The editor-in-chief of the Science academic journals wants
scholars
to know that they should agree with him on climate change if they want to be published.
Holden Thorp, a professor at Washington University who oversees the Science publications, recently praised Nature magazine for
explaining
why it made the rare decision to endorse politicians, including its 2020 endorsement of President
Joe Biden
.
CALIFORNIA ADMITS ITS CLIMATE PLAN ENRICHES WEALTHY AND IMPOVERISHES POOR
He argued that opposing the politicization of science “gives people the permission to say things like ‘climate change may be real, but I don’t think we should have government regulation to deal with it,’ which is unacceptable,” Thorp wrote on Tuesday. He has since
deleted
the tweet.
The idea of only publishing people that agree with your specific policy prescription is antithetical to scientific inquiry and open debate. While scientists should make recommendations and provide input, the political decisions made by policymakers are not a science.
Furthermore, scientists are not the only ones who deserve a voice, despite what Thorp may believe. Policy decisions to restrict access to
gas stoves
,
tax carbon
, or make it
harder
to drill for oil are not a simple scientific equation; they require input from business owners, economists, and other stakeholders who can help figure out the best path to balance environmental protection with economic growth.
The comments from Thorp drew criticism from at least one self-described “progressive” academic.
“Holden [Thorp] has made it abundantly clear that as EIC of Science, Science is a journal for US democrats only. He writes many one-sided commentaries, and bizarre attacks,” Dr. Vinay Prasad, a medical professor at the University of California, San Francisco,
wrote
. “Ok for me b/c I’m a progressive, just bad for the institution of science and society, which I still care about.”
Comments such as Thorp’s and Nature’s lead to further distrust in the scientific institutions, a fact known to both, given that the Nature editorial came in response to a study it published that found its endorsement of Biden lowered trust among Republicans in the publication.
“The endorsement message caused large reductions in stated trust in Nature among Trump supporters,” Stanford University’s Floyd Zhang
concluded
. “This distrust lowered the demand for COVID-related information provided by Nature, as evidenced by substantially reduced requests for Nature articles on vaccine efficacy when offered. The endorsement also reduced Trump supporters’ trust in scientists in general. The estimated effects on Biden supporters’ trust in Nature and scientists were positive, small and mostly statistically insignificant.”
He also found that the endorsement did not sway voters in either direction. “These results suggest that political endorsement by scientific journals can undermine and polarize public confidence in the endorsing journals and the scientific community,” Zhang wrote.
Thorp knows this, as he shared a graph that shows 70% of Republicans want scientists to stick to “establishing sound scientific facts” rather than get involved in pushing policy.
“So the editor of Science, the premier US science journal, justifies his choice to make it overtly political by showing us a graph that suggests this policy will alienate many conservatives, further undermining their trust in the scientific establishment,” social commentator Robert Wright
responded
. “I don’t get this logic.”
As an academic and scientific journalist, Thorp would be wise to reconsider his position. He can play a role in restoring trust in the scientific institutions, something that has been
eroded
over the past several years, as public health professionals
told everyone
to stay inside in 2020, unless they were protesting with Black Lives Matter, for example.
Reasonable people can have varying views on the effects of climate change, the role humans play, and what policy solutions should be pursued. Academic journals should welcome this debate and encourage policymakers to consider a variety of views. That starts with scholars who are open to debate and hearing different viewpoints.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix and has previously worked for Students for Life of America and Turning Point USA.
