March for Science 2017 Media Report
Media Coverage R!A’s Total Reach: 141,039,657
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Remind public and policymakers about health and economic benefits of scientific progress By Suzanne Ffolkes Thursday, April 20, 2017 http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/email-letters-april-20-2017
Re: Science, not Silence, April 16. Dr. Minnick is not alone in her concerns over proposed steep cuts to the National Institutes of Health budget. Scientists and those who recognize the value of science are trying to understand why the federal science and health agencies would be targets for dramatic funding cuts, given the innovative research currently underway at Colorado institutions and across the country funded by these agencies.
A majority of Americans (63 percent) say basic scientific research should be supported by the federal government, and more than half (52 percent) are willing to pay $1 per week more in taxes if certain that the money would be spent on additional research, according to a survey commissioned by Research!America.
Severe cuts to the NIH budget would not only run counter to the expectations of Americans, it would impact economic growth in Colorado where nearly 7,000 jobs are supported by the NIH. That’s why many Coloradans, including scientists, are speaking up. The March for Science on April 22 is a good opportunity to remind the public and policymakers about the health and economic benefits of scientific progress.
Letters: Scientists Must Speak Up By Suzanne Ffolkes April 17, 2017 http://www.courant.com/opinion/letters/hc-ugc-article-lte-submission-trump-cuts-sending-scientists-2017-04-17- story.html
Robert Thorson's column [April 13, courant.com, "Trump Cuts Sending Scientists To Streets"] brilliantly highlights many examples of science's enduring contributions to society. That's why it is more important than ever, as policymakers debate funding for federal health and science agencies, for scientists to speak up and call attention to the value of science and what it can produce to benefit future generations.
A majority of Americans agree that public policies should be based on science and that scientists should play a major role in shaping policy for national priorities including education, infrastructure and defense, according to a survey commissioned by Research!America.
The March for Science movement in Connecticut cities and across the country is an opportunity for scientists and those who care about our nation's health and economic prosperity to inform the public and policymakers about the many ways science has profoundly improved our quality of life.
April 1 Letters: Americans must speak up for scientific research By Mary Woolley April 1, 2017 http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/01/april-1-letters-americans-must-speak-up-for-scientific-research/
Marc Kastner made an articulate case for the value of basic research and noted that private philanthropy alone cannot sustain it. Despite this reality and, according to a Research!America survey, a majority of Americans (63 percent) who support basic scientific research, President Trump’s budget proposals would significantly cut funding to our science agencies, jeopardizing research nationwide, including at San Jose State University, Stanford, the University of California Santa Cruz and more.
If you care about the health and prosperity of America, fueled by science, don’t sit by now. To assure the president’s budget is a no-go, we must each contact our representatives, attend town hall meetings and participate in the March for Science on April 22 in San Jose and across the country. Now is the time to speak up for science.
OP-EDS:
Scientific research changes our lives for the better BY MARY WOOLLEY April 19, 2017 http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article145605879.html
For many of us, science is a field of dreams. Science has realized the hopes and aspirations of patients coping with life- threatening illnesses that have threatened families and diminished us all.
Our confidence in science is well-grounded. It has yielded groundbreaking discoveries that have eliminated major health threats like polio, saved lives once claimed by HIV/AIDS, and blunted the force of many cancers, stroke, and premature heart disease. Meanwhile, our national investment in research and innovation has powered economic growth and global leadership for decades.
No one doubts there is much more to do — solutions to seek, dreams to realize. So we assume that continuing investments in scientific progress would remain a priority for our elected representatives.
Recently, President Trump has proposed significant cuts in science budgets, upending the formulation of decades. As members of Congress debate the president’s budgets, those who care about the nation’s ability to deliver on our dreams must speak out and say, “Hands off investments in our nation’s future health, prosperity and global competitiveness!” There is only a brief window of time, right now, to engage policymakers about the value of science before it is left on the budget committee’s cutting-room floor.
Considering one area of research, that aimed at better health, research institutions in Florida, including the University of Miami, and those across the country receive federal support for innovative studies that are showing promise in the fight against infectious diseases, chronic disease, and other costly, disabling conditions. In fiscal year 2016 alone, Florida received $531 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health, supporting more than 12,000 jobs and $1.6 billion in economic activity. Federal support for science also means the difference between success and failure
for Florida’s burgeoning biopharmaceutical industry, which supports more than 73,000 related jobs and 5,000 businesses. Current budget proposals would slash research funding by 20 percent — that’s a lot of jobs lost — even as it undermines the expectations of Americans for a healthier nation and stronger economy.
There are many stories to share about the value of science and how it plays a role in our daily lives. Science has made food cheaper and safer, expanded energy options, provided us clean water and air, improved education, launched cutting-edge technology, and more. Disease prevention and revolutionary treatments allow citizens young and old to lead productive lives. State-of-the art medical devices give veterans increased mobility, independence and a better quality of life. Science is making a profound difference in our lives and, given the chance, will continue to do so for future generations.
Maybe science ranks low on the president’s priorities because scientists, and our scientific enterprise, remain largely invisible to the public.
A remarkably large majority of Americans (81 percent) cannot name a living scientist, and two-thirds (66 percent), cannot name an institution where research is conducted, according to surveys commissioned by Research!America. Equally troubling, a large majority (79 percent) do not know that research is conducted in every state. What explains this? Perhaps scientists have not done enough to engage with the public, demonstrating how they serve us all. If they facilitated productive dialogues with the people who foot the bill for science via taxes, consumer products, and donations, more Americans and their elected representatives would view science as a national priority, on par with defense, education, and infrastructure.
