
Scientific American Makes First Presidential Endorsement in Its 175-Year History - pseudolus
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/09/15/scientific-american-makes-first-presidential-endorsement-in-its-175-year-history/#2a15df234f52
======
brnt
It's a pity politics is so polarizing in the US that this seems necessary. I
guess it is a bit of an all hands on deck situation, but it makes me wonder
what history has in store. Generally, all hands on deck situations precede
disasters.

I think were witnessing FPTP democracy ripping itself apart by being stuck in
a local maximum. The question is how much we are going to lose before we
regain and hopefully surpass this local maximum.

~~~
squibbles
US politics has always been _interesting_. There have been numerous energetic
elections, contentious presidents, assassinations, and even a civil war. I
suspect what we are seeing has nothing to do with politics, specifically, but
rather is an artifact of global communications and modern information systems.
Advances in technology give increasingly greater power to individuals.

------
phobosanomaly
It's ironic that during all the saber-rattling with China, we have pivoted
away from vacuuming up the best scientific and engineering talent from around
the planet. We should be stealing their best and brightest, not telling them
to go away.

So what, China steals our tech. We should be pushing the bleeding edge
aggressively enough that even when they do they're 5-years behind.

Circling the wagons is the quickest way to get left in the dust.

------
betwixthewires
So is this evidence that there is widespread disdain for the current president
among academics, or evidence that many non political organizations and
institutions are getting politicized? News like this could be taken either
way. One person might say "these institutions have no credibility anymore" and
another might say "things have gotten so bad with this guy that people are
feeling the need to step in." So which is it?

~~~
strikelaserclaw
I would say latter, this coming from a very non political person who in the
past didn't care if the president had a R or D next to his name. For the first
time in my life I feel compelled to step in and vote to get back to somewhat
normalcy

~~~
betwixthewires
That's a perspective, but bear in mind that this magazine has been around for
175 years and didn't weigh in on Hitler. That would lend credence to the
people claiming it is the former.

~~~
strikelaserclaw
i mean, this is an American magazine, things look more real the closer they
are to you.

------
julianlam
Any idea why it is linking to a Forbes article? The original article is likely
more informative:

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-
americ...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-
endorses-joe-biden/)

------
strikelaserclaw
Stakes are certainly high with this election

~~~
8bitsrule
And, sorry to say, not just for the United States.

------
pixel_fcker
I doubt many of Trump’s supporters subscribe to Scientific American but it’s
good that more publications speak out against the rampant anti-intellectualism
he pushes. It will literally be the death of us all.

------
zyxzevn
Well, he was correct about Hydroxychloroquine. But most papers just kept on
claiming that it was dangerous. Even after #Lancetgate happened.

~~~
tupshin
No. No he was not.

[https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-chloroquine-
sar...](https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-chloroquine-sars-
covid-19-idUSKCN2512A7)

[https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/08/week-fact-
che...](https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/08/week-fact-checking-
hydroxychloroquine-trumps-axios/)

[https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/fact-check-white-house-
offi...](https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/fact-check-white-house-official-
says-hydroxychloroquine-doesn-t-help-treat-covid-19/19230670/)

~~~
squibbles
I don't think the mass media is a reliable or accurate source for learning
about or promulgating scientific findings. Most medical research is fraught
with ambiguity and mixed messages, simply because of the phenotypic variance
found in humans (and other organisms). (See more about phenotypic variance
here: [0]) Generally speaking, different organisms will respond differently to
the same environmental stimuli. This is why drug trials require large sample
sizes and extended periods of time to assess efficacy and safety.

With regard to hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), there is nothing that could be
considered definitive about its efficacy or safety for all people when used as
an off-label treatment for COVID-19. While there is evidence that (in some
people) is does not reduce the viral load ("Neither HCQ nor the combination of
HCQ and AZTH showed a significant effect on viral load in any of the analysed
tissues." [1]), there is evidence that HCQ "... can significantly decrease the
production of cytokines and, in particular, pro-inflammatory factors" [2] and
HCQ has "... potential, but controversial, characteristics to combat
pathological inflammation associated with COVID-19." [3]

Of course, raw research does not give a definitive answer about efficacy and
safety for all people, but it does suggest that HCQ may be one possible
treatment (perhaps preventative, perhaps in vitro) for inflammation, which is
one of the serious complications of COVID-19. It will likely be years before
the mechanisms of COVID-19 are well understood. In fact, it is likely that
some other urgent calamity will come along and compete for research funds
currently used for COVID-19 research, which could significantly extend the
time it takes to understand the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

[0] [https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/adaptation-and-
phe...](https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/adaptation-and-phenotypic-
variance-1132/)

[1]
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2558-4](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2558-4)

[2]
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-020-0156-0](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-020-0156-0)

[3]
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41419-020-2721-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41419-020-2721-8)

~~~
scotty79
> Most medical research is fraught with ambiguity and mixed messages, simply
> because of the phenotypic variance found in humans (and other organisms)

Even more general reason to be sure that Trump was not right in his overt
belief in chloroquine efficacy.

------
hexadecimalMind
Please keep science apart from politics (and yes, it it also about you
Scientific American). Thank you.

~~~
acdha
I understand the desire here but how do you think this can possibly work when
politics has such key links with science? You can’t meaningfully have a
response to the current pandemic or climate change, the defining issue of our
century, by treating those as unrelated parts of life. From the other
direction, funding for scientific is similarly heavily dependent on political
support.

These days, I only hear it from my Republican friends who are trying to carve
a line between saying that they still follow science and not wanting to
formally leave a party which has little room for them any more.

