A Reflection on Science, Trust, and Boundaries
A heartfelt appeal to Nature and other science journals: Focus on the strengths of scientific inquiry and leave politics behind
“What the F*ck!” my 87-year-old Harvard-educated distinguished mentor blurted out when he saw the tweet I shared with him yesterday. He was visibly frustrated. I could feel his dismay. This man has spent decades shaping the scientific community and is a respected peer reviewer for Nature, Cell, Frontiers, and other tier-one journals. Seeing this reaction from someone so deeply embedded in the world of rigorous science says everything about the disconnect we face.
This story is deeply personal and emotional. It is not an attack on Nature, nor is it about politics. It is about a journal that has been a cornerstone of my professional life, a source of inspiration, and a model of excellence I have cited thousands of times over my 40 years as a scientist and technologist. But their recent step into political waters has left me with conflicting emotions — emotions I believe many of you might share.
I am not here to tear Nature down. I am here to express a profound disappointment and an urgent plea. I decided to write this story from the heart, with raw honesty and a voice that I hope resonates with all of you — scientists, readers, and decision-makers. I wrote this story for collective consciousness after a deep meditation session.
For the first time, I felt uneasy about linking to a nature article in my story. A paywalled piece shared on social media not only alienates readers but also creates a damaging perception of scientists as disconnected and inaccessible.
How can I, in good conscience, ask someone to pay for something when I know many of them cannot even afford a $5 membership on this platform?
Most likely, Medium won’t distribute this story. Maybe it’s the lack of citations. Maybe it’s my raw, unpolished language. Perhaps even the head of curation or distribution will decide to censor it altogether. But do I care? Not in a million years. This story needs to be told, and if it ruffles feathers or gets buried in algorithms, so be it. I am not here to play it safe — I am here to be honest.
If Nature finds my words uncomfortable, so be it. My loyalty to science and its ability to serve humanity outweighs my loyalty to any single journal. But I still deeply love and admire scientists who contribute to Nature. This is not about taking sides. It is about ensuring that science remains grounded, inclusive, and a source of trust for everyone.
Do You Know Why Trump Win This Election?
Trump did not win this election randomly. The public didn’t hand Trump a second victory, but let’s face it — his flaws weren’t the reason. It wasn’t about climate change policies or the things scientists debated in esoteric journals. It was about survival.
People are hungry. People are homeless. People are drowning in chronic diseases with no hope in sight. The truth? They don’t care what scientists think. They don’t care about what’s written in lofty publications or declared from the ivory towers of academia.
Science has lost touch. It has become a conversation among the privileged, a language of the elite, while the public struggles to survive. We’re out here publishing esoteric studies, congratulating ourselves on breakthroughs that never leave the confines of labs or paywalled journals.
It’s time to face the reality: nobody cares about inaccessible science. And that is the real tragedy. People care about broken healthcare, and that is the reason Trump assigned Dr. Jay Bhattacharya as the Director of NIH!
Why Trump’s Consideration of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya for NIH Director Brings Me Hope
Not being criticized may show that our work has not yet made a meaningful impact. When accepted and acted upon…medium.com
That’s why Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is out there busting his arse in the gym — fighting to make America healthy again. He is tapping into a deep frustration that so many feel, a weariness with a system where Big Pharma seems to call the shots, profiting while people grow sicker and poorer.
Do You Reckon Robert F Kennedy Jr Is a Junk Food Junkie?
I don’t, but I might be wrong. I offer my observations and thoughts based on what I see in interviews and his public…medium.com
The public is crying out for change, for leaders who put health and humanity above profits. Whether you agree with his methods or not, it is a message that resonates with a nation desperate for a new way forward.
Science needs to change. It needs to come down from the towers, roll up its sleeves, and get to work for the people. We need to make science accessible, relevant, and human. It’s not just about finding solutions but about showing people how those solutions can transform their lives.
If science can’t resonate with the public, we’re not just failing as researchers but as human beings. Let’s make it count. Let’s make it matter. Let’s make it for everyone.
What the Hell Is Science (Nature) Doing in Politics? The Public’s Cry for Relevance
When Nature recently published an article addressing the Trump administration and tweeted about it on social media, the response was far from positive. Among scientists, the reaction was divided.
Among the public, it was worse. A trusted journal engaging in what seemed like political partisanship triggered questions: Should science publications step into the political arena? If so, how can they do it without compromising their reputation or alienating their audience?
Trump supporters didn’t just ignore Nature — they showed it the middle finger. And why wouldn’t they? A scientific journal stepping into the murky waters of politics was never going to end well.
The fallout wasn’t just for Nature; it hit scientists, too. Suddenly, we weren’t seen as impartial seekers of truth, but as players in a game, we were never meant to join. Trust cracked, and bridges burned. Was it worth it? For many, the answer is painfully clear: no.