Science is critical to finding solutions to what ails us, personally and as a nation. That is why it’s important, more than ever, for scientists and those who support science to participate in the March for Science taking place in Miami and in cities across the state, nationwide and globally on Saturday, April 22. This event provides an opportunity for us to communicate the importance of science and help ensure that fellow citizens and elected officials recognize that robust investments and smart policies are necessary to fuel scientific progress and realize our dreams.
RESEARCH!AMERICA IN THE NEWS:
The March for Science could break stubborn stereotypes about scientists By Matthew Hutson April 20 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/04/20/the-march-for-science-could-break- stubborn-stereotypes-about-scientists/?utm_term=.ff3d13e7b967
On April 22, Earth Day, people around the world will take part in the March for Science. It is intended to be “a call to support and safeguard the scientific community,” according to its website. While aimed in part at politicians who are hostile to scientific findings, the march may also act as a much-needed professional recruiting tool.
To many young people, science seems like a solitary and humorless pursuit dominated by white men. Might the march change some young people’s minds, perhaps by showing them that scientists are a diverse and passionate group of people who sometimes escape the laboratory? Psychologists see potential.
“I would expect that perceptions of both scientists and the nature of science might shift, at least temporarily,” said Amanda Diekman, a psychologist at Miami University in Ohio who studies stereotyping. “The very basic image of scientists engaging as a collective might be a powerful form of counter-arguing the stereotype of the individual scientist laboring away in the lab.”
Within science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields, the Census Bureau reports that women, blacks and Hispanics remain underrepresented. Discrimination helps explain the shortage, but Diekman has found that stereotypes about STEM might also play a role. Women in one of her studies were more likely to care about communal values than men were, and both men and women with higher communal goals such as working on a team and serving the community were less interested in STEM careers. Working with and helping others is also especially important to underrepresented minorities in STEM, according to research by Jessi Smith, a psychologist at Montana State University who studies diversity in science and engineering.
In reality, science offers many communal opportunities. “The basic nature of science is about collaboration, about working in a lab or working in a team,” Diekman said. And while a lot of research doesn’t have obvious immediate applications, in the long run it may lead to better medicines or safer cars or other things that fulfill someone’s desire for a career that benefits humanity. “The NIH and the NSF — unfortunately — aren’t going to spend our tax dollars just to pay people to think for the fun of thinking,” Smith said, referencing the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.
Fortunately, perceptions of STEM can be changed, at least in the short term. In studies published in 2011 and 2016, Diekman and colleagues found that when college students read about an entry-level scientist who spent much of the day collaborating with and helping others vs. working alone, they expressed greater interest in a science career. And in research published in 2015, Smith and colleagues described a biomedical research project to college students. When they added that the project was aimed at helping infants and wounded soldiers, students showed more interest in pursuing similar research themselves.
“The more that people see scientists as engaged people within the community, the more likely future students — both men and women from all kinds of backgrounds — will feel like science is for them,” Smith said. And the March for Science shows such engagement. “The march might do more than send a political message to the nation,” Smith said. “It might indeed chip away at this stereotypical image of a lone wolf going it alone in their lab at all hours of the night focused only on the next discovery, oblivious to what is happening around them.”
That stereotypical image damages not only science recruitment but also the way the general public feels about science. A study published last year revealed what Americans thought about scientists’ concern for others. Although participants saw scientists as more trustworthy than “regular” people, they also saw them as more robot-like, more concerned with pursuing knowledge at the expense of others’ well-being, and more potentially dangerous. Scientists were seen not as immoral, but amoral — immune to what’s outside the field of their microscopes.
Preliminary data presented at the most recent annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology from another team draws out the implications. The more that scientists are seen as asocial — “peculiar” and work- focused — the less confidence people have in the scientific community.
When people lose confidence in science, and even fear scientists, they may not support further research. “Something like this march could have bigger, broader consequences, if people are tuned in,” Smith said. Observers might vote to support research projects or pro-science candidates, she said. According to Diekman, “There are people like myself who are watching how my elected officials are engaging or not engaging with science and letting them know that I think policy that is informed by high-quality evidence — about human behavior, or educational interventions or the environment — is going to have a better chance of succeeding.”
Thus the need to show scientists as real people. In a 2013 poll of 1,000 Americans by Research!America, 70 percent could not name a living scientist. Seeing a few or a few thousand in the flesh could replace in their minds the generic placeholder in the lab coat. “We’re collecting data about perceptions of the goals of science before and after the March,” Diekman said, “so we can understand whether perceptions change, how this relates to involvement with the march, and how this relates to broader beliefs about the role of science in public policy.”
“One of our goals is to humanize science,” said Jonathan Berman, a biologist and co-chair of the March for Science. “I hope that young people look at the many faces and voices and stories that make up the March for Science and feel hopeful because they know that this is a community they already belong to, and that science serves everyone.”
Neil deGrasse Tyson, the most-named American scientist in the Research!America poll, has another take on humanizing science. “This is already happening,” he said, “via forces much more potent than anything a march on Washington can create.” He cites fictional and nonfictional Hollywood fare such as “CSI,” “MythBusters,” “The
Martian” and “Hidden Figures.” “They all show scientists as fully fleshed-out characters, something rare in entertainment until recent decades.”
The smartphone may be one of the best recruiters of young people, Tyson adds. “They know that the smartphone exploits all manner of STEM advancements, especially the Internet itself.” Eventually they will grow up to lead companies and governments. “The rise of the next generation gives me hope for the future of the world.”
