Any declaration that politics and science must keep to their own separate corners is misguided from the outset. Yes, for the scientific process to work, it has to observe results free of political influence, but the results of scientific research must inform our politics if we’re to avoid tragedies of all descriptions. Still, it’s a rare thing for scientific organizations to insert themselves into the political process. Which makes this article from Scientific American remarkable.
Four years ago in these pages, writer Shawn Otto warned our readers of the danger of a growing antiscience current in American politics. “By turning public opinion away from the antiauthoritarian principles of the nation's founders,” Otto wrote, “the new science denialism is creating an existential crisis like few the country has faced before.”
… one of the two major party candidates for the highest office in the land has repeatedly and resoundingly demonstrated a disregard, if not outright contempt, for science. Donald Trump also has shown an authoritarian tendency to base policy arguments on questionable assertions of fact and a cult of personality.
It’s not just Donald Trump’s casual dismissal of climate change. It’s an extremely disturbing removal from simple cause and effect. Trump’s frequent declarations that something happened because he talked about it shows a strong tendency toward magical thinking and a belief that the universe is focused on making things happen for Donald J. Trump.
Scientific American is not in the business of endorsing political candidates. But we do take a stand for science—the most reliable path to objective knowledge the world has seen—and the Enlightenment values that gave rise to it. For more than 170 years we have documented, for better and for worse, the rise of science and technology and their impact on the nation and the world. …
We encourage the nation's political leaders to demonstrate a respect for scientific truths in word and deed. And we urge the people who vote to hold them to that standard.