> Remaining purely apolitical was an option for them
I don't see how.
Lots of well-established, provable facts are "political" because some religious group, industry or subset of the population doesn't like them. Evolution, climate change, the Earth being more than 6,000 years old, etc are simultaneously obviously true scientifically but disputed politically by significant sections of the American public.
Lots of research is going to get pulled into "politics". Publish a paper about autism or depression or obesity, or about algae blooms from fertilizer runoff or lower test scores in schools with more air pollution or anything to do with mRNA or guns or glaciers and on and on and you'll get pulled into some sort of political dispute.
At best, a publication can avoid directly naming politicians or political parties, but it's impossible to be apolitical when publishing the temperature measurements or showing a dinosaur fossil are considered political.
I don't see how.
Lots of well-established, provable facts are "political" because some religious group, industry or subset of the population doesn't like them. Evolution, climate change, the Earth being more than 6,000 years old, etc are simultaneously obviously true scientifically but disputed politically by significant sections of the American public.
Lots of research is going to get pulled into "politics". Publish a paper about autism or depression or obesity, or about algae blooms from fertilizer runoff or lower test scores in schools with more air pollution or anything to do with mRNA or guns or glaciers and on and on and you'll get pulled into some sort of political dispute.
At best, a publication can avoid directly naming politicians or political parties, but it's impossible to be apolitical when publishing the temperature measurements or showing a dinosaur fossil are considered political.