By Hal Brown, (My blog has other stories that piqued my interest today)
If there even is another debate Trump, who loves to tout endorsements, should be asked about why some of the most reputable science journals and magazines have broken with their tradition and supported a candidate for president, and that candidate is Joe Biden.
The best known magazine taking a political position is probably Scientific American:
Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden: We’ve never backed a presidential candidate in our 175-year history—until now
Here are a couple of their tweets:
Another recent critique of Trump, while not endorsing Biden directly, is from the journal “Science” which is published by The American Academy for the Advancement of Science:
Not throwing away our shot
With his (Trump’s) apparent recovery from COVID-19 due perhaps in part to receiving an experimental monoclonal antibody cocktail from Regeneron, Trump's attention has turned to touting this treatment as a “cure” and promising its availability to all Americans. An antibody-based treatment does deserve more scientific attention, but a therapeutic is not a cure. If an EUA for this treatment is announced, the scientific community needs Hahn to resist Trump's pressure to exaggerate and declare the pandemic over. These antibodies are helpful but currently in very limited supply and not something that will “get everybody out of the hospitals,” as Trump said recently. The scientific community must keep the pressure on Hahn to state the science clearly.
Readers who don't think Science and its publishing peers should write about politics often tell us to “stick to science.” We are sticking to science, but more importantly, we're sticking up for science.
The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM): “Dying in a Leadership Vacuum,” also does not endorse Biden by name but it might as well have.
Anyone else who recklessly squandered lives and money in this way would be suffering legal consequences. Our leaders have largely claimed immunity for their actions. But this election gives us the power to render judgment. Reasonable people will certainly disagree about the many political positions taken by candidates. But truth is neither liberal nor conservative. When it comes to the response to the largest public health crisis of our time, our current political leaders have demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent. We should not abet them and enable the deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing them to keep their jobs.
This is from Nature:
How Trump damaged science — and why it could take decades to recover
This is from The Union of Concerned Scientists:
Science Under Trump: Voices of Scientists across 16 Federal Agencies
From Science Magazine:
A Biden presidency could have a ‘remarkable’ impact on science policy—but also face hurdles
If former Vice President Joe Biden wins the presidential election, he will face high expectations from the U.S. scientific community. Its members will be counting on him to bring science and leadership to the fight against COVID-19 while reversing a host of moves by President Donald Trump that many researchers regard as disastrous. A President Biden will have vast authority to move quickly to undo many Trump policies. But he could be hampered by forces beyond his control, including which party controls the Senate, the ideological complexion of the courts, and—when it comes to fighting COVID-19—the progress of science itself.
From The Lancet Oncology (a speciality journal of The Lancet which is one of the world's oldest and best-known general medical journals):
Will cancer care be a winner in the US election?
In this major election battle,
The Lancet Oncology supports Biden and his manifesto. He is the only candidate to see the importance of health care as a human right that enhances society, rather than another business opportunity to enrich a small minority. If Biden is elected President, we call on him to redouble his dedication to cancer research and care by fulfilling the Biden Cancer Initiative promises. The NCI has published their
proposed budget for the 2022 fiscal year, including a funding increase of $1170 million, plus an additional $194 million for the Cancer Moonshot, with plans to address cancer treatment resistance, obesity, and survivorship. Whether these laudable aims come to fruition will depend not only on the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election, but also on a Biden administration honouring its campaign promises with vigour and dedication. Only then will we see true improvements in health and cancer research and treatment in the USA.
.
The topics for the final debate are not at all Trump friendly. There are "Fighting COVID-19," "American Families," "Race in America," "Climate Change," "National Security" and "Leadership."
.
I think it is perfectly legitimate for Joe Biden to bring up how highly respected scientific journals and magazines have either endorsed him or been highly critical of Trump most notably for how he handled the pandemic.