When will Nature and NEJM tell me who to vote for?

Scientific journals should continue to sacrifice trust to change ~0 votes

I remember the 2020 election. I had no idea who I would vote for. After all, as a scientist and policy expert who obsessively reads the newspaper, I only have a deep understanding of the issues and candidates. So, I needed guidance. That’s when Nature came to the rescue. As experts on Black Holes, and DNA repair, they knew what I should do.

The New England Journal of Medicine also supported Mr. Biden but didn’t have the courage to say so directly. Instead, in an October editorial, they write:

Strangely, NEJM did not write an update to their editorial for the current administration. Even though it was Biden’s White House who made college men who already had COVID get boosters (causing rare myocarditis) or expelled them, and made toddlers mask in Head Start for years. Both of these policies strike me as dangerously incompetent, and have resulted in plummeting trust in vaccine programs.

What did medical journals get for these endorsements? A clever paper finds it changed ~0 votes, and merely forfeited trust in science. Well done, Nature!

In response to these data, like any good scientist, Nature said it would keep hitting its own hand with a hammer even though it hurt, and the picture frame was still not up.

In accordance with that commitment to empty virtue signaling that merely reduces public trust in science, I call upon Nature and NEJM to tell me who to vote for?

I literally don’t know!

Should I vote for Mr. Trump? I mean, if the courts allow him to remain on the ballot. Should I vote for Ms. Haley? How about RFK Jr.? Or should I continue to support Mr. Biden (as they advised previously)?

I know what you are thinking. Mr. Biden appears forgetful, and the special counsel said he doesn’t remember the years he was vice president. You might have concerns, but don’t worry…

…a neuroscientist assures me that we are thinking about this all wrong. Everyone forgets! It is no big deal if the leader of the free world forgets a little more than the rest of us.

And (not at all partisan) neurologists agree with him!

Here is an idea! Call it crazy: Why don’t scientists stay out of it, or, to pardon my french, STFU?

Why don’t scientists focus on science, and let the politics decide the election? Ultimately, scientists don’t get to decide what people ought to value. We can’t tell people the right answer to the death penalty or abortion or climate change or inflation or affirmative action because these require making calls on values and preferences and trade-offs that vary among people.

The more we insert ourselves into politics, the only result is we are forfeiting our credibility, and the available evidence shows we are not changing votes.

If you ask me: journal editors issuing guidance on who to vote for is dangerously incompetent. No votes are changed, and their credibility is harmed. But, I say go for it — because they aren’t doing a great job of reviewing the science either, so why stop now!