Which is why simple endorsements are kind of dumb in general. There should always be reasons. If those are given, others can judge whether those reasons matter for them. Bare knuckle authority of simple endorsement is weak.

Ah! You mean as an expert (more general than as a scientist). That endorsement is inadequate. They would need to say what about the candidate is good given their area of expertise. Experts do this all the time. What is the worry? The public can then decide if the endorsement matters.

I'm not clear on how one does this scientist qua scientist. As an experiment?

Can they make political arguments, e.g. about what policy actions will do or what is a better course? Yes. Or do you mean something else?

Can't even.

Yes. Science as a social entity should be political. Scientists can decide whether they want to be political or not. Some want to lean into that; others not so much. Scientists should be good citizens, but that may be as political as they want to be.

I think they should discuss key science policy issues and talk about where candidates stand on those issues. That seems more important than endorsements.

Good recent work on trust in science suggests that trust should be trust with vigilance: link.springer.com/article/10.1...