Throughout its 208-year history, The New England Journal of Medicine has remained staunchly nonpartisan. The world’s most prestigious medical journal has never supported or condemned a political candidate.This is from the journal that had to retract a high-profile Covid-19 study because the data in it were so obviously bogus.
In an editorial signed by 34 editors who are United States citizens (one editor is not) and published on Wednesday, the journal said the Trump administration had responded so poorly to the coronavirus pandemic that they “have taken a crisis and turned it into a tragedy.”
The journal did not explicitly endorse Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic nominee, but that was the only possible inference, other scientists noted.
The editor in chief, Dr. Eric Rubin, said the scathing editorial was one of only four in the journal’s history that were signed by all of the editors. The N.E.J.M.’s editors join those of another influential publication, Scientific American, who last month endorsed Mr. Biden, the former vice president.
This is transparently political, as they don't even attempt to explain how Biden is going to do any better.
The SciAm editors are doubling down with another political rant:
Instead of thinking about whether to vote Democratic or Republican in the upcoming U.S. election, think about voting to protect science instead of destroying it.I looked up the guy's quote, and here is what he actually said:
As president, Donald Trump’s abuse of science has been wanton and dangerous. It has also been well documented. ...
Alarmingly, many of the attacks involve the most immediate and long-term threats to people on earth: the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. In September, for example, Politico reported that Trump’s political appointees in the Department of Health and Human Services were editing weekly reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about the pandemic prior to publication. Ten days later, U.S. Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette asserted that “no one knows” whether human activities are causing climate change — a refrain that is so tired it has become silly.
Scientists say a lot of things. I have scientists inside of the Department of Energy that say a lot of things. Look, the bottom line is we live here, so we must have some impact. The question is, what is the exact impact that we’re having? And that’s the question that has not been resolved.None of the arguments in NEJM or SciAm hold any water. I would think that these journals would be run by smart guys, but they cannot find any example of any harm that Pres. Trump has done.
Scientists should not be determining social policy, as this will lead to them becoming political priests and voting themselves the treasury. We do not live in a technocracy however much they would wish it to be so. A scientists job is to provide accurate data for others to consider, not telling people what to think or who to vote for.ReplyDelete
Whenever a scientist talks like a politician with empty emotional weasel words worthy of a shady ambulance chaser, you are being conned.
All good points. We also must remember Eisenhower's farewell address warning of the scientific technical elite... as much as the Military Industrial Complex.ReplyDelete