Scientific American...No So Scientific
The day after the 2024 election, journalist Paul D. Thacker posted on his X account a series of expletive-filled posts from Laura Helmuth’s Bluesky account, in which she apologized “to younger voters that my Gen X is so full of fucking fascists,” upbraided high-school classmates for celebrating Trump’s win—“fuck them to the moon and back”—and described her home state of Indiana as “racist and sexist.” Now, nobody would have cared about Ms. Helmuth’s rants except to say something like, “another deranged rant by someone who is incapable of intelligent, mature, and civil grammar, as well as unable to grasp the basic human condition of people having differing opinions.” Except this time, the guilty party was the Editor-in-Chief of one of the most prestigious science publications in America, and possibly the world: Scientific American. I almost felt sorry for her; in the sense that a person with such a great education could not articulate her thoughts in a a more intelligent manner. Oh, well. Excrement...Meet...Fan! See what I did there? You are such a dope!
The ensuing media firestorm led Helmuth to delete the comments and offer an unconvincing apology for her “offensive and inappropriate posts,” asserting that she “respects and values people across the political spectrum” and remains “committed to civil communication and editorial objectivity.” One could be forgiven for assuming that Ms. Helmuth was...how do I put this delicately...lying.
Even Elon Musk got in on the pile-on after Helmuth asked for advice on what workplaces could do to help people “devastated” by the election results—implying that her colleagues had all voted Democrat.
Shortly afterwards, the president of Scientific American, Kimberly Lau, released the following public statement: “Laura Helmuth has decided to move on from her position as editor in chief of Scientific American. We thank Laura for her four years leading Scientific American during which time the magazine won major science communications awards and saw the establishment of a reimagined digital newsroom. We wish her well for the future.”
Shortly afterwards, the president of Scientific American, Kimberly Lau, released the following public statement: “Laura Helmuth has decided to move on from her position as editor in chief of Scientific American. We thank Laura for her four years leading Scientific American during which time the magazine won major science communications awards and saw the establishment of a reimagined digital newsroom. We wish her well for the future.”
Helmuth made her own announcement on Bluesky, stating that she had “decided to leave Scientific American after an exciting 4.5 years” and was “going to take some time to think about what comes next (and go birdwatching).” Birdwatching here is the equivalent of an embattled politician who resigns in order to “spend more time with my family.” The pretext fools no one, but is plausible enough that the proclaimer may hope readers will believe that other people believe it. Which, of course, they don’t. Sadly, not one person at Scientific American responded to any phone calls, e-mails, etc., about this seismic event. Go figure.
In his 2008 book The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature, the Hall-of-Fame psychologist Steven Pinker notes: “Merely being asked certain questions can put a person at a disadvantage, since one answer might be damaging, the other would be a lie, and a refusal to answer would be a de facto confession that those are the respondent’s two options. Witnesses who exercise their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by refusing to answer a question often do incriminate themselves in the court of public opinion.”
In his 2008 book The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature, the Hall-of-Fame psychologist Steven Pinker notes: “Merely being asked certain questions can put a person at a disadvantage, since one answer might be damaging, the other would be a lie, and a refusal to answer would be a de facto confession that those are the respondent’s two options. Witnesses who exercise their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by refusing to answer a question often do incriminate themselves in the court of public opinion.”
Dr. Pinker used that thought to comment on the present goings-on at SciAm:
“Communication takes place on two levels: the content of the message, and the common knowledge that stating the message generates. A source that ratifies what you (and the world) already know—that Helmuth was temperamentally unqualified for the job and damaged the institution, while they went along with it—would be confessing their own lack of integrity and courage, together with their willingness to kick a former colleague while she’s down. On the other hand, they could not deny it without forfeiting all claims to credibility and honesty. And by saying “no comment” they’d be acknowledging (that is, generating common knowledge) that those were their two options.”
“Communication takes place on two levels: the content of the message, and the common knowledge that stating the message generates. A source that ratifies what you (and the world) already know—that Helmuth was temperamentally unqualified for the job and damaged the institution, while they went along with it—would be confessing their own lack of integrity and courage, together with their willingness to kick a former colleague while she’s down. On the other hand, they could not deny it without forfeiting all claims to credibility and honesty. And by saying “no comment” they’d be acknowledging (that is, generating common knowledge) that those were their two options.”