After March for Science, is a run for office next? To combat dim political views of science, researchers could launch election bids By Jyllian Kemsley April 18, 2017 http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i17/After-March-for-Science-is-a-run-for-office-next.html
Consternation that some U.S. policymakers seem to have little use for research and disdain evidence-based policy decisions drove scientists to organize this weekend’s March for Science. Tens of thousands of people are expected to take to the streets on April 22 to show the world—including politicians—their support for science. Other scientists spurred to action by the current political climate may be looking past the demonstrations to consider a run for public office. To them, North Carolina State University chemistry professor James D. Martin says: “Give it a try!”
Martin grew up in a family culture in which political engagement was not valued, he says. But he adopted another view 20 years ago when he started his faculty position.
“I quickly realized that politicians were making decisions that impacted my life and career,” he says. “They could control the class size that I’d have to teach and what supplies I had available for research and teaching.” Martin started going to town meetings and other events to get to know his elected officials.
Considering a run for public office?
“What I found were a lot of very well-meaning people who had zero experience in science and only a little bit more experience in education,” he says. “Yet so many decisions elected officials need to make require an understanding of science and education.”
He started thinking that he might run for office one day, probably after his two children were in college.
Then his county board of education experienced what Martin calls a “hyperideological takeover.” The board made a number of controversial decisions, notably reversing policies that promoted socioeconomic diversity. The move made national news and was ridiculed on television news comedy show “The Colbert Report” as “disintegration.” Martin’s children, then in grades six and nine, felt the effects firsthand in their schools, he says. “Finally, my kids said, ‘Dad, you need to run’ ” for a seat on the school board, he says.
So he did, with his wife as his campaign manager. “It was one of the most difficult things I’ve ever done in my life,” Martin says. A self-described introvert, he had to force himself to go out to knock on doors on weekends.
Ultimately, though, he found it to be a positive experience. “In running for office, you’re kind of forced to talk about taboo subjects like politics, money, and religion with complete strangers,” he says. “But when you do cross that taboo line and have a rational, reasonable conversation where both people are listening and sharing ideas, then it becomes very rewarding,” he says.
Martin won that first election in 2011 and was reelected in 2016, when he ran unopposed. The chemistry professor is now in his sixth year on the Wake County Board of Education. The nine-member board oversees a budget of $1.4 billion, serving 160,000 students taught by 10,225 teachers in 177 schools. The school district now uses what it calls
student achievement, which includes minimizing concentrations of poverty and of low-performing students, as one of four criteria for assigning students to schools.
Scientists, including Martin, bring key skills to public office, says Rush D. Holt, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Those skills are not so much their specific scientific expertise but their willingness and aptitude for dealing with technical matters, says Holt, a member of the board of directors for scientific advocacy group Research!America and a former U.S. congressperson from New Jersey. They also recognize what science can bring to an issue that nonscientists won’t necessarily realize.
Election reform is an example of such an issue. “No one thinks of that as a science issue,” Holt says. But administrators who oversee elections could benefit by consulting computer scientists in areas such as drawing representative districts and improving security of electronic voting.
Another skill that scientists bring to the governing table is the ability to evaluate data. “I’m often called the data monster,” Martin says. “I will take performance, demographic, and other data and analyze or present it the same way I do science data.”
Martin adds, “I read policy material like I read a paper I’m reviewing,” looking for sound arguments or holes in reasoning. And he tackles policy problems similarly to the way he approaches scientific ones—by bringing together an interdisciplinary team. For instance, to address concerns about arrests of students, he sought input from child advocates and police officers.
“We benefit by having diversity of experience in government,” agrees Shaughnessy Naughton, who has a bachelor’s degree in chemistry. After an unsuccessful run in Pennsylvania for U.S. Congress, she founded the liberal-leaning group 314 Action. The organization advocates for election of candidates from the science, technology, engineering, and math fields to public office as well as fact-driven policy and action to address concerns such as climate change. “Right now there are very few people with any sort of scientific background in government,” she continues. “You see that reflected in cuts to research funding and mocking of basic research. There’s a saying, ‘If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.’ ”
For his part, Martin is considering a bid for higher office. He weighed a run for the North Carolina Senate in 2014. The legislature is part-time and he lives in Raleigh, North Carolina’s capital city.
Although he had the support of his department chair and dean, the university chancellor would’ve required Martin to take a leave of absence when the state general assembly was in session. With a child in college, “I couldn’t afford it,” he says. So he’s biding his time for a few more years.
Naughton offers this insight to chemists considering a run for office: “If you’ve survived p-chem and organic, you can do it. Just bring your passion and work ethic to it.” She adds, “It’s not a great mystery how to campaign, it’s just a lot of work.”
And for chemists and other scientists who opt to stay out of public politics, she says, “You need to vote, and you need to vote in every election.”
Standing Up against NIH Budget Cuts Sounds of Science Podcast Alex Philippidis Interviews Mary Woolley April 10, 2017 http://www.genengnews.com/gen-exclusives/standing-up-against-nih-budget-cuts/77900894
Mary Woolley, President of Research!America, which advocates for medical and health research funding, talks about how her group and other advocates plan to fight back against President Donald Trump’s one-two punch to NIH funding. Researchers will be key to those efforts, she says.
John Porter: If you want to make America great, you don’t take America’s worldwide scientific lead and cut it March 17, 2017 http://cancerletter.com/articles/20170317_2/
As former chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, then-Rep. John Porter (R-IL) oversaw the doubling of the NIH budget over five years.
Now, President Trump’s budget proposal seeks to drop the NIH budget to $25.9 billion. That’s $1.2 billion below the FY 2003 level, the year when the doubling was completed. These are absolute numbers. Adjusting for inflation will erode these funds even more.