Didn’t Nature realize X is owned by Elon Musk, an ardent supporter of Trump and his close mate?” my distinguished mentor asked, his voice sharp with disbelief.
“What were they thinking, stepping into their backyard and embarrassing scientists like this?” His frustration was palpable, reflecting the confusion and disappointment many of us feel when a respected journal stumbles into a space where it clearly doesn’t belong.
“Free speech doesn’t mean abandoning our boundaries,” he said, his tone heavy with frustration. “It’s about understanding where we belong and using our voice in the right place, not wasting it in the wrong one.”
His words carried weight — a reminder that true influence comes from wisdom, not from shouting into spaces where our credibility can be easily undermined. For a journal like Nature, the lesson is clear: power is best shown where it matters most, not where it risks being lost.
A Step Too Far and Too Wrong?
The real issue here is perception. Posting a paywalled article on X (formerly Twitter), where most poor people can’t even feed their children and won’t even read free, top-tier research was a misstep from the start.
Then came the tone — a sweeping, divisive message that alienated not just Trump supporters but also scientists who felt misrepresented. It left me asking: What was the purpose? And, more importantly, was the backlash worth it?
I understand that science and policy are intertwined. Policies shape research funding, climate action, public health, and education. It is natural for a scientific journal to cover policy decisions that affect the global scientific community.
But when a reputable publication like Nature ventures beyond policy to endorse political candidates or openly critique administrations, it treads a fine line between advocating for evidence and appearing partisan.
In 2020, Nature broke tradition by endorsing Joe Biden for president. The endorsement was framed as a defense of evidence-based decision-making — a noble cause. But was it wise?
Some applauded this bold stance, calling it necessary to counter misinformation and defend science. Many others worried it blurred the lines between science and politics, risking Nature’s reputation as a neutral arbiter of truth.
I found myself asking: Could Nature have achieved the same impact by focusing on policies rather than individuals? Could they have outlined the scientific consequences of decisions without endorsing a candidate? In trying to protect science, did they inadvertently politicize it?
Platforms like X amplify these tensions. They provide unparalleled access to audiences but also expose journals like Nature to unfiltered public sentiment.
When Nature posted its headline about Trump, reactions ranged from outright hostility to constructive criticism. As a journal revered for its thoughtful approach, engaging on platforms notorious for their lack of nuance felt counterproductive.
Social media is a double-edged sword. It allows scientists to share insights, correct misinformation, and connect with the public. But it also opens the door to misinterpretation and backlash. Journals like Nature must walk a delicate path, using these platforms to engage without compromising their credibility.
As scientists, we know that politics shapes our work. Leaders influence funding, prioritize (or neglect) climate action, and decide how science integrates into society.
However, the role of a scientific journal is different. A journal’s strength lies in its ability to inform, inspire, and establish trust with the public and the policymakers, not to alienate them.
When Nature highlights the effects of climate inaction, it educates. When it critiques the sidelining of expert advice, it advocates for evidence. But when it endorses candidates or generalizes sentiments, it risks alienating readers who may see it as overstepping its role.
Moving Forward on Encouraging Excellence in Science Communication
I believe Nature’s heart is in the right place. Its writers, editors, and scientists share a common goal: to protect and advance science.
However, as a loyal reader and contributor, I gently urge them to focus on what they do best — producing outstanding research and creating content that scientists and the public can embrace.
Instead of engaging in political debates, Nature could emphasize the policies that affect science. Instead of endorsing candidates, it could provide balanced analyses that inform without alienating. By staying true to its mission of excellence in research, Nature can avoid the pitfalls of politicization and continue to lead by example.
As someone who has reviewed and cited Nature thousands of times, I want to see it remain the trusted journal it has always been. The world needs Nature to stay above the fray, focusing on research that inspires and informs.
A Heartfelt Action to Call Science Journals
I don’t want to see scientists divided like politicians, shouting past each other. I don’t want people to hate science, to see it as just another tool for agendas. I don’t want policymakers to lose faith in science, making random decisions without our evidence and expertise.
Let’s leave politics to the politicians and keep science rooted in what it does best — seeking truth, solving problems, making life better for everyone, and preparing us for a better tomorrow with curiosity, rigor, and collaboration, not division.
We live in an age where misinformation spreads like wildfire, and trust in institutions feels more fragile than ever. Journals like Nature have a duty to protect that trust, not gamble it away.
By nurturing open dialogue, staying neutral, and focusing on what really matters—research excellence—they can be the bridge that meaningfully connects scientists to society.
What do you think? Should journals like Nature wade into politics, or is their true power in staying grounded in discovery and evidence?
How do we rebuild the connection between science and the people who need it most?
Let’s have this conversation — not for our egos or our reputations, but because it is too important not to. This isn’t just about Nature. It is about all of us and our collective consciousness!
Thank you for reading my perspectives. I wish you a healthy and happy life.
Leave a Reply