There is an additional factor at work here, of course: left-wing political bias. Imagine what would have happened if the editor-in-chief of Scientific American had spoken about or published articles on the average difference in IQ test scores between white and black Americans and argued that the gap might be partially due to genetics—or, alternatively, if she had correctly stated that, on average, women score higher than men in trait Neuroticism on the Big 5 personality scale and suggested that that is why there are fewer female than male Fortune 500 CEOs. She would surely have been summarily fired and publicly denounced and we would have been told that such comments or articles “do not reflect the positions or policies of Scientific American or its governing board or staff; we apologize to all who have been harmed by them.” She would almost certainly not have been thanked for her years of loyal service and offered good wishes for her future.
Historian Robert Conquest once observed that “any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.” I would modify this slightly: Any organization that is not explicitly politically neutral eventually drifts to the political left. This tendency has been apparent at Scientific American for some time now. The following articles were all published under Laura Helmuth’s editorship.
In “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy” (July 2021), author Allison Hopper asserts that creationists are ipso facto white supremacists because in the Genesis story of Cain and Abel, Cain is punished for his fratricide by “a darkening of his descendants’ skin.” Now, due to my upbringing, I know a lot of creationists. Many of whom are great friends and who I love dearly. That said, many of them drive me nuts. I don’t think the word metaphor is part of their vocabulary. We argue a lot about my belief that the only difference between something being sacred and something being secular is the result of a political decision. However, the biblical story above is not how mainstream creationists interpret that passage and, indeed, polls consistently show a larger percentage of blacks than whites hold creationist beliefs, motivated in this by religious faith, not racism.
Historian Robert Conquest once observed that “any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.” I would modify this slightly: Any organization that is not explicitly politically neutral eventually drifts to the political left. This tendency has been apparent at Scientific American for some time now. The following articles were all published under Laura Helmuth’s editorship.
In “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy” (July 2021), author Allison Hopper asserts that creationists are ipso facto white supremacists because in the Genesis story of Cain and Abel, Cain is punished for his fratricide by “a darkening of his descendants’ skin.” Now, due to my upbringing, I know a lot of creationists. Many of whom are great friends and who I love dearly. That said, many of them drive me nuts. I don’t think the word metaphor is part of their vocabulary. We argue a lot about my belief that the only difference between something being sacred and something being secular is the result of a political decision. However, the biblical story above is not how mainstream creationists interpret that passage and, indeed, polls consistently show a larger percentage of blacks than whites hold creationist beliefs, motivated in this by religious faith, not racism.
“Modern Mathematics Confronts its White Patriarchal Past” (August 2021) asserts that the reason why women and black people are underrepresented in mathematics departments is because of misogyny and racism. This ignores the gender and racial imbalance among applicants for such jobs. As a 2019 Women in Mathematics survey points out, “senior faculty composition both reflects the BA and PhD pipeline of prior years, and also influences the gender composition of new graduates.” In addition, men do not dominate all academic fields. In fact, a 2019 Council of Graduate Schools study found that—for the eleventh year in a row—women earned more doctoral degrees at US universities than men (41,943 vs. 37,365, i.e. 52.9% vs. 47.1%). Although women make up a smaller proportion of doctorates in engineering (25.1%), mathematics and computer sciences (26.8%), physical and earth sciences (35.1%), and business (46.7%), they outnumber men in public administration (73.6%), health and medical sciences (71%), education (68.4%), social and behavioral sciences (61%), arts and humanities (51.9%), and biological sciences (51.4%). Are we to believe that patriarchy and misogyny exist only in some fields but not others?
In “The Complicated Legacy of E. O. Wilson” (December 2021), published three days after the renowned evolutionary biologist’s death at the age of 92, author Monica R. McLemore writes that “we must reckon with his and other scientists’ racist ideas if we want an equitable future.” This awful and untrue slur against one of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century was so egregious that it caused a cavalcade of Wilson’s colleagues, post-docs, students, friends, dogs, cats, and supporters to come to his defense.
“The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather is Wrong” (November 2023) ignores the fact that a comprehensive overview of all studies has shown that only 6% to 16% of hunter-gatherer societies “show signs of female hunting with any regularity” and that “even in societies where women hunt, they hunt to a much lesser extent than do men.” The authors extrapolate from the almost certainly false idea that prehistoric women hunted as much as men did to the conclusion that “inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports.” This might be the dumbest thing that a person in the scientific field has ever written, which can be controverted by a single observation: As she herself has admitted, Serena Williams, arguably the greatest and most powerful female tennis player ever, would not be able to beat any of the top 100 male tennis players.
