Scientific American magazine faces criticism after Kamala Harris endorsement: 'Very problematic'

The Scientific American magazine faced backlash on Monday after it announced that it was endorsing Democratic nominee Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race.

The outlet also slammed Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

The endorsement marks the magazine’s second time making a presidential endorsement since its inception 179 years ago, it boasted on X, the first being four years ago when it backed Joe Biden in 2020.

The editors cited Harris' plans they said will improve the nation's health care system and address gun safety, climate change, and reproductive rights.

"In one, the new president offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience. She pushes policies that boost good jobs nationwide by embracing technology and clean energy," the editors wrote.

KAMALA HARRIS IN 'DANGER ZONE' IN SWING STATES SAYS CNN DATA REPORTER: NATIONAL POLLS 'DON'T MATTER'

As far as Harris’ contender Trump, they wrote that the former president would ignore the climate crisis "in favor of more pollution."

"In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies," the magazine published.

Many critics on X reacted to the endorsement, with one medical journalist highlighting the "danger" of the scientific community choosing political sides.

CNN DATA GURU SAYS HARRIS STRUGGLING WITH ‘UNDERPERFORMANCE’ FROM YOUNG VOTERS AMID TAYLOR SWIFT ENDORSEMENT

"There’s no doubt science is political," said medical writer Liz Highleyman.

"Political decisions affect science funding & scientific data influences public policy. But there’s a real danger in the perception that science ‘belongs’ to one