Porter, who has been a vocal supporter of funding for biomedical research after leaving Congress in 2001, noted that cancer research has strong support on Capitol Hill. Nonetheless, cancer groups must come out and make certain that their voices are heard. Porter said.
Porter spoke with Paul Goldberg, editor and publisher of The Cancer Letter.
Paul Goldberg: I was there when you were fighting to double the NIH budget, sitting at the press table, hoping you would succeed. This is a terrible reporter question: How does this feel?
John Porter: I don’t think the budget that the President sent is serious at all. It’s playing to his base. It just says what his base wants to hear. I don’t think Congress has any intention to adopt it and support it. So, I am not overly concerned that the things that he is proposing in his budget would happen. I think that’s very remote.
Support for medical research is totally bipartisan. And [Sen.] Roy Blunt [(R-MO), chair of the Senate appropriations subcommittee on Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies] and [Rep.] Tom Cole [(R-OK) chair of the House appropriations subcommittee on Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies] both are big supporters of medical research.
In the Labor-HHS bill, there are about 800 line items. Forty of those are NIH. If you have one high priority in the bill— and that’s their high priority in the bill—the rest of it doesn’t matter. Even if you get a low allocation, you can plus-up that account and not plus-up the others.
I stepped down as chair of Research!America last night after 12 years and got a chance to talk about it, and I said, “I am optimistic. I don’t see that there is going to be any big cut in medical research. In fact, there could well be a $1 billion or $2 billion increase, depending upon the allocations.”
Presidents propose things, but their budgets have no weight in legislation. It’s the Congress that writes budgets. I just don’t see this as having any legs whatsoever. I think there is no support for it in Congress.
It illustrates to me this president’s ignorance of government, and his lack of discipline to even begin to study how things work. It’s just more campaigning.
PG: Hearing this, I am worried that people will take this as an assurance that “Oh well, it’s going to be okay,” and that’s how bad things happen.
JP: Oh, no! No, no, no! What has to happen is that people have to protest—loudly! They have to let their representatives know that these are all bad things.
Another area where I am very concerned, which has nothing to do directly with science is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He proposes zeroing that out. I think it’s some of the best spent money in government. PBS is a national treasure, and I think people should go up to their representatives and say, “Don’t you dare cut that!”
PG: What about cancer centers? If you think about it, in any congressional district, the cancer center is one of the jewels, one of the pillars, politically. How does he think that the House and Senate members are going to forsake their cancer centers?
JP: Ha! Well, he just doesn’t understand the support for cancer research out there, which is universal. I talked with Joe Biden last night. He actually did a 45-minute speech, and focused on the cancer initiative that he was in charge of.
I just think that people have to have their voices heard. They should have had their voices heard in the last election. Maybe the outcome would have been different. People have to get up off their chairs and really get involved in the process, and their elected representatives will then understand. That’s what counts.
PG: How do we do this? Who is leading the charge right now? During the 1998 March [The March–Coming Together to Conquer Cancer, a gathering of 250,000 people on the National Mall and a million more in grassroots events nationwide], you were in charge of a lot of it. Who is doing this? Are you going to lead the charge?
JP: Well, you know, there is a march for science, coming up on April 22. All the organizations that I know of are involved in it, including Research!America. That sends its own message, if people participate. If they stay home and say, “Oh well,” that’s a message.
All the organizations—and there are many of them—have to get out and be heard. Especially cancer groups, like you.
PG: I am just a dog-faced reporter; what do I know? Except I was there when you were trying to get the doubling done. And, by the way, the magnitude of this cut isn’t too far off from the raise that you got for NIH.
JP: I know. It will take us below the baseline that we achieved by doubling. That doesn’t even take inflation into account.
PG: Amazing.
JP: You can’t just dismiss it as a political document. You have to go out there and protest every little bit of it.
There are protests at town halls that Congress men and women hold. That’s a great place to send a message. People have to go out and go to those things and say, “Wait a minute, this is wrong, this is one we shouldn’t be doing!”
If they sit home, that’s another message.
PG: Also, thinking deeper about this, when you were working on the doubling, science was in a very different place than it is now. And here we are, cutting science when it’s actually producing very interesting outcomes.
JP: If you want to make America great, you don’t take America’s worldwide scientific lead and cut it. You support it and increase it.
You know, it’s incredible!
March for Science to protest Trump’s onslaught Lisa Neff, Staff writer MARCH 09, 2017 http://wisconsingazette.com/2017/03/09/march-for-science-protest-trump-onslaught/
A resistance is rising to challenge the flat-Earth mentality governing Washington, D.C., and some state capitols.
Efforts by the Trump administration to silence scientists and stifle their research are driving a global protest that will come together on Earth Day as the first-ever March for Science.
Scientists will march on Washington April 22 and in more than 280 satellite marches around the globe. They’ll be rallying under the banner “Science, not Silence.”
Organizers say the coalition involved in the march represents millions of scientists, engineers, researchers and students.
As of March 3, more than 50,000 people had volunteered to help stage the demonstrations.
“Scientific integrity serves everyone and we need to speak out for science together,” said Valorie Aquino, one of the march’s three national co-chairs and an anthropology Ph.D. candidate at the University of New Mexico. “We’re thrilled and inspired that our message is resonating with so many organizations and so many people who have been advancing and defending science for years.”
The Trump administration’s efforts to censor scientists includes removing research, data and other materials on climate change from government sources. Republican state governments, including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s administration, also have worked to conceal science-based information on climate change.
