A few years ago, it became clear that Scientific American had been captured by the woke gender warriors, but as ESR points out, the publication had been somewhat in the hands of propagandists for much longer than that:
I was once a Scientific American subscriber. I loved that magazine; reading it was one of the highlights of my month. I canceled, and wept for what the magazine was becoming, when they published a theme issue that was a transparent political hit job.
Sounds like current news? No. That was 40 years ago. The hit job was on the Strategic Defense Initiative. Reagan was in the White House.
And I … I couldn’t figure out why nobody was saying the obvious in public. That SciAm had been sock-puppeted by a Soviet influence operation desperate to keep the US from exploiting its technological advantage.
Ideological capture of the scientific establishment is not a new problem. As much as I hate the Communists behind it, I’m even angrier with all the scientists who averted their eyes and never pushed back while the capture was going on. Our civilization gave them a position of high status, privilege, and trust. A priori I don’t think we were wrong to do that — until they failed in the duty that went with that trust.
It’s difficult for me to express how personally painful I found this. I revered research scientists as a child and young man — I could not imagine any higher calling than to be one myself. Until they betrayed civilization, and in the process betrayed me.
So, this isn’t a new problem. What’s new is that the post-2014 woke insanity has made it too obvious to miss.
It’s time for a dissolution of the monasteries. The culture of science, to the extent it is transmitted forward, must learn a harsh and terrible lesson about the consequences of allowing scientific neutrality to be abandoned for a mess of politics.
I had a similar experience, although I didn’t cancel my subscription, which I had held since high school in the 70s, until the oughts.
Comment by Joseph Moore — September 6, 2026 @ 15:11
[…] OH YES? NOT SINCE THE NINETIES, WHEN I CANCELLED MY SUBSCRIPTION FOR BLATANT LEFT-WING TILT: Scientific American used to be a respected science publication. […]
Pingback by Instapundit » Blog Archive » OH YES? NOT SINCE THE NINETIES, WHEN I CANCELLED MY SUBSCRIPTION FOR BLATANT LEFT-WING TILT: Scie — September 8, 2026 @ 01:58
Likewise. Subscribed while in high school (also the 70’s) studying physics and mathematics. Read each issue cover-to-cover. same through college and into a tech career. Then gradually, coming to the realization that the mag was becoming less of a discovery experience and more a series of opinionated lectures. Well, bye.
Comment by James Cambria — September 8, 2026 @ 02:25
I became a Scientific American fan in 1968 at age 16, when I first purchased my own subscription, using my own money earned after school while working as a janitor at store at our local shopping mall. Prior to that, I had read the school library issues every month.
I read every issue closely, and I enjoyed the advertising and its glimpses of the future. I maintained my subscription for many years, but SciAm began focusing on left wing politics, and the leftist propaganda began filtering into all of the articles, editorials, and letters to the editors. I noticed it early, about 2005 or so, and by 2010, I gave up. I did not renew the subscription I had faithfully purchased for 42 years. I have never even tried browsing through a modern issue at the library.
Comment by Joe Veazey — September 8, 2026 @ 03:36
I stopped buying a lot of magazines because they all started to push Global Warming, even the magazines that were not covering science, like The Humanist, Reason, Secular Humanism, Skeptic. I decided that this was very similar to Gleichshaltung. This made me very skeptical of all media, especially since all the media were pushing Global Cooling just a few years before.
Comment by Ron — September 8, 2026 @ 05:24
The same goes for National Geographic.
Comment by Del Varner — September 8, 2026 @ 07:17
Unscientific American, more like.
Comment by David Longfellow — September 8, 2026 @ 09:06
In October of 2008, SciAm ran a story that “proved” candidate Obama got less positive press coverage than candidate McCain, based on an analysis of hundreds of news articles by a Journalism Prof (and many grad students). The clear implication was that this was coverage representing that which occurred during the current Summer campaign season. But it wasn’t.
It was coverage that had occurred during the nomination campaign of the previous Fall! You know, when Obama was raining on the coronation parade of Her Inevitableness, and McCain was basking in the adoration of the media setting him up as their favorite Republican, a stalking horse to be sacrificed once nominated! Bottom line: the evaluated articles never were about the two candidates for President then running, but about their previous personas in a totally different context! But you had to read the fine print at the end to figure that out!
I cancelled my subscription of many years right then.
Comment by Ray Van Dune — September 8, 2026 @ 11:29