After the inauguration of president Trump, peaceful protest rallies were planned namely the March for Women to support women’s rights and the continuation of funding going to women’s health, and the March for Science to promote the role of scientific research in government policy. As a female scientist, it might surprise you to hear that I attended neither march nor any satellite events. Now this is a controversial opinion that I have kept quiet about it while in school and in the lab somewhat because of the possible backlash from my peers as well as work settings are not the stage for political discussions.
This in itself highlights a reason why the March for Science will not help relieve any political tension: it is not as nonpartisan as it claims. Despite this, there still remains a lack of a central unified goal of the march with anything from a call for more funding, to an increase in diversity, to general science advocacy being valid reasons to attend. Finding new and better ways to both conduct/fund scientific research and communicate the importance of research to the public should be done instead of marching.
Keywords: March for Science, climate change, public policy, science outreach.
As a scientist, I was quickly added to the general March for Science Facebook page. It was very soon after that I became confused as to what the march was promoting: was it protesting the silencing of environmental organizations like the EPA? Dissenting the potential budget cuts that would affect the funding of research? Promoting evidence for climate change? Or was it about promoting and supporting science advocacy and outreach?
The long and short of it is that the march is supportive of any and all things “science”, which brings me to the first reason I am not marching: There are too many goals in mind for it to be a meaningful and impactful march.
Ed Yong wrote an article for the Atlantic addressing this issue stating that between the March for Science website and the Facebook group he collected 21 statements that could be seen as goals and purposes. These range from celebrating a passion for science and the way science helps the world to opposing policies that ignore scientific evidence. Then there come the mixed messages about how science as such has never been apolitical contradicted by statements that this is not a political march.
I understand that there are many reasons and goals of activism and that each person attending the march has a multitude of reasons they are attending this national event. With that said, I am skeptical that getting thousands of people out into the streets for very varied reasons will yield the long-term impact that some activists desire and may lead to a greater divide between people.
An unintended outcome already is the perception that the march seems to have a very specific liberal agenda and is being promoted by privileged virtue signaling.
Some organizations like the AAAS who have partnered with the March claim the march will help to “protect the rights of scientists to pursue their inquiries unimpeded” and to “build public policies upon scientific evidence.” Without much more clarification, it could be (and already has been) interpreted as: scientists want a greater impact on policy making without any political accountability and want to instruct, instead of involve, the public in the scientific process. This is moreover supported by phrases like “attack on scientific method” and “undermining of evidence” suggesting that this administration and its supporters must be unintelligent or malicious to oppose what “science” has clearly demonstrated. It has lead to this very divided mentality of ‘you are either with us [science] or against us.’ It allows for democrats to make arguments for government regulations by taking a pseudo-intellectual high ground by using Science as their rational thus associating dissenting opinions with uneducated or stupid.
While there are some people out there who do deny data supporting climate change and the usefulness of vaccines, the majority of the actual political controversy, I’d argue, is not about whether claims are evidence based or data driven but about an opinion of what to do with the data moving forward.
For a personal example, I agree that climate change is real and that the data collected over the past centuries supports it, and that human involvement has impacted the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, I do not agree with the populus opinion that the government needs to install regulations to curb these emissions or a carbon tax. I think it is important that individuals and communities cultivate a sustainable lifestyle, since resources are not infinite, and I think that this can be achieved by the free market instead of government regulations.
Moreover, I think that private companies can play a huge role in conducting and funding science. There is a significant difference between scientific data and a political mitigation plan based on the means of solving a problem. The government not being involved in the funding of science does not mean that it’s important or beneficial. But note that these are not contradicting any scientific evidence, and certainly do not suggest a “war on science.”
But even after this particular day and event, what will happen after this march? As many articles have stated, activism must continue past this one day in the form of increased outreach and communication between scientists and the public. But I’d go one step further and say that smaller, more nuanced actions will have a greater impact. I cannot imagine a policy maker skimming the news on Sunday, reading the number of people who attended, and looking at images of clever cardboard signs really changing his mind.
Much of the point of peaceful protesting is to raise awareness among the general population of a specific problem that needs to be addressed. As such, marchers for science need to be aware of the messages that they are sending as it could hurt their arguments. William Grand and Rod Lamberts provide some logistical suggestions to make sure the headlines and images are part of a helpful narrative, and so I am curious as to what these will be in the days to come.
Post-march, I hope that more people will focus on specific actions that both scientists and nonscientists can take to promote their ideas in a more applied way. This can be done more effectively starting at the local level in town hall debates discussing the role of science in policy making. As such, I also hope that scientists themselves will be open minded about how private companies and non-governmental organizations can help them be able to do their work.
More outreach events with communities could help demonstrate that their specific research is important in public health or environmental safety and therefore worth funding and attention. As such, I am looking forward to having conversations and planning out the creation of more effective avenues to aid the continuation of scientific process and communications.
Sarah Kearns is a first year in the Chemical Biology Doctoral Program at the University of Michigan. Currently, she is working in the Trievel Lab studying the structure-function relationship of enzymes that modify histones, which are involved in DNA transcription and replication. You can find her on Twitter (@annotated_sci), LinkedIn, or at her website Annotated Science.
Image Sources: Header & “Make America Smart Again” & “Serve the Common Good”
Private industry is hugely involved in science already, and has been for many decades, obviously. The question is what role the public and private sector play in research and innovation.
Basically, exploratory science will and can not be funded to the extent that NIH-funded, academic research is, by private interests:
US corporations WILL NOT fund endless, open BASIC research with no obvious application because they are obligated by law to maximize profit for their shareholders. That’s it. Telling the board that you are interested in learning how enhancers work, or that there might be uncharacterized natural products that could be developed into an antibiotic or some other therapeutic, not only won’t be funded by industry, it shouldn’t be. For all your zeal that private industry can take on this burden, the cold, hard, reality of business denies you.
Why is US academic research the envy of the developed world? Because we fund it at a higher rate than our competitors. With Trump, and scientists like you, this is a trend that is sure to be reversed soon.
Totally. The free market is a great resource for science, couldn’t agree more.
Thanks for the read and the comment 🙂