Science publications and Trump

The New England Journal of Medicine and Scientific American have been around for quite a while, the Journal for 208 years. The publications have never supported or condemned a political candidate - until now. In the latest edition of The Journal its 34 editors - all of them, which is only the fourth time this has been done - signed a letter that said the Trump administration had responded so poorly to the coronavirus pandemic that they “have taken a crisis and turned it into a tragedy.” Last month the Scientific American endorsed Biden.

The Journal had a number of concerns:

The political leadership has failed Americans in many ways that contrast vividly with responses from leaders in other countries.
In the United States there was too little testing for the virus, especially early on. There was too little protective equipment, and a lack of national leadership on important measures like mask wearing, social distancing, quarantine and isolation.
There were attempts to politicize and undermine the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Furthermore, the editorial castigated the Trump administration’s rejection of science, writing, 

“Instead of relying on expertise, the administration has turned to uninformed ‘opinion leaders’ and charlatans who obscure the truth and facilitate the promulgation of outright lies.”
“When it comes to the response to the largest public health crisis of our time, our current political leaders have demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent. We should not abet them and enable the deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing them to keep their jobs.”