March co-chair Caroline Weinberg, a health educator and science writer, said a goal will be “holding our leaders — both in science and politics— accountable to the highest standards of honesty, fairness and integrity.” Five O’clock Steakhouse
Partners in the effort include the Earth Day Network, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Entomological Society of America, NextGen Climate America, 500 Women Scientists, American Anthropological Association, American Society for Cell Biology, Center for Biological Diversity, League of Extraordinary Scientists and Engineers, Research!America, the Union of Concerned Scientists and many more.
Earth Day and science The D.C. actions will begin at 10 a.m. April 22 with a teach-in and rally on the National Mall, followed by a street march. An announcement said the rally would “call for politicians to implement science-based policies” and serve as a celebration of “science and the enormous public service it promotes in our democracy, our economy and in all our daily lives.”
Earth Day, organizers said, seems an appropriate time for the action.
“This year’s global Earth Day theme is climate and environmental literacy and of course science speaks directly to our mission,” said Kathleen Rogers, president of the Earth Day Network.
On the web Follow developments on the March for Science at marchforscience.com and on social media with #ScienceServes.
Why Scientists Must Also Be Advocates Interview with Mary Woolley February 9, 2017 https://soundcloud.com/levine-media-group/why-scientists-must-also-be-advocates
The start of Trump administration, a new cabinet, and a new Congress are raising concerns within the scientific community about how the changes in Washington will affect the health of science and innovation in the United States. At issue is not only funding for research, but a range of policy decisions relating to everything from public health to climate change that some fear will not be informed by science. We spoke to Mary Woolley, president of Research!America, about the new administration, why it is critical for scientists to become advocates, and the planned March for Science in Washington, D.C. this April.
BOARD MEMBERS IN THE NEWS:
Rush Holt on What’s Next After March for Science By Kenny Walter 04/24/2017 http://www.rdmag.com/article/2017/04/rush-holt-whats-next-after-march-science
On Saturday, April 22, thousands of marchers worldwide participated in the March for Science— a nonpartisan event championing scientific funding, education and government policies based on scientific evidence.
Marches took place on all seven continents, including Antarctica, at an estimated 600 locations. In the U.S., marches took place in all 50 states, with 15,000 marchers attending the main march in Washington D.C., 12,000 marchers participating in Los Angeles and 2,000 marchers participating in Oklahoma City, according to Reuters.
Prior to the march Rush Holt, Ph.D., CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), gave an exclusive interview with R&D Magazine about the reasons for the march and what scientists can do moving forward to ensure that science initiatives are not lost.
Holt, who is a physicist and formerly represented New Jersey’s 12th district as a Democrat for eight terms in Congress, spoke on a number of issues from a unique perspective as a former politician as well as a scientist.
R&D Magazine: With this new administration, how can scientists ensure that the field will continue to be important?
Holt: The remarkable thing is we’ve already seen the first step. Even before the march occurred we have an international declaration by thousands and thousands of scientists that they should be out in the public square, which is really unusual. Most scientists spend their time explaining why they should not be out in the public square, why they should not try to engage with the public and policy makers. Mostly what it is, is that they have a personal, psychological aversion to going public and then they develop a justification to why they did not go public. Just the fact that the march has attracted so many scientists who say this is a good thing, that’s a very big step.
R&D Magazine: Outside of the march, what should scientists do to ensure the future of the field?
Holt: The next step for the March organizers and organizations like the AAAS is to extract a coherent message from all the commotion associated with the march and put in place a process for capturing all the energy and the talent of the marchers and channel it to effective action. There are some things that have to be done. There has to be actual defense of the conditions that science needs to thrive. If scientific research and scientific thinking are to thrive, you need free exchange of ideas, you need freedom of travel, you need freedom to choose the research topics, you need diverse perspectives and diverse people in the research teams and you need adequate funding, and that would include public funding. Not exclusively of course, there certainly is a place for private sector funding— which now in research and development exceeds public funding— but you actually need policies that defend those things.
That means you need to find ways to influence the policy makers and not just for funding for research, but for sensible immigration policies so you have freedom of travel and freedom to collaborate. You need sensible policies of openness so government scientists are permitted to speak out. You need sensible policies for government scientists and sensible policies in the private industry so that scientists really have freedom to explore and to choose the questions they work on. There was a day where Bell Labs and Xerox and IBM gave their researchers a lot of freedom
to choose the questions they would try to answer scientifically. We need to get back to that. Those are specific things that people should be lobbying about.
R&D Magazine: What should concern the public about decreasing the role of science in the government?
Holt: The general public should be insisting that public policies of all kinds should be based on the best scientific evidence. This is whether you are talking about policies on drug addiction or vaccination, or deployment of weapons, climate change, or the teaching evolution in the schools. They should insist that these decisions not be made on opinion or on wishful thinking or in pre-cooked ideologies, but actual evidence. Where you go from the march to get to those points is not obvious and the marchers and the organizations involved have to work on that. Certainly this is something AAAS does all the time; we not only have workshops and classes in effective communication and public engagement but we spend a lot of time thinking about what is the best way to get the message out to persuade people that these conditions for science to thrive must be defended. There’s no one answer, it’s not easy, but it’s too important not to try to do it.
R&D Magazine: Is it important for people in the science community to understand government politics better?
Holt: Scientists need to be able to point out how restrictions on travel actually hurt science. They need to be able to point out how gag orders on government scientists actually hurts the progress of science and how unpredictable funding—turning it on and off—hurts the progress of science. So who better than scientists to point that out if they could learn to communicate more effectively. With respect to President Trump, the remarkable thing is the extent of his silence about science. He tweets all sorts of things, he doesn’t mind speaking freely on all sorts of things, but not science. You almost never hear him talking about science, the silence is really ominous. It makes me think that he really doesn’t understand and appreciate how important science is, how helpful it could be to him and to the people if we showed better support for science. Certainly when his Office of Management and Budget comes out with a proposal for the budget that would really slash science that certainly seems to indicate a lack of appreciation for science. In his immigration orders I’ll bet science never entered his brain once, and yet it has a real effect on the progress of science. Mostly what we see is silence, nothing about science to the point that is becoming ominous.
