor in chief’ without mentioning her previous comments.”
Helmuth locked down her X account, although it isn’t clear if she did it after the controversy erupted or earlier. She also issued an apology on the left-wing social media platform:
— Laura Helmuth (@laurahelmuth.bsky.social) November 7, 2024 at 12:49 PM
“I am committed to civil communication and editorial objectivity,” she wrote. As a GenX Trump voter, I can’t see how her calling me a “f***ing fascist” is either civil or objective, so I’m not buying the rhetoric.
Naturally, the comments are full of lefties continuing to decry Trump and his supporters. They’re as ugly as anything you’d expect from the unhinged left.
“We thank Laura for her four years leading Scientific American during which time the magazine won major science communications awards and saw the establishment of a reimagined digital newsroom,” Scientific American’s President Kimberly Lau said in a statement to CNN. “We wish her well for the future.”
However, X users like Dr. Greg Marchand, a campaigner against transgender interventions for children, applauded Helmuth’s resignation.
As director of a major research institute, I cannot understate how beneficial @LauraHelmuth's retirement from @sciam is for research in America.
— Greg J. Marchand MD (@MarchandSurgery) November 15, 2024
Her liberal activism disguised as science turned one of the most prestigious journals in the world into a woke joke. pic.twitter.com/kZxweC5o3J
Under Helmuth's tenure at Scientific American, the outlet went so far to the left that it almost became parody. The left can't resist politicizing everything, including science, so for Helmuth to go can only improve the magazine — unless her replacement is worse.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member