We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

In a historic move, Scientific American magazine has endorsed Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris for president — after having made its then-sole exception by endorsing Joe Biden in 2020 — citing science, healthcare, abortion, gun rights, technology, and climate action as key reasons.

On Monday, Scientific American, one of the oldest and most respected science publications in the U.S., made headlines by endorsing Kamala Harris for president. “Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment,” the publication  advocated.

In what was only the second time in the magazine’s 179-year history that it has backed a presidential candidate — the first being Joe Biden in 2020 — the editors cite Harris’s dedication to science-based policy, public health improvements, and environmental protection, as well as her support for “reproductive rights,” as reasons for their rare political stance.

The editorial drew sharp contrasts between Harris and her opponent, former President Donald Trump, who they described as one who “endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.” The magazine also expressed concern over Trump’s “dangerous” and “disastrous” record, particularly his handling of public health during the COVID-19 pandemic and his rollback of environmental protections.

Insisting that “Only one [future] is a vote for reality and integrity,” the piece concludes with a plea: “We urge you to vote for Kamala Harris.”

The move by the major science magazine, which is particularly notable given its traditionally neutral stance, sparked outrage. 

“Authoritarian Leftist partisanship has hijacked everything: academia, science, journalism, medicine, business, law, entertainment, culture, Justice system, etc.,” wrote Evolutionary behavior scientist Dr. Gad Saad.

“An utterly predictable and worse boring “revelation” from the pathetic and self-destructive woke mob that captured @sciam,” wrote clinical psychologist and bestselling author Dr. Jordan Peterson.

“You endorsed a candidate, Joe Biden, in the last election. Your science publication has been compromised by ideologues, and it’s reflected in the unscientific and disgraceful content you’ve published in recent years,” wrote journalist Andy Ngo.

“A science magazine should not be endorsing presidents. This is why you have lost all credibility,” wrote evolutionary biologist Colin Wright. “And yes, I’d be equally critical if you had endorsed Trump.”

“I will never forgive you people for destroying a once great science magazine,” wrote independent journalist Christina Buttons.

In 2020, the magazine backed 2020 Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden in its first-ever presidential endorsement in the magazine’s 175-year history.

The editors wrote that they felt “compelled” to support Biden in his effort to defeat President Donald Trump, citing Trump’s handling of the coronavirus crisis and his skepticism on issues such as climate change.

“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 editors wrote in the magazine’s October issue.

In June, the long-standing science magazine called for federal regulations for homeschooling, even suggesting that parents of homeschooled children “undergo a background check.”

Last year, a Scientific American piece claimed that a world with fewer people means a changed climate and better outcomes for the remaining population – human and otherwise – of the planet.

Another essay insisted that human sex is “not binary,” arguing claims to the contrary “are not about biology but are about trying to restrict who counts as a full human in society.”

In 2022, the once-venerated magazine published an essay arguing the fight against obesity is rooted in “racism,” and that black women “consistently experience weightism in addition to sexism and racism,” while the prescribing of “weight loss” has “long since proved to be ineffective.”

Joshua Klein is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jklein@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter @JoshuaKlein.