Scientific American and the Anti-Woke Bros
“Skeptic” Michael Shermer has been bashing Scientific American for its “left-wing political bias” ever since the magazine canned him as a columnist. When editor-in-chief Laura Helmuth resigned last fall after Trump’s election, Shermer mocked her. A truly classy guy.
HOBOKEN, APRIL 3, 2025. How can you practice science journalism under a regime hostile to science and journalism? I talked about this dilemma March 26 with Laura Helmuth, former editor-in-chief of Scientific American.
You can see our conversation here (my introduction of Helmuth starts 20 minutes in). I welcome comments on it. And read “Scientific American Loses Its Bold Leader” for background on Helmuth’s leadership of and resignation from the magazine.
In this column I’ll comment on critics of Helmuth to whom I alluded in our conversation: Michael Shermer, Jerry Coyne and Jesse Singal. They claim to share Helmuth’s progressive values but say her pursuit of social justice went too far. I call them anti-woke bros. (If you’re not sure what “woke” means, see “I Am One of Those Evil Woke Professors.”)
I’ll start with Shermer. He’s a self-proclaimed “skeptic” who skewers religion, parapsychology and other manifestations of irrational thinking. He wrote a column for Scientific American from 2001 to 2018, when he was fired by Helmuth’s predecessor, Mariette DiChristina.
I assume DiChristina axed Shermer for being a predictable hack who recycles ideas of smarter thinkers, like Steven Pinker. But since he was canned, Shermer has asserted that his bold, follow-the-facts perspective bumped into Scientific American’s “woke turn toward social justice.”
Shermer says the magazine got even more woke under Helmuth, whose “left-wing political bias” prohibited discussion of certain topics. In an essay in which he gloats over Helmuth’s downfall, Shermer offers two examples of taboo topics:
1, “average difference in IQ test scores between white and black Americans… might be partially due to genetics”; 2, women “score higher than men in trait Neuroticism on the Big 5 personality scale and… that is why there are fewer female than male Fortune 500 CEOs.”
Just to be clear: Shermer, in his coy, I’m-not-saying-I’m-saying-this way, is citing the claim that the unequal status of African Americans and women in certain realms stems from innate factors. Far from bold, skeptical thinking, this is the same pseudo-scientific drivel that racists and sexists have spouted for centuries.
What’s wrong with America, Shermer continues, is that “overzealous activists” like Helmuth are pushing too hard against racism, sexism and transphobia. “Thanks to Donald Trump’s election… the pendulum may at long last be starting to swing back towards normalcy.”
Yes, that’s where Trump’s attacks on science, academia, media, judges, U.S. allies and democracy itself are taking us, toward normalcy.
Like Shermer, biologist Jerry Coyne has bashed Scientific American for years. After Helmuth stepped down, Coyne kicked the magazine for “its wokeness, its misguided views, its pervasive ideology, and its downright errors.” Coyne whines that Helmuth refused to publish his “op-ed about the malign effects of ideology on science… There was no balance in the magazine—not even in the op-eds.”
Coyne lists “ludicrous or mistaken articles” published by Scientific American on “social justice issues.” Most concern race and gender but two discuss God in a way that offends the adamant atheist Coyne. Coyne also slams a “putrid piece of pure pro-Palestinian propaganda” published in 2021 (and removed shortly thereafter at the demand of the magazine’s German owners, who are sensitive to criticism of Israel).
Coyne contends that science magazines should stick to science and “remain viewpoint neutral on issues of politics, morals, and ideology.” What a foolish thing to say. Science has always been entangled with “politics, morals, and ideology,” and science journalists who pretend to be “viewpoint neutral”—especially at a time like this—are either lazy or cowardly.
I’ve tangled with Shermer and Coyne before but not with Jesse Singal, a journalist who covers social science. Shortly after Helmuth’s resignation, Singal said that the editor’s “political agenda” had turned the “once-respected magazine into a frequent laughingstock.” The Helmuth-led magazine “played a small but important role in the self-immolation of scientific authority—a terrible event whose fallout we'll be living with for a long time.”
Oh, so it’s lefties like Helmuth who are destroying science and not right-wing deniers of climate-change, vaccines and evolution.
In his critique of Helmuth’s editorial oversight, Singal cites the same articles as Shermer and Coyne while dwelling on “the youth gender medicine debate.” Singal is writing a book on the topic, and he’s been slamming Scientific American for its trans coverage for years. Singal accuses the magazine of insisting that “we know youth gender medicine works, beyond a shadow of a doubt, and only bigots and ignoramuses suggest otherwise.”
Singal urges Scientific American “to get back to its roots—explaining the universe's wonders to its readers, not lecturing them about how society should be ordered or distorting politically inconvenient findings.”
In a recent New York Times op-ed, Singal emphasizes scientific uncertainties surrounding transgender medicine. Excellent point. Given these uncertainties, who should speak for the transgender community? Helmuth decided to let transgender people speak for themselves rather than airing contrary views in the name of “balance.”
I’m reminded of what transgender economist Dierdre McCloskey told me about her transition in the 1990s. McCloskey had to go to court to prove she was competent to undergo surgery, because her sister hired psychiatrists to testify that Deirdre was mentally unfit. This episode left McCloskey with an enduring suspicion of “experts” who seek to restrict others’ freedom.
Yes, and remember that, historically, “experts” have cited “scientific evidence” that homosexuality is a mental disorder, and that women and people of color are biologically inferior to white males.
During our conversation, Helmuth told me her goal when she became editor of Scientific American was to expand its readership, which skewed toward old white guys. Helmuth hoped to attract younger readers, females, people of color, queer folk. Helmuth takes diversity, equity and inclusion seriously.
The anti-woke bros say Helmuth should have been more moderate in her advocacy for DEI and other progressive values. That’s what The New York Times, Washington Post and other major media outlets have done in response to the rise of Trump, they have sidled toward the center.
Helmuth, if I may put words in her mouth, said, Fuck that. She took risks, as good editors do. If you don’t piss anyone off, I like telling my science-writing students, you’re playing it too safe. She surely regretted a few articles published under her watch.
But with the exception of the pro-Palestinian piece that upset Scientific American’s German owners, Helmuth didn’t retract any social-justice articles or publish opposing views for “balance.” Pressured to be more moderate, Helmuth did not capitulate, she did not collaborate, she resisted.
The anti-woke bros might accuse me of virtue-signaling, of seeking to impress people with what a fine fellow I am by applauding Helmuth’s unyielding opposition to racism, sexism and transphobia. I’ll admit to virtue-signaling if Shermer, Coyne and Singal admit to racism, sexism and transphobia signaling.
If history remembers them at all, it will remember them for currying favor with those whom Helmuth, on election night, called “fucking fascists.”
Further Reading:
Biologist PZ Myers has published entertaining, scientifically informed critiques of Jesse Singal, Jerry Coyne and Michael Shermer.
I Am One of Those Evil Woke Professors
Scientific American Loses Its Bold Leader
Advice to Aspiring Science Writers: Remember Marx
Why Chomsky Called Trump and Republicans “Criminally Insane”