Last month 82 Nobel prize winners announced their endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election. Burak Sonmez looks at the effects of endorsements from such experts, writing that expert credibility in scientific fields may not translate to credibility in politics. He also warns that while the endorsement may energise Kamala Harris’ supporters, partisanship and political polarisation may increase scepticism towards scientists – and towards important public health measures – among Republicans.

At the end of October 82 Nobel Prize winners announced their endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris for President and, one may wonder whether the prestige of such an endorsement will have a tangible impact on voters. Studies on endorsement influence and public trust in scientists indicate that this prominent support may have noteworthy, albeit complex, effects. While it might strengthen support among certain groups of voters, it also risks making political divisions worse and diminishing trust in scientists among those who perceive the endorsement as politically motivated.

Do endorsements really matter? 

Endorsements can wield considerable power, particularly when they come from individuals we know or admire. Research shows that social endorsements from friends and family can significantly motivate people: one large-scale Facebook study revealed that users who saw their friends voting were more likely to participate in elections themselves. This “social endorsement cue” taps into our instinct to follow the crowd, especially in complicated decision-making scenarios like voting.

Celebrity endorsements exhibit a similar dynamic, though with a different flavour. While they might not convert voters outright, they can soften negative perceptions. For example, when celebrities backed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, many voters reported feeling less anxious and critical of her candidacy. However, Nobel laureates, although respected, occupy a different space; they are highly esteemed intellectuals rather than relatable figures. This raises an important question: will their endorsement of Harris resonate in the same way?

Photo by Anastacia Dvi on Unsplash

Nobel winners are not part of our close social circles 

A key distinction between Nobel laureates and our immediate social networks is in the degree of personal connection. The most potent social endorsements come from those among our close social ties—families and friends—who understand our concerns and values. In contrast, Nobel winners exist outside of these personal spheres unless you happen to be one of their relatives or friends. While their expertise commands respect, it may feel abstract to many voters, particularly compared to the relatable influence of people we know personally. Celebrity endorsements often leverage familiarity and media presence, making them more accessible to the public. Nobel laureates, however, are celebrated for their scientific accomplishments, which may not foster the same personal connection. While their endorsement could resonate with voters who value scientific expertise, it is less likely to impact those who prioritise personal connections or who know little about the Nobel laureates themselves.

Does a Nobel Prize make you credible in other areas? 

The endorsement from Nobel laureates prompts an intriguing question about expertise: does respect in one field translate to credibility in others? Research on public trust in scientists indicates that credibility often remains confined to specific domains of expertise. While Nobel laureates are lauded and respected for their contributions to fields such as physics, chemistry, and medicine, this respect does not inherently extend to political matters or governance.

Moreover, partisanship plays a significant role in how people react to scientists’ endorsements. Previous research has shown that individuals are more receptive to scientists who share their political perspectives. For instance, Democrats might view the Nobel Laureates’ endorsement of Harris as reinforcing her credibility, whereas Republicans may perceive it as elitist or intrusive, potentially undermining trust in these scientists on other issues. A recent example is the endorsement by Nature of Joe Biden during the COVID-19 pandemic, which led some Republican readers to express decreased trust in the outlet and scientists, highlighting how endorsements from esteemed scientists can unintentionally diminish credibility.

Could this endorsement fuel polarisation and harm public health? 

While the endorsement from Nobel laureates may energise Harris’ supporters, it could also deepen societal polarisation. For those who already perceive scientists as being politically aligned, this endorsement may reinforce their existing views. Conversely, it may intensify scepticism among others towards scientists and elite institutions. Such growing divides have far-reaching implications that extend beyond politics.

A particularly concerning outcome of this polarisation may be its potential impact on public health. Polarisation at the individual level can hinder collective action, as people with strong partisan identities often resist information that challenges their existing beliefs. This reluctance can influence their response to public health issues, making them less likely to consider health risks seriously or adopt preventive actions, like getting vaccinated against the flu. If certain groups perceive the Nobel laureates’ endorsement as politically biased, they may begin to question the credibility of scientists on crucial issues, including vaccines and climate science. Public health relies heavily on widespread trust in scientific voices across the political spectrum. Thus, endorsements that blur the lines between science and partisanship risk eroding this vital trust, with significant consequences for societal well-being.

• Please read our comments policy before commenting.
• Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics. 
• Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-euI