Running back Khalil Herbert made his presence felt in the quarter as well with a 52-yard touchdown run. Herbert converted the third and eight by weaving his way through the secondary to go over 100-yards for the third straight game.
Why Scientists Should Stop Misusing Science To Influence The Election
Earlier this month, the editors of Scientific American, published an all-out, endorsement of Joe Biden for President—something unprecedented in the journal’s 175 year history. Then, last week, all of the New England Journal of Medicine’s editors signed a scathing review of the Trump administration’s handling of the COVID-19 emergency, calling for Trump to be voted out of office.
In truth, both editorials offer several valid criticisms of the administration on scientific grounds. And to be clear: The present article is not making any counter-endorsement of Donald Trump—far from it.
Rather, we pose an important question: Are high-profile scientists crossing a dangerous line by using their trusted platforms to influence the election? Based on behavioral science, we believe they are and their actions come at the risk of diminishing the public’s trust in scientific objectivity.
Indeed, their political suasion efforts might even backfire.
A long literature in behavioral research suggests people place more credence on arguments or statements said to be supported by science. In that connection, scientists are exalted by the public and even given extra validity when their listeners are under stress or in a state of fear.
To make matters more complicated, a pervasive cognitive bias known as the halo effect suggests people often assume highly regarded figures (such as scientists) possess expertise in areas where they don’t.
The net effect of such biases and perceptions is that scientists are often given undo public trust; yet, in places where a scientists’s assertions are preliminary, inconclusive or outright wrong, the public follows their lead, nonetheless.
The problem is that scientists are often wrong.
In fact, a long-term study indicates that over 70% of scientists are unable to replicate the results of