Abstract
US scientists who reveal facts that criticise big business and government policies are under attack, but now they’re fighting back, writes
Climate change scientists, air pollution analysts and occupational health experts have suffered similar attacks by the industries threatened by their work.
Attempts to marginalise those who possess inconvenient information is not a new idea in the USA. The truth is that science has been politicised for decades. Politicians, inspired by the industries that support their political parties and campaigns, champion scientific information that supports the policies they wish to advance and bury the science that does not.
Yet the Donald Trump era has brought unprecedented discussion of “alternative facts” and raised the profile of attempts to sideline scientists.
Yes, it’s getting worse. What’s different now is that misinformation is both more pervasive and easier to spread. Most major newspapers used to have full-time science reporters. Now, only a handful remain. Deep, investigative journalism, once standard, is now a luxury. A decentralised media landscape makes it easier for anyone (or any Twitter bot) to pretend to be an expert, which makes misinformation more likely to proliferate.
And the industries that used to attack scientists are now leading the federal agencies that are supposed to regulate them. There’s direct muzzling and select editing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stopped staff from using words such as “vulnerable” and “science-based” in budget proposals, and now require employees to ask for permission before complying with “even the most basic of data requests”.
At the United States Geological Survey, media interviews now require approval by political appointees. Grant proposals are subject to the political red pen at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior. And the Department of Agriculture is compromising the independence of its economists by subjecting them to more political control.
Then there are attempts to keep science out of the policymaking process from the start. An EPA proposal would restrict the types of science the government can use in making decisions. Teen pregnancy grants were cancelled mid-course (there have since been court rulings contesting the legality of this move). The Trump administration ordered the National Academy of Sciences to halt studies on offshore oil drilling safety and the environmental impact of coal mining – the first time the NAS had received a stop-work order in its 150-year history.
But the fact is that historical moments bring movement-building opportunities. There is an energy boom in activism among scientists in the USA right now. When once a debate raged about whether scientists should engage in public life, now the discussion is about how to be most effective.
Scientists didn’t wait until Trump’s inauguration in January 2017 to take action. As the presidential transition teams linked up with climate deniers, so scientists worked with librarians to archive terabytes of vulnerable climate data, in the process signalling to the public why the continued collection and accessibility of data was important. Now it’s front page news when access to government information is reduced.
When Congress proposed taxing graduate student awards as income – which would make it impossible for many to attend graduate school – thousands of students publicly shared their personal stories and convinced Republicans and Democrats to back off the proposal.
And when the EPA politicised its science advisory boards by banning EPA grant-funded scientists from serving on them, a group of scientists decided to start their own shadow advisory committee.
Scientists are showing up in record numbers to provide meaningful input into policy proposals. Thousands of scientists and scientific organisations have submitted written testimony in response to the EPA proposal to restrict the use of science in its decisions.
Some political appointees ordered federal employees not to take notes in meetings, possibly to avoid an administrative record. In response, several NGOs developed and distributed a guide describing how scientists could effectively document the use and misuse of science in policymaking.
When the threat level is elevated, more energy exists to build connections that insulate the scientific community from the worst effects of strong-man rule and make us more resilient in the future, so that when we do have a chance to rebuild our institutions we are fully ready. Many young scientists are fighting for scientific independence and to defend the scientific enterprise.
Protesters hold up signs at the National March for Science in Philadelphia, on Earth Day, April 2017
CREDIT: NurPhoto/Getty
From Maine to Texas, graduate students are starting science policy associations and meeting reporters and elected officials to push for more science-friendly policy. Organisations such as 500 Women Scientists and 500 Queer Scientists are advocating for the rights and safety of under-represented groups in scientific spaces. So these new organisations can learn from each other and from more established scientific associations, the Union of Concerned Scientists created Science Rising, a hub for information sharing and amplification.
Attacks on science by the Trump administration are part of a greater story of attacks on other institutions – the media, the judiciary, intelligence agencies, the military. Now it has woken up to the threat, the newly activated science community has more power to fight back.