Scientific endorsements by journals or organizations, such as Nature’s endorsement of Joe Biden in 2020, can negatively impact public trust in science, particularly among supporters of the opposing party candidate. In contrast, supporters of the endorsed candidate are unlikely to be influenced positively, leading to a lower level of public confidence and more polarization along party lines. Scientific journals should remain impartial and avoid taking political positions to preserve the public’s trust in science and its experts. Dr. Anthony Fauci and Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s recent campaign for Covid-19 vaccinations did not persuade one resident, who accused them of being condescending, arrogant, and spreading fear. Scientists should prioritize seeking knowledge and facts, rather than social media hits, diversity points, and politically-directed grants. Donations to support scientific research are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law.
Study Finds that Nature’s 2020 Endorsement of Biden Dented Trust in Science
A recent study published in the Nature Human Behavior paper by Floyd Jiuyun Zhang of Stanford University has revealed that the political endorsement of Joe Biden by the British scientific journal Nature during the 2020 US election led to a decrease in trust in science and its experts.
Zhang’s research involved presenting both Biden and Trump supporters with a summary of the Nature editorial, a screenshot of the editorial’s headline, and the first paragraph of the endorsement. Participants were then asked to complete a survey after being told a set of questions. The study included 4,260 people, and Zhang made it clear that the publication is “one of the most-cited and most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world.”
Despite the fact that Nature’s political endorsement did not influence voters’ choices, the study showed that it lowered trust in the publication among voters of the candidate who was not endorsed. In his endorsement, Nature highlighted that Biden would restore environmental regulations, strengthen the EPA’s scientific capacity, and return the CDC’s leadership role in the pandemic. The publication also called for the United States to uphold its international commitments, including its membership of the WHO and UNESCO.
However, Zhang believes that the endorsement did not stand the test of time, as the policies implemented by the Biden administration have been unscientific, liberty-depleting, and have damaged the economy. He argues that the push for pseudoscience by progressives has unintended consequences and that there has been an ideological capture of scientific institutions.
Zhang’s study serves as a reminder of the importance of scientific institutions and their role in society. It highlights the need for scientific journals to remain impartial and avoid taking political positions, as doing so can have unintended consequences that can damage the public’s trust in science and its experts.
Study Shows Scientific Endorsements Can Lower Trust Among Opposing Party Supporters
A recent study has shown that political endorsements by scientific journals or organizations, such as the 2020 endorsement of Joe Biden by the British weekly scientific journal Nature, can decrease public trust in the endorser, particularly among supporters of the opposing party candidate. Such endorsements may negatively impact the trust in the scientific community as a whole and affect information acquisition behaviors related to critical public health issues. Meanwhile, positive effects among supporters of the endorsed candidate are small, if not null, and do not offset the negative effects among the opposing party supporters. This polarization can lead to a lower overall level of public confidence. Nevertheless, there is little evidence to suggest that endorsement messages change opinions about the candidates.
Although the above conclusion could suggest that only Trump supporters find scientific experts less credible nowadays, a second data point shows otherwise.
Recently released footage of a promotional video for PBS’ biographical television series “American Masters,” featuring Dr. Anthony Fauci and Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser campaigning for Covid-19 vaccinations, depicts a resident who is not convinced by their message. Despite Fauci explaining the technology behind the vaccine, the resident brushes him off, expressing skepticism about the incentives that were offered at the time to encourage people to get vaccinated.
The resident also accuses Fauci and Bowser of spreading fear through their campaign and attacks them for being condescending, arrogant, and entitled to obedience. This incident took place in Washington D.C., where the population largely opposes the MAGA movement.
It is worth noting that the Editor-in-Chief of the Science Family of Journals still believes in the importance of delving into politics and pushing narratives. However, the negative impacts of scientific endorsements on public trust in science highlight the need for scientific journals to remain impartial and avoid taking political positions. This can preserve the public’s trust in science and its experts, which is crucial in addressing critical public health issues.
Science Should Prioritize Questing for Knowledge and Facts, Not Social Media Hits
Contrary to the current trend of scientists seeking social media hits, diversity points, and politically-directed grants, the data suggests that scientists should prioritize their quest for knowledge and facts. This shift in priorities can restore public trust in science, which is essential in addressing critical public health issues. Additionally, it can ensure that science remains impartial and free from political positions, thereby preserving its credibility as a trustworthy source of information. Donations to support scientific research are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law.
Don’t miss interesting posts on Famousbio
