Scientific American Makes First Presidential Endorsement in Its 175-Year History | Hacker News Reader

Scientific American Makes First Presidential Endorsement in Its 175-Year History

forbes.com

53 pointspseudolus19 comments

It's a pity politics is so polarizing in the US that this seems necessary. I guess it is a bit of an all hands on deck situation, but it makes me wonder what history has in store. Generally, all hands on deck situations precede disasters.

I think were witnessing FPTP democracy ripping itself apart by being stuck in a local maximum. The question is how much we are going to lose before we regain and hopefully surpass this local maximum.

US politics has always been interesting. There have been numerous energetic elections, contentious presidents, assassinations, and even a civil war. I suspect what we are seeing has nothing to do with politics, specifically, but rather is an artifact of global communications and modern information systems. Advances in technology give increasingly greater power to individuals.

For those who are wondering, FPTP stands for first-past-the-post.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting

It's ironic that during all the saber-rattling with China, we have pivoted away from vacuuming up the best scientific and engineering talent from around the planet. We should be stealing their best and brightest, not telling them to go away.

So what, China steals our tech. We should be pushing the bleeding edge aggressively enough that even when they do they're 5-years behind.

Circling the wagons is the quickest way to get left in the dust.

So is this evidence that there is widespread disdain for the current president among academics, or evidence that many non political organizations and institutions are getting politicized? News like this could be taken either way. One person might say "these institutions have no credibility anymore" and another might say "things have gotten so bad with this guy that people are feeling the need to step in." So which is it?

I would say latter, this coming from a very non political person who in the past didn't care if the president had a R or D next to his name. For the first time in my life I feel compelled to step in and vote to get back to somewhat normalcy

That's a perspective, but bear in mind that this magazine has been around for 175 years and didn't weigh in on Hitler. That would lend credence to the people claiming it is the former.

i mean, this is an American magazine, things look more real the closer they are to you.

They authors of that article make it very clear that they are in the latter camp for a LONG list of well-supported reasons which are only partisan to the extent that Republicans have begun to self-identify as the anti-science party (as someone who grew up reading, say, Niven & Pournelle’s outrage at cuts to the space program, this didn’t used to be a simple litmus test).

It’s far from just academics, too - if you work in healthcare, for example, you probably aren’t jumping to defend Trump even if you normally vote for Republicans.

Any idea why it is linking to a Forbes article? The original article is likely more informative:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-americ...

Stakes are certainly high with this election

And, sorry to say, not just for the United States.

I doubt many of Trump’s supporters subscribe to Scientific American but it’s good that more publications speak out against the rampant anti-intellectualism he pushes. It will literally be the death of us all.

Well, he was correct about Hydroxychloroquine. But most papers just kept on claiming that it was dangerous. Even after #Lancetgate happened.

No. No he was not.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-chloroquine-sar...

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/08/week-fact-che...

https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/fact-check-white-house-offi...

I don't think the mass media is a reliable or accurate source for learning about or promulgating scientific findings. Most medical research is fraught with ambiguity and mixed messages, simply because of the phenotypic variance found in humans (and other organisms). (See more about phenotypic variance here: [0]) Generally speaking, different organisms will respond differently to the same environmental stimuli. This is why drug trials require large sample sizes and extended periods of time to assess efficacy and safety.

With regard to hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), there is nothing that could be considered definitive about its efficacy or safety for all people when used as an off-label treatment for COVID-19. While there is evidence that (in some people) is does not reduce the viral load ("Neither HCQ nor the combination of HCQ and AZTH showed a significant effect on viral load in any of the analysed tissues." [1]), there is evidence that HCQ "... can significantly decrease the production of cytokines and, in particular, pro-inflammatory factors" [2] and HCQ has "... potential, but controversial, characteristics to combat pathological inflammation associated with COVID-19." [3]

Of course, raw research does not give a definitive answer about efficacy and safety for all people, but it does suggest that HCQ may be one possible treatment (perhaps preventative, perhaps in vitro) for inflammation, which is one of the serious complications of COVID-19. It will likely be years before the mechanisms of COVID-19 are well understood. In fact, it is likely that some other urgent calamity will come along and compete for research funds currently used for COVID-19 research, which could significantly extend the time it takes to understand the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

[0] https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/adaptation-and-phe...

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2558-4

[2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-020-0156-0

[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41419-020-2721-8

> Most medical research is fraught with ambiguity and mixed messages, simply because of the phenotypic variance found in humans (and other organisms)

Even more general reason to be sure that Trump was not right in his overt belief in chloroquine efficacy.

Please keep science apart from politics (and yes, it it also about you Scientific American). Thank you.

I understand the desire here but how do you think this can possibly work when politics has such key links with science? You can’t meaningfully have a response to the current pandemic or climate change, the defining issue of our century, by treating those as unrelated parts of life. From the other direction, funding for scientific is similarly heavily dependent on political support.

These days, I only hear it from my Republican friends who are trying to carve a line between saying that they still follow science and not wanting to formally leave a party which has little room for them any more.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com