R&D Magazine: What do you think the role of science in the federal government should be? Holt: If you take the time to look you’ll find science in almost every public issue. But generally the scientific components are overlooked. One thing you need are people with a science perspective, that doesn’t necessarily mean trained scientists, but often it does. We need people with a science perspective throughout the government— the legislative branch, judicial branch, administrative branch. Unfortunately, not many scientists want to go into public policy, into public service. That’s unfortunate because it means that there is nobody there at the table who points out the scientific components of these public issues. That means that the scientific components get no attention or in some cases really mistaken attention. People make some serious mistakes in policy because they just don’t really see the science there and don’t bother to ask what is known scientifically about the issue.
March for Science demonstrators say the time for action is now, ‘losing is not an option’ Tens of thousands demonstrated their love for science on Earth Day. Mark Hand April 23, 2017 https://thinkprogress.org/march-on-washington-earth-day-cad21c530d47
WASHINGTON, DC — Scientists typically aren’t comfortable getting political. But tens of thousands of scientists and their supporters felt frustrated enough with the current political assault on science and reason to hit the streets of Washington, D.C. on Saturday.
The March for Science attracted professionals from a wide range of fields. Many who marched told ThinkProgress that the importance of the federal government basing public policy on sound science outweighed any potential negative perception associated with scientists marching on Washington. Neurobiologist Erich Jarvis, a featured speaker at the rally prior to the march, told ThinkProgress “it’s an outrage that scientists for the first time in history have to get together with the public” to support the value of science. “When the fundamental principles of science are being attacked, scientists have to speak up,” he said.
The Rockefeller University professor believes the Earth Day event will educate the public on the value of science and encourage them to push their legislators to make evidence-based policy decisions.
But Jarvis emphasized the time for action is now, not when Trump’s term ends. “Four years is too late. With four more years of funding cuts, then you lose a critical period to train students who are the scientists of tomorrow,” Jarvis said. “Four years also could go by without saving some species from extinction. Extinction is forever. They’ve got to do it now.”
Like the successful protests against Republican plans to get rid of Obamacare, people can make a difference if they continue to organize and don’t walk away from the March for Science believing their jobs are done, Denis Hayes, one of the coordinators of the first Earth Day in 1970, told the crowd.
“Like that first Earth Day, this Earth Day is just the beginning. And in that battle, losing is not an option because if we lose this fight, we will pass on a desolate, impoverished planet for the next 100 generations. This is the first step,” said Hayes, who serves as the president and CEO of the Bullitt Foundation, a nonprofit group that promotes sustainable communities.
The rally in Washington took place on the rain-soaked grounds of the Washington Monument and was followed by a march to the Capitol. Satellite marches were held in more than 400 cities on six continents. Protest marches may be common in Washington. But this was the first time scientists staged their own kind of protest. Dozens of organizations were official participants in the event, including mainstream science groups like the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Geophysical Union.
Famed climate scientist Michael Mann, who hasn’t shied away from political battles, attributed the Trump administration’s plans to gut funding for climate action programs and the Environmental Protection Agency to a “madhouse effect” among Republicans.
“Never before have we needed science more to deal with the changing climate,” Mann told the crowd. The current global warming trend, primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels, is “unprecedented,” explained Mann, who was part of a team of scientists who found a pattern —known as the “hockey stick” graph — that showed a rapid warming of the planet starting in the early 20th century.
Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and others in the Trump administration have questioned whether carbon dioxide causes climate change and the magnitude of humans’ role in driving it.
Human-induced climate change is clearly happening now, speakers emphasized, and the clock is ticking on whether nations will be able to limit the rise in temperatures by only 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, as outlined in the Paris climate accord, to avoid catastrophic consequences.
With congressional Republicans unwilling to stop him, “our coal-loving president is punching the accelerator” that could send the world over a “climate cliff,” Hayes said.
The March for Science was billed as a call for politicians to implement science-based policies and a public celebration of all science. Some speakers expressed anger at how ideology often takes priority over science-based public policy- making.
Mona Hanna-Attisha, a pediatrician and expert on the health effects of the Flint water crisis, told the crowd that Flint residents still cannot drink unfiltered water from the taps in their homes. “Flint is what happens when we dismiss science,” she said. “Flint is what happens when saving money is more important than the public health.”
The scientific community is split on whether it should participate in marches or protests. Hanna-Attisha sides with those who believe scientists must break out of their comfort zones. “It is time for all of us to step out of our clinics, our classrooms and our labs,” she insisted. “We need to make ourselves known in the halls over government.”
Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, was pleased to see so many scientists finally realizing that “activism is important to advance science.”
“Politics has always been with us. We don’t want it to drive our science. But we have to recognize that we work in a political environment,” Benjamin told ThinkProgress. “Because they are scientists, they have not given up their constitutional rights to act. And Einstein said — I’ll paraphrase it —that it is important to do the facts, but if we don’t speak out when we see something that is wrong, then we’re missing the point.”
Benjamin hopes scientists will start showing up in droves at legislative hearings where proposals to cut science or public health budgets are slated to be discussed. “And I hope they will recommit themselves to work as hard as they can to answer critical questions that move our society forward,” he added.
The march also attracted a large contingent of future scientists. Kavya Kopparapu, a junior at the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax County, Virginia, said the event inspired students at her school to appreciate the value of a science education.
