Science Journals

Editors of many of the world’s top scientific and medical journals are destroying or — better stated, perhaps — have destroyed the public’s trust in scientific and medical leadership because these journals can no longer be deemed objective purveyors of truth.

Nature and its associated science journals (Nature Portfolio), supposedly the most elite of the lot, are among the worst offenders. For example, in 2024 Nature endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president in part because of her support for abortion. Nature also endorsed Biden in 2020. To say the least, blatantly engaging in partisan politics is not wise for a supposedly objective science journal.

It isn’t just politics. Ideological bias can also skew what should be scientifically objective studies, in favor of desired conclusions. In 2023, climate scientist Patrick T. Brown admitted in the Free Press to having tailored a paper he had co-written, to erase proper nuance. Why? He believed that Nature would not publish a paper that did not follow “correct” climate narratives all the way down the line. Brown warned that such ideological contamination of the scientific discourse has consequences:

The biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.

The hyper-politicization of science and medical journals has contributed substantially to the public’s loss of trust in expert institutions. When ideology drives professional discourse, how can we fully trust the studies that are published as being objective or have confidence that scholarly reports reaching contrary conclusions to the beliefs of the editors will not be rejected based on politics alone? We already know that such editorial biases undermine objective scientific scholarship. A new editorial in The Lancet illustrates the extent to which woke activism in the journals pollutes the intellectual ground as the editors claim that “far right” political beliefs harm the public health. From, “The Far-Right and Health: An Evolving Political Crisis“: Across Europe and North America, racism, xenophobia, Read More ›

The New England Journal of Medicine continues to besmirch its once august reputation by pushing ideology rather than medical science when discussing our nation’s most contentious social issues. This is particularly true about so-called gender-affirming care for minors experiencing gender confusion. Even as repeated medical studies undercut the ideological narrative that puberty blockers, hormones, and even surgeries are the best means of caring for dysphoric children — and as country after country severely restricted those interventions — (with the exception of an unsubstantive criticism of the Cass Review) articles in the NEJM on the question usually pretend that the pushback never happened.

Now, the editors have done it again, publishing an article by Scott Skinner-Thompson, an LGBT activist law professor from the University of Colorado, Boulder, criticizing the Supreme Court for allowing Tennessee to legally prevent such interventions in children. The pretense begins with the headline, “The Faulty Logic behind the Supreme Court’s Failure to Protect Trans Minors.” To the contrary, Tennessee and other jurisdictions that have enacted such laws have done so to protect trans minors from potentially irreversible harm, in the knowledge that most gender dysphoric minors overcome their confusion by the time they reach adulthood.

Then, Skinner-Thompson leans on clearly ideological opinions by medical associations, despite at least one of which (WPATH) having been substantively discredited:

On June 18, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming hormonal treatment for transgender minors against an Equal Protection Clause challenge in United States v. Skrmetti. Transgender adolescents who need these medical interventions but live in one of the many states that ban them may need to look elsewhere for care. Nearly every major relevant U.S. health care organization has concluded that the prescription of hormones and puberty blockers for treating gender dysphoria in transgender adolescents is often medically appropriate in that it can improve mental health and well-being, whereas untreated gender dysphoria can lead to depression, anxiety, and suicidality.

As we hear much moaning about budget cuts impacting urgent public-health programs, an article in the current The Lancet wants to waste money studying the “health consequences” of nuclear war. From, “Ending Nuclear Weapons Before They End Us” (citations omitted): In May, 2025, the World Health Assembly (WHA) will vote on re-establishing a mandate for WHO to address the health consequences of nuclear weapons and war. Health professionals and their associations should urge their governments to support such a mandate and support the new UN comprehensive study on the effects of nuclear war… All UN member states are encouraged to provide relevant information, scientific data and analyses; facilitate and host panel meetings, including regional meetings; and make budgetary or in-kind Read More ›