12 Scientific American, October 2020
SCIENCE AGENDA
OPINION AND ANALYSIS FROM
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN’S BOARD OF EDITORS
Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate
in its 175-year history. This year we are compelled to do so. We
do not do this lightly.
The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has
badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects
evidence and science. The most devastating example is his will-
fully ignorant and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic,
which cost more than 170,000 Americans their lives by the mid-
dle of August. He has also attacked environmental protections,
medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies
that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That
is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-
based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environ-
ment. These and other proposals he has put forth can set the
country back on course for a safer, more prosperous and more
equitable future.
The pandemic would strain any nation and system, but
Trump’s rejection of evidence and public health measures have
been catastrophic in the U.S. He was warned many times in Jan-
uary and February about the onrushing disease, yet he did not
develop a national strategy to provide protective equipment,
coronavirus testing or clear health guidelines. Testing people for
the virus, and tracing those they may have infected, is how coun-
tries in Europe and Asia have gained control over their outbreaks,
saved lives, and successfully reopened businesses and schools.
But in the U.S., Trump claimed, falsely, that “anybody that wants
a test can get a test.” That was untrue in March and remained
untrue through the summer. Trump opposed $25 billion for
increased testing and tracing that was in a pandemic relief bill
as late as July. These lapses accelerated the spread of disease
through the country—particularly in highly vulnerable commu-
nities that include people of color, where deaths climbed dispro-
portionately to those in the rest of the population.
It wasn’t just a testing problem: if almost everyone in the U.S.
wore masks in public, it could save about 66,000 lives by the
beginning of December, according to projections from the Uni-
versity of Washington School of Medicine. Such a strategy would
hurt no one. It would close no business. It would cost next to noth-
ing. But Trump and his vice president flouted local mask rules,
making it a point not to wear masks themselves in public appear-
ances. Trump has openly supported people who ignored gover-
nors in Michigan and California and elsewhere as they tried to
impose social distancing and restrict public activities to control
the virus. He encouraged governors in Florida, Arizona and Tex-
as who resisted these public health measures, saying in April—
again, falsely—that “the worst days of the pandemic are behind
us” and ignoring infectious disease experts who warned at the
time of a dangerous rebound if safety measures were loosened.
And of course, the rebound came, with cases across the nation
rising by 46 percent and deaths increasing by 21 percent in June.
The states that followed Trump’s misguidance posted new daily
highs and higher percentages of positive tests than those that did
not. By early July several hospitals in Texas were full of COVID-
patients. States had to close up again, at tremendous economic
cost. About 31 percent of workers were laid off a second time, fol-
lowing the giant wave of unemployment—more than 30 million
people and countless shuttered businesses—that had already dec-
imated the country. At every stage, Trump has rejected the unmis-
takable lesson that controlling the disease, not downplaying it, is
the path to economic reopening and recovery.
Trump repeatedly undercut clear public health messages, false-
ly saying the virus was “under control” and no worse than the flu.
This encouraged people to engage in risky behavior, spreading the
virus further, and has driven wedges between Americans who take
the threat seriously and those who believe Trump’s falsehoods.
The White House even produced a memo attacking the expertise
of the nation’s chief infectious disease physician, Anthony Fauci,
in a despicable attempt to sow further distrust.
Trump’s reaction to America’s worst public health crisis in a
century has been to say “I don’t take responsibility at all.” Instead
he blamed other countries and his White House predecessor, who
left office three years before the pandemic began.
But Trump’s refusal to look at the evidence and act according-
ly extends beyond the virus. He has repeatedly tried to get rid of
the Affordable Care Act while offering no alternative; compre-
hensive medical insurance is essential to reduce illness. Trump
has proposed billion-dollar cuts to the National Institutes of
Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Centers for Dis-
ease Control and Prevention, agencies that increase our scientif-
ic knowledge and strengthen us for future challenges. Congress
has countermanded his reductions. Yet he keeps trying, slashing
programs that would ready us for future pandemics and with-
drawing from the World Health Organization. These and other
actions increase the risk that new diseases will surprise and dev-
astate us again.
Trump also keeps pushing to eliminate health rules from the
Environmental Protection Agency, putting people at more risk for
heart and lung disease caused by pollution. He has replaced sci-
entists on agency advisory boards with industry representatives.
In his ongoing denial of reality, Trump has hobbled U.S. prepara-
tions for climate change, falsely claiming that it does not exist and
pulling out of international agreements to mitigate it. The chang-
ing climate is already causing a rise in heat-related deaths and an
increase in severe storms, wildfires and extreme flooding.Joe Biden, in contrast, comes prepared with plans to control
COVID-19, improve health care, reduce carbon emissions
and restore the role of legitimate science in policy making. HeFrom Fear
to Hope
Joe Biden should be
the next U.S. president
By the Editors
© 2020 Scientific American © 2020 Scientific American