When scientific journals publicly endorse political candidates, they risk lowering public trust in the scientific community, particularly among moderate and conservative Americans. These endorsements cause measurable declines in how people view the impartiality and societal value of science, though they do not appear to change whether people are willing to follow practical scientific advice. The findings were recently published in the journal Group Processes & Intergroup Relations.
Public trust in scientific institutions is an important factor in shaping how society responds to global challenges like pandemics and climate change. Historically, scientific organizations have sought to maintain an apolitical stance to preserve their reputation as objective arbiters of fact. In recent years, several high-profile scientific journals have broken from this precedent. Editors at these publications have published pieces endorsing Democratic presidential candidates or strongly criticizing Republican candidates, often framing these stances as necessary defenses of scientific integrity. Researchers wanted to understand how these explicit political stances affect how the American public views the scientific enterprise as a whole.
Stylianos Syropoulos, Kyle Fiore Law, and their colleagues set out to examine this phenomenon through the psychological framework of motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning is the human tendency to process information in a way that confirms existing beliefs and political identities. When individuals encounter statements that conflict with their political views, they often scrutinize or reject the source of that information.
The research team suspected that political endorsements from scientific journals might trigger this psychological mechanism. They hypothesized that people who identify as moderate or conservative might question the objectivity of science after reading endorsements that clash with their political leanings.
To capture a complete picture, the researchers evaluated trust not as a single concept, but as a collection of distinct dimensions. These dimensions include perceived ability, which is the competence of scientists to provide accurate information. They also looked at integrity, which involves the belief that science is impartial and objective. Benevolence measures the perception that science serves the public good and lacks hidden agendas. Finally, behavioral trust reflects whether people are actually willing to follow scientific recommendations in their daily lives, such as adhering to public health guidelines.
In the first experiment, conducted shortly before the 2020 presidential election, researchers recruited a large sample of 3,081 participants online. They randomly assigned these participants to read one of two types of texts regarding prominent scientific publications, such as Science, The Lancet, or Scientific American. The control group read a brief, neutral description of the journal’s history and mission formatted like a news wire article.
The treatment group read the same background information, but with an added excerpt from an actual editorial published by the journal that endorsed Joe Biden or criticized Donald Trump. Following the reading, participants answered a series of questions measuring their trust in science and their intentions to comply with health guidelines.
The researchers found that reading the political endorsements caused a measurable drop in general trust in scientific institutions. Participants in the treatment group were more likely to report that science lacks impartiality, pointing to a decline in perceived integrity. This effect was largely driven by politically moderate and conservative individuals, who exhibited lower trust after exposure to the endorsements.
Among conservatives, the treatment also increased belief in conspiracy theories about science and the origins of the coronavirus, indicating a drop in perceived benevolence. However, the endorsements did not yield a statistically significant effect on behavioral trust. Participants exposed to the political messaging remained just as willing to follow practical public health recommendations as those in the control group.
To see if these results would hold up under different conditions, the researchers conducted a second experiment days before the November 2020 election. They recruited a sample of 1,056 participants, matched to national demographic quotas for age, gender, and ethnicity. The experimental setup mirrored the first study, with participants randomly assigned to read either neutral background text or a political endorsement from a scientific journal.
The results replicated the core findings of the first experiment. Exposure to the political messaging reduced general trust in science and increased the belief that science is biased, again driven by moderate and conservative participants. In this iteration, the treatment group also reported a lower likelihood of using scientific sources for coronavirus updates, which suggests a decline in perceived scientific ability or competence.
Just as in the first study, the political endorsements had no statistically significant impact on people’s willingness to comply with practical safety guidelines. The messaging also did not alter belief in conspiracy theories for this specific group.
A third experiment took place four years later, surrounding the 2024 presidential election. The research team recruited a large sample of 2,144 participants to read material from Scientific American, Nature, or The Economist. The Economist was included because it frequently covers science and technology for a broad audience. As before, participants read either neutral background descriptions or actual published editorials endorsing Kamala Harris or criticizing Donald Trump.
Because the pandemic was no longer a central issue during this later study, the researchers removed questions about the coronavirus. They added new measures to evaluate general perceptions of scientific objectivity and societal usefulness.
The results from the 2024 election cycle aligned closely with the 2020 data. Reading the political endorsements decreased general trust in science and increased the belief that personal and political values govern scientific research. Participants in the treatment group also reported lower confidence in the idea that science is objective and useful for society. Once again, the declines in general trust and perceived integrity were most pronounced among moderate and conservative respondents.
The study relies entirely on real-world editorials that endorsed Democratic candidates or criticized Republican ones. Because the researchers used actual published materials to ensure their experiment mirrored reality, they did not test how left-leaning individuals might react to a major scientific journal endorsing a conservative candidate. It remains unknown if political liberals would exhibit the same motivated reasoning and subsequent loss of trust if faced with scientific endorsements that opposed their own political identities.
The researchers note that while explicit political endorsements carry reputational costs, complete silence from the scientific community on policy matters might also negatively affect public perception. Choosing not to address political rhetoric that directly targets scientific funding or spreads false information could be viewed as a failure to defend the scientific enterprise. Future research will need to explore how scientific organizations can correct falsehoods or advocate for evidence-based policies without appearing overly partisan. Finding the right balance will help institutions maintain their legitimacy across the entire political spectrum.
The study, “Presidential candidate endorsements by scientific journals decrease trust in science especially for moderate and conservative Americans,” was authored by Stylianos Syropoulos, Kyle Fiore Law, Crystal Li, Bernhard Leidner, and Kevin L. Young.