Kopparapu, who delivered a speech to the crowd, appreciated how the march brought attention to the fact that science is under attack.
The federal government must continue funding science and technology programs because the private sector often cannot justify to its shareholders the risk associated with making significant investments in certain types of research and development, Kopparapu told ThinkProgress. The government also excels at creating training programs, she added.
“We need a whole new generation of future scientists who are looking forward to getting into a career in the sciences,” said Kopparapu, who founded the Girls Computing League, a nonprofit group that works to empower underrepresented groups in technology. “Preserving their dreams and being able to show them that science is forever is important.”
Physicians Make Themselves Heard at the March for Science Miriam E. Tucker April 22, 2017 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/878973#vp_1
WASHINGTON — Physicians added their voices, their presence, and their passion to the thousands of people who spent a rainy Saturday here in support of the principles and practice of science. The March for Science, held in conjunction with Earth Day in Washington, DC, and an estimated 600 satellite marches worldwide, is "the first step of a global movement to defend the vital role science plays in our health, safety, economies, and governments," according to the site's website.
In a rally held prior to the DC march from the Washington Monument to Congress, more than 50 speakers representing all realms of science — from climate to space to science education to nature conservancy to biological and chemical science — exhorted the crowd to continue to press for science funding and against the anti-science attitudes and "alternative facts" some have said are coming from the Trump administration.
Ignore Science at "Own Peril" Georges Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, was among a handful of physician speakers. "Public health science is the heart of so many successes that have prolonged our lives and improved our well-being," he said in his remarks, listing seat belts, vaccines, and a reduction in the threat of second-hand tobacco smoke as examples.
"A nation that ignores science, that denies science, that underfunds science, does so at its own peril. We cannot allow this to happen. We need to ensure that data and evidence drive policy-making, not uniformed ideology," he said in his speech.
Dr Georges Benjamin speaking at the March for Science in Washington, DC. Olivier Douliery
In an interview with Medscape Medical News, Dr Benjamin emphasized the importance of government funding for health research. "Our public dollars are the engines that drive innovation and research. The private sector then takes that innovation and multiplies it many-fold. But it is our tax dollars that really create innovation.... Government invests in the things that are not profitable. For many of the discoveries for diseases that are not profitable, it's government that makes that happen."
"A Really Strong Voice" Another impassioned speaker was Case Western Reserve University MD/PhD candidate Gloria Tavera, who is board president and co-founder of an organization called Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, which "pushes universities to ensure that the cures that their scientists discover are available at prices that people can afford…. No one should be sick because they are poor, or poor because they are sick," she told the crowd.
In an interview, Tavera, whose research involves the role of Helicobacter pylori in stomach cancer in South and Central America, told Medscape Medical News that universities are doing a large part of the "first-in-class innovative biomedical research that leads to new drugs. We need to make these drugs more affordable to people in low and middle-income countries."
Noting some steep and often unaffordable drug prices in the United States as well, she commented, "I hope people get sufficiently enraged and sufficiently empowered to actually get out there and push for these solutions as policy, because we have a really strong voice as scientists and as physicians."
Another speaker, march honorary co-chair Lydia Villa-Komaroff, PhD, co-founding member of The Society for the Advancement of Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science, contributed to the basic research in the 1970's that led to the development of recombinant human insulin, by demonstrating that it could be made in bacteria.
"Basic science underlies the medical advances that allow us to lead longer, healthier lives," she noted in her speech, adding that her original research in bacteria that eventually led to the development of insulin used today by millions of people with diabetes was funded in part by the federal government.
She told Medscape Medical News, "I think physicians have a very good understanding of the importance of basic research to the treatments that they use for patients…. But for those who worry about whether or not we should do a march, or whether there's any question whether we should support basic, basic research, I think the insulin story is particularly instructive…. We never know what will happen from basic research."
"Science Is Not an Alternative Fact" Another honorary co-chair and speaker at the march, Mona Hanna-Attisha, MD, director of the Hurley Pediatrics Program and assistant professor of pediatrics at Michigan State University, gained prominence in 2015 when she exposed the water contamination crisis in Flint, Michigan, after detecting that the number of children with elevated levels of lead in their blood had doubled following a switch of the city's water source from the Detroit River to the Flint River in April 2014.
"The Flint water crisis is not over. We still can't drink unfiltered water from our taps. Flint is what happens when we dismiss science, when we dismiss experts, when we dismiss people, and when saving money is more important than public health," she said.
She's marching for the children of Flint, she said. "Science is not an alternative fact, and it is time for all of us to fight back to those who deny and degrade science. It's time for all of us to step out of our clinics, our classrooms, and our labs. We need to make ourselves known into halls of government. We need to hear all of your voices. Today I march for science and for our smart, our strong, our beautiful and resilient Flint kids. They inspire me to continue to use science every day to make sure their tomorrows are bright as ever."
Physician Marchers Talk of Need to Keep Fighting for Patients Physicians who attended the march as participants were no less fervent. Eugene Gu, MD, now a second-year general surgery resident at Vanderbilt University, was doing research in April 2016 on fetal tissue, aiming to find treatments for congenital heart and kidney defects, when two armed US marshals showed up at his door and delivered him a congressional subpoena. The action, part of a congressional panel investigating Planned Parenthood, derailed his research and that of the startup company he founded, Ganogen.
"Nobody is doing any fetal tissue research now. It's too scary in this political environment," he told Medscape Medical News.
But he hasn't stopped fighting, he said. "I hope that if we have enough support and show that there are a lot of people supporting scientists and physicians and the importance of our research, that we can continue our research in the future. It's a tall order, but whenever there's a lot of adversity in life, you can't give up, you can't lie down, you have to keep on fighting and helping your patients."
