The Scientific American magazine faced backlash on Monday after it announced that it was endorsing Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race.
The outlet also slammed Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
The endorsement marks the magazine’s second time making a presidential endorsement since its inception 179 years ago, it boasted on X, the first being four years ago when it backed Joe Biden in 2020.
The editors cited Harris' plans they said will improve the nation's health care system and address gun safety, climate change, and reproductive rights.
"In one, the new president offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience. She pushes policies that boost good jobs nationwide by embracing technology and clean energy," the editors wrote.
KAMALA HARRIS IN 'DANGER ZONE' IN SWING STATES SAYS CNN DATA REPORTER: NATIONAL POLLS 'DON'T MATTER'
As far as Harris’ contender Trump, they wrote that the former president would ignore the climate crisis "in favor of more pollution."
"In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies," the magazine published.
Many critics on X reacted to the endorsement, with one medical journalist highlighting the "danger" of the scientific community choosing political sides.
"There’s no doubt science is political," said medical writer Liz Highleyman.
"Political decisions affect science funding & scientific data influences public policy. But there’s a real danger in the perception that science ‘belongs’ to one side in the political & culture wars."
Highleyman and several others reacted to Atlantic writer Derek Thompson posting about Scientific American's endorsement.
"I wish I saw more scientists grappling with the tradeoffs at stake here," Thompson wrote. Thompson cited a study that showed how Nature magazine's endorsement of Biden hurt trust in scientific expertise during the COVID-19 pandemic.
"In fact, a 2023 paper found that the journal Nature's endorsement of Joe Biden caused large reductions in stated trust in Nature among Trump supporters,'" Thompson wrote, citing the study.
He added that the study noted the endorsement "lowered the demand for COVID-related information provided by Nature" and "reduced Trump supporters’ trust in scientists in general."
Another account holder who said he was a software engineer said the endorsement was "very problematic."
"The entire premise of an academic journal is to be this impartial stamp of credibility. Seems like this convinces no one and alienates many," he wrote.
Paul Midler, an author, noted the outlet has shifted from writing about science to "public policy."
"Scientific American was historically focused on hard sciences like astrophysics, physics, and biology," Midler, wrote.
"Increasingly, its articles have addressed social sciences and public policy. They had no choice since ‘Americans’ weren’t really interested anymore in ‘Science.'"
"Science shouldn't take a side in politics," immigration attorney Anna K. Gorisch wrote.
The endorsement comes after Scientific American faced backlash and ridicule earlier this year for publishing a piece saying that Harris would bring a scientific perspective to the presidency because her mom was a cancer researcher.
