The Society for the Study of Evolution quits Twitter, implying that the site is “unethical”, irresponsible, and “not inclusive”. What they mean is “we don’t like Musk.”
Two days ago I was perusing the website of the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), which, along with the American Society of Naturalists (ASN) and the Society of Systematic Biologists (SSB), wrote a statement to President Trump and Congress in early February asserting that sex forms a “continuum” in all species (see our … Continue reading The Society for the Study of Evolution quits Twitter, implying that the site is “unethical”, irresponsible, and “not inclusive”. What they mean is “we don’t like Musk.”
Two days ago I was perusing the website of the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), which, along with the American Society of Naturalists (ASN) and the Society of Systematic Biologists (SSB), wrote a statement to President Trump and Congress in early February asserting that sex forms a “continuum” in all species (see our rebuttal here). Although the SSE’s statement is both biologically wrong and embarrassing, published just to conform to gender-activist ideology, it remains online (archived here), though the three Presidents who signed it haven’t yet seen fit to send it to the recipients, nor will they give us permission to post their response to our critique—a response sent to 125 signers of our letter.
That’s just for background. While it’s within the ambit of the SSE, ASN, and SSB to try correcting governmental misstatements about science, in this case the government’s executive order on biological sex gave the correct definition (and a note that it’s binary), while the statement of the three societies was flatly wrong. It’s not okay to distort biology in the name of politics. People will perceive this as a sign that the SSE is becoming “progressive” or “woke”, and that leads, as we know, to public mistrust of science and scientists.
But on Friday I found another sign that the SSE is getting politicized, and it’s a more blatant statement. This statement (below) shows that the SSE has been fully ideologically captured and has no truck with Republicans. That is fine for individuals, but when an entire scientific society tells us that Republicans—in this case Elon Musk—are unethical, that’s not good for the society, for its members, or for science in general.
Scientific organizations and journals should not take ideological sides (save when science itself is at issue), as we know from when the journal Nature broke precedent in 2024 and endorsed Biden for President in 2020. A paper on the outcome was published in Nature Human Behavior, of all places, and the results don’t speak well for journals taking sides. Here’s its abstract (bolding is mine):
High-profile political endorsements by scientific publications have become common in recent years, raising concerns about backlash against the endorsing organizations and scientific expertise. In a preregistered large-sample controlled experiment, I randomly assigned participants to receive information about the endorsement of Joe Biden by the scientific journal Nature during the COVID-19 pandemic. The endorsement message caused large reductions in stated trust in Nature among Trump supporters. This distrust lowered the demand for COVID-related information provided by Nature, as evidenced by substantially reduced requests for Nature articles on vaccine efficacy when offered. The endorsement also reduced Trump supporters’ trust in scientists in general. The estimated effects on Biden supporters’ trust in Nature and scientists were positive, small and mostly statistically insignificant. I found little evidence that the endorsement changed views about Biden and Trump. These results suggest that political endorsement by scientific journals can undermine and polarize public confidence in the endorsing journals and the scientific community.
That implies that journals and scientific societies should just shut up about ideological, moral, or political issues save when the issues deal with the mission of the organization. (This is the same kind of “ideological neutrality” adopted by several dozen universities, including mine.)
But the SSE can’t help itself. It galls me that a Society of which I was once President has become the Teen Vogue of evolutionary biology. Now I don’t like Elon Musk’s political behavior, for he’s breaking our government like a bull in a china shop (his work as an “engineering leader,” however, is admirable). But Twitter has its uses, and I remain on it, calling attention to all my pieces here. And when I post there I don’t feel that I’m telling people, “I love Elon Musk!”
But the SSE can’t survive without going after Musk, and so they’ve announced their withdrawal from Twitter, which you can see here. I reproduce their announcement below (indented):
SSE on Social Media
SSE Council recently voted to cease activity on the SSE account (@sse_evolution) on X/Twitter after April 15. This motion was raised due to the platform’s ethical misalignment with SSE’s mission and vision, particularly around equity, inclusiveness, and responsible communication of science. We encourage our members to follow us on other social media platforms in order to stay up to date with the latest SSE news.
Find SSE on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Facebook.
Announcements are also sent to all SSE members via email in our monthly newsletter. Make sure your email address is up to date by logging in here.
The Evolution and Evolution Letters journals will also stop posting to Twitter – follow Evolution on Bluesky, Mastodon, and Facebook and Evolution Letters on Bluesky and Mastodon.
You can still find the SSE Graduate Student Advisory Committee (GSAC) on Bluesky and Twitter, and Evolution Meetings on Bluesky and Twitter.
Why did they do this? It’s no mystery: the Society is announcing its dislike of Elon Musk, who owns “X” (Twitter). And because the SSE sees Twitter as being in “ethical misalignment with SSE’s mission and vision, particularly around equity, inclusiveness, and responsible communication of science,” they must sever most ties with that social-media platform. (Note that they don’t explain this “ethical misalignment”, but I guess it consists of simply this: “We don’t like Elon Musk and won’t post on his site.)
Except that they still do keep ties with the site! As you see above, the SSE will continue to post announcements from the Grad Student Advisory Committee and announcements about the annual SSE meetings on Twitter. What is that about? If it’s unethical for the SSE to align with Twitter, then it must be unethical for its grad students, too, and especially unethical to use Musk’s site to harbor stuff about the annual meeting.
What about those other two societies? Well, I guess they haven’t yet gotten the message that their posting on Twitter constitutes unethical behavior. The American Society of Naturalists remains on Twitter (“X”), as does The Society of Systematic Biologists. Nor can I find any announcement of misalignment at the ASN’s own site or the SSB’s own site.
It mystifies me how among these three societies, which are closely aligned, only one has quit Twitter because it sees posting there as unethical. Come on, ASN and SSB, get on the progressive bandwagon!
