Former Columnist Exposes Scientific American’s Sudden Descent Into Left-Wing Ideology

Scientific American, a top science magazine that has been around since 1845, has become increasingly captured by the political left to the detriment of its scientific goals, a whistleblower told City Journal in a story published Sunday.

While the magazine previously pushed for authors to debate accepted perspectives, it has recently moved toward far-left ideology on issues, such as race, gender and climate, Scientific American author Michael Shermer, who wrote for the outlet from 2001-2019, told City Journal. Shermer, who wrote a column called “Skeptic” for the publication says he faced pushback for writing pieces on progress in reducing discrimination as well as for criticizing the ideology of “intersectionality,” commonly referred to as “identity politics.”

“I started to see the writing on the wall toward the end of my run there,” Shermer told City Journal. “I saw I was being slowly nudged away from certain topics.”

Shermer’s piece on “intersectionality” led to the end of his column with the outlet, as well as his contract, he told City Journal.

The author’s column on discrimination lessening against demographics like racial minorities and homosexuals, despite recognizing more progress is necessary, led to opposition from his editor at Scientific American, who suggested Shermer was saying that “everything is wonderful and everyone should stop whining” and that the narrative “doesn’t really work.”

“They are committed to the idea that there is no cumulative progress,” Shermer told City Journal.

Science journalism “is being defined by this postmodern worldview, the idea that all facts are relative or culturally determined,” he told City Journal, adding this means that “everything is a narrative that has to reflect some political side.”

Scientific journalism is not the only genre that has recently faced allegations of bias in coverage.

Veteran NPR editor Uri Berliner published an essay in April that in part alleges all levels of the publication were aligned on the prioritization of race and identity, leading to a lack of “viewpoint diversity” and a push for diversity, equity and inclusion.

“Lately journalists have been behaving more like lawyers, marshaling evidence in favor of their own view and ignoring anything that doesn’t help their argument,” Shermer told City Journal.

Scientific American made the unprecedented move in late 2020 of endorsing President Joe Biden in his election against former President Donald Trump.

“The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people — because he rejects evidence and science,” the outlet’s editors asserted in their endorsement of Biden.

It was a unanimous decision by Scientific American staff, editor-in-chief Laura Helmuth told City Journal.

“Overall, the response was very positive,” she said. “We have a long and proud history of covering the social and political angles of science.”

Scientific American did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.