Nature endorses Barack Obama
M. Mitchell Waldrop
Wednesday, 29 October 2008 19:47 UTC
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that Nature has made any endorsement in a US election.
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
I’m not sure I agree, Maxine, that an endorsement of a political candidate is part of Nature ’s science communication mandate. Of course, the outcome of the election has a major impact on science policy, but readers seek guidance from editorial pages on how they should vote, because they believe the writers are more informed about the issues at play. In particular, the comment about Palin, with which I do agree globally, does not seem to draw on any specific (or scientific) information that Nature has, that needed to be better disseminated.
I would have been surprised had any other of the journals I read decided to come out with a blanket editorial endorsement of one of the U.S. presidential candidates. In particular, Science and P.N.A.S. are general science journals with a similar mission to that of Nature , and they stayed out of the fray despite (or perhaps because of) being American journals. I respect them for that. Had their editors come out in favor of a candidate with whom I violently disagreed, I would probably not want to submit my future articles there under the tenure of said editor. It would have been highly divisive. Of course, it is possible to deduce a general editorial stance at Science at least, from the tenor of the articles concerning the candidates stemming from the same information.
My opinion is that Mitch may have been better posted/published his summary position on behalf of Nature in a different forum. Like Nature Network, for instance.
-
Thanks for your views, Heather. Of course you and the New York Times are entitled to yours, but Nature is an independent publication, entitled to its own.
Just to clarify, though, the article is the Nature editorial view as a journal, not a summary of Mitch’s position as you assume. Mitch is the editor of that section, but the editorials are not his personal viewpoints or necessarily written by him. (Same holds for the editor of any part of Nature, we reprsent the journal, not our own personal views). If this particular Editorial was his own personal take, I agree that he’d sign it (wherever he published it). The editorial view in any Editorial in Nature is signed off by the Editor in Chief and other senior editors, after deliberation, revisions, etc.
Be that as it may, I came here to write that the Times (that’s The Times proper, not the New York Times) blog is now predicting Obama appointments. Among the scientific/academic-related suggestions are our old friend ex-Harvard provost Larry Summers and Al Gore. I can’t resist adding a non-scientific/academic prediction: Caroline Kennedy as a UN Ambassador or even Ambassador to the Court of St James.
-
Hot off the press, Nature News editor Alex Witze has written an article What Obama’s win means for science, in which ‘Nature takes a look at some of the races — from Congressional competitions to state-wide ballot initiatives — that will affect the nation’s research.’
-
Of course, I have no illusions about influencing Nature independent editorial policy! Just a followup to offer a further opinion that the added value to readers in Ms. Witze’s editorial is more patent to me than that of Mr. Waldrop’s (on behalf of the entire editorial board, I do understand).
The former includes a relevant summary of those seats in the U.S. Congress for which either former scientists or politicians with a vested interest in a science-related issue ran, with the outcome. It also summarizes the science-related state measures that were up for vote. I learned something from it, which is the only reason I read journals anyhow.
We can agree to disagree on this one…
-
I am disappointed in the editorial found in Nature 455, 1149 (30 October 2008) | doi:10.1038/4551149a; Published online 29 October 2008 America’s choice . I found the sixth paragraph tendentious towards President-elect Mr. Obama.
The first sentence of the sixth paragraph states, “Some will find strengths in McCain that they value more highly then the commitment to reasoned assessment that appeals in Obama.” While that may be a true statement, the readers of Nature who supported Mr. McCain’s campaign should not be aligned with some who do not value a commitment to reasoned assesment. Some scientists have a high commitment to reasoned assessment, and have concluded that Mr. Obama is not going to help the US or the world as much as Mr. McCain would have.
The second sentence states, " But all the signs are that the former seeks a narrower range of advice." The opposite is true. Mr. Obama is uninterested in aligning himself with conservative idealogy, while Mr. McCain has strived to do so with liberals. Mr. McCain has a liberal position on many domestic and foreign issues. When examining forieng issues Mr. McCain speaks with the leaders of the countries involved, and the US military generals involved in those issues. Mr. Obama seeks a narrower range of advice from others like minded as himself in the democratic party, leaning towards those democrats closer to his home in Chicago. Mr. McCain has habitually sought a wider range of advice, and heeded that wider range of advice so enthusiastically that the conservative party did not completely support him for presidency, until he chose his running mate. Mr. Obama on the other hand is not interested in listening to others that do not agree with his idealogy, including religious conservatives who support the ban on gay marriage and abortions. The statement quoted above displays the authors lack of objectivism.
The third sentence in the sixth paragraph is equally objective and lacks a realistic description of the topic being discussed: “Equally worrying is that he fails to educate himself on crucial matter.” Again, it is Mr. Obama who does not educate himself on crucial matters, weather it is the war in Iraq (Obama did not educate himself enough to comprehend that a surge of US troops would stabilize the country), or energy ( Obama did not educate himself enough to understand that energy independence must include drilling for oil). The statement that McCain has not educated himself on crucial matters shows a lack of research into the man and his political policies. A rudamentary search on McCain will show that he not only researchs crucial matters, he spends a great deal of time at the location of the crucial matter, investigating first hand what is the issue and analyzing potential solutions.
The next sentence in the editorial piece is very true, Mr. McCain does appear to make erratic decisions. However, the choice for Mrs. Palin as his running mate was brilliant. She has more executive expereince then both Mr. Bidden and Mr. Obama. Many women in our country celebrated the opportunity we had of electing a woman as the VP. Her views are conservative, which helped galvanize the republican party to support Mr. McCains campaign.
In the future please ensure the editorials are based on scientific principles. This article showed opinions so strongly unfounded that I felt compelled to submit this letter to the editor pointing out some of the more glaring examples.
Results
-
