This has a certain appeal on the left, and one thing that Science shares in common with employees at Nature and Cell is that they are not representative of anything except each other, so "anti-corporate" virtue signaling is the norm - as is a distrust of the 90 percent of the world's science produced by corporations.
A non-profit corporation is still a corporation. AAAS is still driven by corporate advertising and will cash every corporate check it can get. They just don't give anything back by paying taxes. Like other corporations, AAAS still charges the public to read studies that American taxpayers already paid to have done.
It is odd to try and claim their Sneetch star is better than the companies behind Nature and Cell when they share the same business model, the same partisan bias, the same selective reasoning when it comes to science they will publish and what it will kick back. All that is difference is they keep profits rather than paying a dividend.
Nature is owned by a German family, and that's actually a good thing for employees. They also own Scientific American, and no one who cares about profit, certainly not AAAS, would keep Scientific American limping along endorsing political candidates and acupuncture and scaring the public about real science regardless of how negatively it has impacted them. The parent of Science magazine uses its corporate and subscriber-derived wealth for progressive good works like "policy experiences for scientists and cultivating science diplomacy", which is smart, since science academia is over 90 percent Democrats, but the only people who believe that is actually a societal good are people who, like Professor Ron McClamrock of SUNY-Albany, think “Lefties are overrepresented in academia because on average, we’re just f-ing smarter.”
Nuclear power, GMOs, natural gas, there are no AAAS 'policy experiences' that cover those, they instead indoctrinate new journalists to 'teach the controversy' on topics that are not embraced by their political party.
It's Science, but that ain't science, it is not for all Americans, and it is certainly not ideologically, logically, or ethically superior to any other corporation. The business is model is a distinction without a difference, the internal problems are identical.
- Diabetes: High Blood Sugar In Young Children Linked To Slower Brain Growth
- PLOS One Output Drops- AAAS Cackles Like Scrooge McDuck
- 89 Percent Of Kid's Food Products Are Nutritionally Lousy (But 62 Percent Lie About It Anyway)
- CADNA's London Forum: Curbing International Domain Name Abuses
- CADNA's Paris Forum: Brand Owners Working Together To Curb Domain Name Abuses And Improve The Internet