I have no issue with science journals publishing opinion pieces on various scientific issues and questions. There's real value there. But few things are more corrosive to public trust in science, and science itself, than when journals publish political opinions, pure activism, or endorsements of presidential candidates—especially when it only goes in one direction. It undoubtedly generates clicks and may make sense from a business perspective, but it betrays their primary duty of being objective seekers of truth. Political and cultural opinion and commentary have a home in the opinion sections of The New York Times, The Washington Post, and countless other publications. I'll invoke Stephen Jay Gould's concept of "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA) here. Science journals like Nature should not endeavor to be a hybrid publication of science and politics, because it will inevitably spoil the former. Those domains should be kept totally separate.