Science Journal’s oblivious editors
Editors of (ostensibly) objective science journals are oblivious to their role in fomenting distrust in science.
There is hardly a better example of a heretofore respected science journal sacrificing its credibility on the alter of political partisanship than this editorial in Nature.
Read the sub-headline. How, exactly, does “science” speak out? As I wrote in my recent post about “The ScienceTM”:
“Science is a process, not an outcome. It is defined not by experts or their opinions, but by objective, repeatable, and predictive evidence.”
When Magdalena Skipper, Nature’s Editor-in-Chief, claims that “science must speak”, on matters of politics for which scientists have no special expertise, no experiments have been conducted, and no objective, repeatable, and predictive evidence has been produced, she has coined yet another entry in an ever-growing list of science-free oxymoronic phrases.
Since the premise of the editorial is unscientific nonsense, what evidence do the editors offer in defense of their continued partisanship? They link to a self-published editorial from October of 2020 as well as their Mission Statement. The latter also includes a link to Nature’s original Mission Statement from 1869. Most interestingly, however, is the reference to Nature’s own research showing the negative effects of their editorial partisanship on the public’s trust in the rest of Nature’s publications.
The first objective stated in Nature’s original Mission Statement is:
“First, to place before the general public the grand results of Scientific Work and Scientific Discovery; and to urge the claims of Science to a more general recognition in Education and Daily Life”
And their current Mission Statement is:
“First, to serve scientists through prompt publication of significant advances in any branch of science, and to provide a forum for the reporting and discussion of news and issues concerning science. Second, to ensure that the results of science are rapidly disseminated to the public throughout the world, in a fashion that conveys their significance for knowledge, culture and daily life.”
Of what grand result of scientific work or discovery is a presidential endorsement? When a journal dedicated to facts and truth turns to politics, how can scientists or the lay public have any confidence that their forum for the reporting and discussion of news and issues concerning science or the results of science are anything but equally partisan? While the claims of ideologically aligned scientists have never had a more general recognition in education and daily life, partisan editors preclude any presumption of a thorough recognition of scientific claims.
Nature’s political partisanship fatally compromises their Mission and rejects their own research showing that to be true. The editors also utterly and completely ignore the equally damning reality that they and the bulk of their contributors are or were academics whose partisanship is so heavily skewed that it is but a political echo chamber. The editors acknowledge that their own research “includes the idea of confirmation bias” but are oblivious to their own, as the content of their editorial makes abundantly clear.
Another Nature article linked in the editorial references that partisanship often takes the form of painting those on opposing sides as “simplistic caricatures.” Unironically, Nature did just that in regard to the former U.S. President in their piece titled, “How Trump damaged science — and why it could take decades to recover.” It’s an ideologically partisan whine focusing on policy priorities, not science — the stuff of politics — starting with Covid policies that Nature’s preferred scientists got mostly wrong anyway. In the editorial’s attached timeline it also includes a complaint about Trump pulling out of of the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), as if “science” has special expertise in Persian diplomacy too. The only result of such articles is to further confirm Nature’s partisanship and weaken their overall institutional credibility.
In another opinion piece published the same date as the editorial, Nature’s Arthur Lupia writes:
“…when a publication whose credibility comes from science decides to politicize its content, it can damage that credibility. If this decreased credibility, in turn, reduces the impact of scientific research published in the journal, people who would have benefited from the research are the worse for it. I read Zhang’s work as signalling (sic) that Nature should avoid the temptation to politicize its pages.”
And, in the time since the Nature editorial was published, Holden Thorp, Editor-in-Chief of Science, another formerly respected journal, put his and his publication’s partisanship on full display in a Twitter thread that should be appalling to anyone who cares about scientific integrity or even merely factually accurate and coherent argumentation. He writes: “Following the admonition to stick to science is conceding the idea that scientists can be sidelined in policy decisions. ‘Stick to science’ infantilizes scientists and tells us to sit at the kids table and let the adults decide.”
The scientists who agree with him have hardly been sidelined in policy-making. Rather it’s those who disagree who’ve not only been sidelined but publicly attacked and actively censored by governments and private companies working in concert with them. When a journal’s mission is about science, admonishing the editors to stick to science isn’t sidelining anyone. And, the only people being infantilized are average citizens who Mr. Thorp doesn’t think can be trusted to weigh the evidence for themselves.
Public policy may be informed by objective evidence, but it’s about far more than that; it is about trade-offs and values. That’s exactly the role of politics. Scientists have no greater claim to such expertise than anyone else. They are welcome to share their views as individuals, but when ostensible ‘science’ journals do so, they either falsely imply the agreement and authority of an entire profession or the notion that “expert” consensus is somehow superior to objective evidence. The latter is belied by the fact that virtually every scientific discovery of note is notable precisely because it shatters previous consensus.
The politicization of science isn’t new, but the past three years have exposed it as never before. The challenges facing our nation and the world are profound. The process of science will provide the foundation for many of the solutions, but it cannot do so without the intellectual honestly to accept evidence contrary to the prevailing narrative and the political compromises necessary to win the support of significant majorities of people across partisan divides. Public policy is inherently political because it’s about priorities, trade-offs, and broad public acceptance.
Science requires open and robust conflict to weigh the veracity of ideas and evidence. Editors exercise control over not only their own writing but what and how they choose to publish the work of others. Partisan editors step on the scale to bias their perspective for their readers.
When science journals take partisan positions, they alienate those whose support they need the most — the people who don’t already agree with them. Nature’s Editor-in-Chief is listed as “the editorial champion of diversity, equality and inclusion at Springer Nature”.
Though a so-called “champion of diversity”, viewpoint diversity is either rarely included (let alone championed) or ignored when offered. Editors Skipper and Thorp would do their journals’ and the public’s perception of science overall far more good by rejecting this editorial partisanship entirely. Until these publications reverse course, no one should trust anything they publish to be objective science.