Perhaps the most absurd of these articles is “Why the Term ‘JEDI’ is Problematic for Describing Programs that Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion” (September 2021). The authors argue:
“Although they’re ostensibly heroes within the Star Wars universe, the Jedi are inappropriate symbols for justice work. They are a religious order of intergalactic police-monks, prone to (white) saviorism and toxically masculine approaches to conflict resolution (violent duels with phallic lightsabers, gaslighting by means of “Jedi mind tricks,” etc.). The Jedi are also an exclusionary cult, membership to which is partly predicated on the possession of heightened psychic and physical abilities (or “Force-sensitivity”). Strikingly, Force-wielding talents are narratively explained in Star Wars not merely in spiritual terms but also in ablest and eugenic ones: These supernatural powers are naturalized as biological, hereditary attributes.”
In “The Complicated Legacy of E. O. Wilson” (December 2021), published three days after the renowned evolutionary biologist’s death at the age of 92, author Monica R. McLemore writes that “we must reckon with his and other scientists’ racist ideas if we want an equitable future.” This awful and untrue slur against one of the greatest scientists of the twentieth century was so egregious that it caused a cavalcade of Wilson’s colleagues, post-docs, students, friends, dogs, cats, and supporters to come to his defense.
“The Theory That Men Evolved to Hunt and Women Evolved to Gather is Wrong” (November 2023) ignores the fact that a comprehensive overview of all studies has shown that only 6% to 16% of hunter-gatherer societies “show signs of female hunting with any regularity” and that “even in societies where women hunt, they hunt to a much lesser extent than do men.” The authors extrapolate from the almost certainly false idea that prehistoric women hunted as much as men did to the conclusion that “inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports.” This might be the dumbest thing that a person in the scientific field has ever written, which can be controverted by a single observation: As she herself has admitted, Serena Williams, arguably the greatest and most powerful female tennis player ever, would not be able to beat any of the top 100 male tennis players.
Perhaps the most absurd of these articles is “Why the Term ‘JEDI’ is Problematic for Describing Programs that Promote Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion” (September 2021). The authors argue:
“Although they’re ostensibly heroes within the Star Wars universe, the Jedi are inappropriate symbols for justice work. They are a religious order of intergalactic police-monks, prone to (white) saviorism and toxically masculine approaches to conflict resolution (violent duels with phallic lightsabers, gaslighting by means of “Jedi mind tricks,” etc.). The Jedi are also an exclusionary cult, membership to which is partly predicated on the possession of heightened psychic and physical abilities (or “Force-sensitivity”). Strikingly, Force-wielding talents are narratively explained in Star Wars not merely in spiritual terms but also in ablest and eugenic ones: These supernatural powers are naturalized as biological, hereditary attributes.”
Are you kidding me? Phallic lightsabers? Grow up...
Then there were the public endorsements of presidential candidates Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and—as if all of this were not problematic enough for a magazine with the word “SCIENTIFIC” in its title—the editors threw their weight behind the youth gender medicine and trans lobby, claiming that gender-affirming care for trans kids is good health care (it isn’t), that “rapid onset gender dysphoria” is not a thing (it most certainly is), and that biological sex is on a spectrum (no, it is not, it is binary). And please don’t get me started about how SciAm has boarded the “mathematics is racist" train.” Numerous scientists published rebuttals of these dubious claims, including evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins and biologist Colin Wright.
Then there were the public endorsements of presidential candidates Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and—as if all of this were not problematic enough for a magazine with the word “SCIENTIFIC” in its title—the editors threw their weight behind the youth gender medicine and trans lobby, claiming that gender-affirming care for trans kids is good health care (it isn’t), that “rapid onset gender dysphoria” is not a thing (it most certainly is), and that biological sex is on a spectrum (no, it is not, it is binary). And please don’t get me started about how SciAm has boarded the “mathematics is racist" train.” Numerous scientists published rebuttals of these dubious claims, including evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins and biologist Colin Wright.
As investigative journalist Jesse Singal argues: “Scientific American has hermetically sealed itself and its readers inside a comforting, delusional cocoon in which we know youth gender medicine works, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and only bigots and ignoramuses suggest otherwise. Over and over, SciAm simply took what certain activist groups were saying about these treatments and repeated it, basically verbatim, effectively laundering medical misinformation and providing it with the imprimatur of a highly regarded science magazine.”
When Wright corrected birdwatching enthusiast Helmuth’s claim that white-throated sparrows (Zonotrichia albicollis) have four sexes, she simply blocked him. Which is kind of like me phone-blocking Man About Town Chip Magee if he had told me that I’m a complete moron if I had said or written that I’m a better piano player than Bruce Hornsby. You see what I’m getting at?
