9 Comments

Scientific American’s endorsement of Kamala Harris is consistent with a commitment to scientific integrity, independent of voter influence. Scientific American’s endorsement isn’t about tradition or swaying readers—it’s about standing up for evidence-based governance as part of its role in defending scientific progress and literacy.

Expand full comment
author

It's a reasonable position to have. I should have mentioned that I'm a paid subscriber to Scientific American and have worked with their editor-in-chief before. I support SciAM overall but just had a difference of opinion on the optics one this choice. But I don't think it's a 5-alarm fire, if that makes sense

Expand full comment

I understand—I’m also a paid subscriber, though I haven’t had any direct interaction with their editors. I respect that we both support SciAm’s mission, even if we see this endorsement a bit differently.

Expand full comment
Nov 5Liked by Jeremy Faust, MD

Thank you for your candid thoughts, and for your vote for freedom, competence and the future.

Expand full comment
author

Much appreciated

Expand full comment

Well Dr Faust you got as close as anyone has or probably ever will when you tried to get Dr Fauci to say his preference in voting!! He finally said, "Well I think you can guess by my answers how I will vote." Funny. I am disappointed I will add that only 6% listed Covid as a concern in the poll when voting. Not good.

Expand full comment
author

I was a little surprised by the 6% myself. I guess it shows how far we've come. But it more shows where people's political minds are. I'm sure that this readership cares about Covid still (I know that), but I guess in the voting booth they feel that other stuff is driving them

Expand full comment

It was a tough call - all those issues are so very important

Expand full comment

Marvelous assessment, doctor. Thank you :)

Expand full comment