A top science magazine has waded into the political sphere after making a presidential endorsement, only the second in its 179-year history.
“Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment,” read the headline in Scientific American on Monday, announcing the publication’s official support for the Democratic presidential candidate.
Harris is Scientific American’s second presidential endorsement in its history, after the magazine backed President Joe Biden during the 2020 election.
“The US faces two futures,” the editors wrote, pushing one candidate who “offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience.”
They continued: “In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”
Scientific American, which has a global readership of six million, cited Harris’s record as vice president, senator and presidential candidate as reasons for endorsing her.
They acknowledged that Trump, “also has a record – a disastrous one,” during his time in the White House.
The magazine firstly focused on the candidates’ healthcare policies and proposals, in particular, health insurance in its comparison.
Praising the Biden-Harris administration for bolstering the Affordable Care Act (ACA) – which expanded the number of adults eligible for health insurance – the editors noted that while Harris has said she would expand the program, Trump has pledged to repeal it but failed to clarify what he would replace it with.
“I have concepts of a plan,” he said while facing off against Harris during the September 10 presidential debate.
The article refers to the debate multiple times, seemingly agreeing with many across the political spectrum (including some of Trump’s closest allies) that Harris won.
The article highlights Trump’s baseless claim during the debate that some states allow a person to obtain an abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy, and calling it “execution after birth.”
“No state allows this,” Scientific American clarified. The magazine also emphasized that Trump refused to answer whether he would veto a national abortion ban.
Meanwhile, Harris was hailed as a “staunch supporter of reproductive rights” for vowing to improve access to abortion care and for co-sponsoring a package of bills to reduce rising maternal mortality rates when she was a senator.
Turning to technology, the editors highlighted the CHIPS and Science Act, signed into law by Biden in 2022, which brought more funding to the chip-making industry to boost homegrown production and research.
They said the legislation “invigorates the chipmaking industry and semiconductor research while growing the workforce.”
The magazine claimed that a second Trump administration would “quickly” undo this progress under a conservative framework, Project 2025, that has been set out to guide his potential second term.
“Under the devious and divisive Project 2025 framework, technology safeguards on AI would be overturned,” the editors wrote. “AI influences our criminal justice, labor and health-care systems.
“As is the rightful complaint now, there would be no knowing how these programs are developed, how they are tested or whether they even work.”
The article concludes: “One of two futures will materialize according to our choices in this election.”
The editors closed by underlining their point. “We urge you to vote for Kamala Harris.”
Scientific American is not the only endoresment Harris has won following the debate, with Taylor Swift posting her endorsement on Instagram almost immediately after the showdown.
Polls currently place Harris with a 2.6 point the lead over Trump.
