Videos by OutKick
A recent survey examined the impact of the scientific journal called Nature endorsing Joe Biden for president in 2020.
According to Nature itself, its support for Biden did not help the then-candidate. But it did diminish the confidence the population had in US scientists.
The outlet published the following results:
Stunning to absolutely no one. People want the separation of politics and other avenues of life — in this case, science.
Readers do not consume scientific journals for opinions on politicians. Rather, they read Nature for authentic data.
Or, at least, they did.
Politicizing non-political outlets prompts readers to question the mission of said outlet.
Inherently, backing Joe Biden made some wonder if the journal sought facts or “facts” that support a bias.
There’s a difference. The latter has come to define most once-non-partisan outfits.
So, it’s no wonder Americans lost confidence in both Nature and other US scientists.
Still, the journal would’ve faced such a trajectory even if it didn’t weigh in on the 2020 election.
Endorsing Biden was not the first time Nature exposed itself as a political tool masquerading as “science.”
Here are some other “studies” Nature has produced:
- ‘Beyond anything I could have imagined’: graduate students speak out about racism
- “The rise of scientific racism in palaeoanthropology.”
- “Computer science has a racism problem:”
- “Racism and prostate cancer: a multilayered issue“
- “Racism is magnifying the deadly impact of rising city heat.”
- “The systemic racism that existed when Lacks’s cells were taken still exists today”
When I turn to a scientific journal, I seek subjective opinions on presidential candidates, racism, trans issues, colonialism, and reparations.
Apparently, the rest of the country does not.