Does anyone actually believe this crap? Well, it seems some do and Laura Helmuth appears to be one of them. Which is, of course, why she is no longer Editor-in-Chief of Scientific American. That is the most charitable assessment I can make of what has happened to the publication that inspired a dozen generations of budding scientists, technologists, engineers, mathematicians, and scholars. Even a dope like me! I would always glance at SciAm at the Barnes & Noble magazine section to see if there were articles I might be interested in, whether it be something on astronomy or archaeological digs in the Middle East or Africa. Why? Because I knew that I could trust what was inside the covers of that august magazine. Not now. No way.
When Wright corrected birdwatching enthusiast Helmuth’s claim that white-throated sparrows (Zonotrichia albicollis) have four sexes, she simply blocked him. Which is kind of like me phone-blocking Man About Town Chip Magee if he had told me that I’m a complete moron if I had said or written that I’m a better piano player than Bruce Hornsby. You see what I’m getting at?
Does anyone actually believe this crap? Well, it seems some do and Laura Helmuth appears to be one of them. Which is, of course, why she is no longer Editor-in-Chief of Scientific American. That is the most charitable assessment I can make of what has happened to the publication that inspired a dozen generations of budding scientists, technologists, engineers, mathematicians, and scholars. Even a dope like me! I would always glance at SciAm at the Barnes & Noble magazine section to see if there were articles I might be interested in, whether it be something on astronomy or archaeological digs in the Middle East or Africa. Why? Because I knew that I could trust what was inside the covers of that august magazine. Not now. No way.
As in other science publications, along with mainstream media outlets, some corporations, and nearly all academic institutions, the people spreading these woke ideas are mostly true believers—and the fervor of their faith only makes them all the more able to convince themselves of the truth of claims that everyone else can see have little-to-no contact with reality. Men do not menstruate and cannot get pregnant; women do not have penises and do not produce sperm; and transwomen—who are men—do not belong in women’s sports, locker rooms, bathrooms, prisons, or any other spaces designated for women only. No amount of ideological wishful thinking will change this.
Perhaps some—or even most—of the staff at Scientific American and other similar institutions do not support these ideological contaminations of science; they just want to go about their lives without being harassed by activists. Some may be virtue signaling without actually believing in any of the nonsense they are spouting, while others may be opportunists, capitalizing on pluralistic ignorance: i.e., the fact that each individual is under the illusion that everyone else believes such outmoded beliefs as the idea that human beings have more than two sexes (although, in fact, most people do not).
But the social environment is rapidly changing. As there seems to be the beginnings of a relentless pushback from political centrists and old-school liberals who are sick of being harangued by overzealous activists who accuse anyone who disagrees with them of bigotry, the pendulum may at long last be starting to swing back towards normalcy. Election postmortems and surveys have consistently identified the fact-free ideological capture of the Democratic party as a major factor in their defeat. The Left is in dire need of a course correction, as does the far-right marching under the banner of National Conservatism. Will that happen? I don’t know. Given what we know about the power of irrational belief, whether it’s the current prostrating at the altar of transgenderism or even biblical literalism, I am not at all confident that it will. Let’s hope I’m wrong, though—not only for the sake of the future of a once-great magazine, but for the sake of us all.
Perhaps some—or even most—of the staff at Scientific American and other similar institutions do not support these ideological contaminations of science; they just want to go about their lives without being harassed by activists. Some may be virtue signaling without actually believing in any of the nonsense they are spouting, while others may be opportunists, capitalizing on pluralistic ignorance: i.e., the fact that each individual is under the illusion that everyone else believes such outmoded beliefs as the idea that human beings have more than two sexes (although, in fact, most people do not).
But the social environment is rapidly changing. As there seems to be the beginnings of a relentless pushback from political centrists and old-school liberals who are sick of being harangued by overzealous activists who accuse anyone who disagrees with them of bigotry, the pendulum may at long last be starting to swing back towards normalcy. Election postmortems and surveys have consistently identified the fact-free ideological capture of the Democratic party as a major factor in their defeat. The Left is in dire need of a course correction, as does the far-right marching under the banner of National Conservatism. Will that happen? I don’t know. Given what we know about the power of irrational belief, whether it’s the current prostrating at the altar of transgenderism or even biblical literalism, I am not at all confident that it will. Let’s hope I’m wrong, though—not only for the sake of the future of a once-great magazine, but for the sake of us all.
write to Peter: magtour@icloud.com
Comments
Post a Comment