Marco Brenciaglia is a third-year medical student from St. George's University in Grenada who studies the Zika, chikungunya, and dengue viruses. Climate change is a health issue, he told Medscape Medical News, noting that the increasing number and density of mosquitos and ticks are spreading the diseases he studies. "The effects of climate change are so incredibly widespread, so it's not just that it's a bit warmer and we have beach weather in New England in the winter…. The spread of disease is related to the climate. You can't disregard the earth and expect humans to survive."
Retired Rockville, Maryland, ophthalmologist Gerald Rogell, MD, commented to Medscape Medical News, "It's profoundly discouraging that it's necessary to have this march in the 20th century. Until just recently, it would have been unbelievable that our government could be dominated by people so completely scornful of scientific findings and so ready to run the country based on irrational beliefs and wishful thinking." But, he added, "It's really great that we still have freedom of assembly and freedom of speech at this critical time."
Hemal N. Sampat, MD, an internal medicine and pediatric hospitalist at Massachusetts General Hospital, listed three reasons why he's marching: First, "science has always had detractors, but we've reached a point in this country where opposition to science has virtually become national policy," both in terms of budget cuts and administration officials who minimize science, he said. "We're here to speak out against that."
Dr Sampat also wants to reverse the mistrust of science he encounters daily in his practice, such as parents who are hesitant to have their children vaccinated. "I think that this distrust has spread and we need to work on getting that trust back."
Third, he'd like to see more scientists, including physicians, involved in politics. "National policy is set by people in law and business…. We need our perspective as well. I'm hoping that we get more involvement in national, state, and regional politics from people in science and medical fields."
Just the Beginning Toward the end of the rally and just prior to the actual march, co-organizer Caroline Weinberg, MD, MPH, had a chance to stop briefly and speak with Medscape Medical News, noting, "It's really encouraging and incredible that so many people came out in the rain just because they felt the need to defend and support science."
At the March for Science in Washington, DC. Olivier Douliery
Dr Weinberg said that the March for Science organization isn't ending today, but will now roll over "into education outreach and policy, getting scientists into the community to break down barriers and build dialog.... We're constantly marching."
Regarding medicine's role in particular, she said, "We've been very lucky that a lot of the medical societies have partnered with us…. We're going to rely on our partners to make sure to keep this movement going. Doctors who want to get involved and advocate can sign up on our website. We're going to tap all the resources of people who feel passionately about science to really create lasting change."
Dr. Komaroff is on the board of Cytonome. Dr. Gu is CEO and founder of Ganogen. None of the other individuals quoted have disclosed any relevant financial relationships.
Why scientists are marching on Washington and more than 600 other cities By Joel Achenbach, Ben Guarino and Sarah Kaplan April 21 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/04/20/why-scientists-are-marching-on- washington-and-more-than-400-other-cities/?utm_term=.eb4d4b77f0f6
Saturday's March for Science is political, but not partisan. So say the organizers, who insist that they can walk that fine line even in an era of ideological rancor and extreme polarization.
“We’ve been asked not to make personal attacks or partisan attacks,” said honorary national co-chair Lydia Villa- Komaroff, in a teleconference with reporters. But Villa-Komaroff, a cell biologist who will be among those with two- minute speaking slots, quickly added: “This is a group of people who don’t take well being told what to do.”
The Science March, held on Earth Day, is expected to drawtens of thousands of people to the Mall, and satellite marches have been planned in more than 600 cities on six continents. The crowd will gather on Saturday near the Washington Monument for five hours of speeches and teach-ins, culminating in the march at 2 p.m. The march will follow Constitution Avenue along the north edge of the Mall to the foot of Capitol Hill. The weather forecast is a tricky one — it's not an exact science, apparently — but attendees should be prepared for rain, particularly in the afternoon.
Protest marches may be common in Washington these days, but one centered on the value of science is unprecedented. The march is part of a wave of activism in the research community. Scientists are jumping into the political fray by running for public office — such as in southern California, where geologist Jess Phoenix, a Democrat, has announced her candidacy for a congressional seat held by a Republican.
The idea for the event was spawned during a Jan. 21 conversation on Reddit, as millions of people gathered in Washington and cities around the world for the record-breaking Women's Marches. Valorie Aquino, who is working on her PhD in anthropology at the University of New Mexico, signed on as one of the march's national co-chairs shortly after. She thought she'd be able to continue her research while coordinating the event, not anticipating how quickly it would snowball.
"This March for Science organizing has consumed my last three months," Aquino said Friday afternoon. "I’m overwhelmed. I’m inspired. I’m a little terrified. I would love to take a nap but I don’t think it's going to happen."
Most mainstream science organizations — such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Chemical Society — have signed on as partners of the march, despite their lack of experience in going to the barricades.
Rush Holt, head of AAAS, said there was initial hesitation about whether this was the kind of event a scientist ought to be joining but that members of his association overwhelmingly support the decision to participate.
This is not simply a reaction to President Trump's election, Holt said. Scientists have been worried for years that “evidence has been crowded out by ideology and opinion in public debate and policymaking.” Long before Trump's election, people in the scientific and academic community raised concerns about the erosion of the value of expertise and the rise of pseudoscientific and anti-scientific notions. Science also found itself swept up into cultural and political battles; views on climate science, for example, increasingly reflect political ideology.
Mona Hanna-Attisha, the Michigan pediatrician who sounded the alarm on lead in Flint’s drinking water, is one of the march's honorary co-chairs. Her experience as a physician in Flint paved the way for her science advocacy, Hanna- Attisha told The Post. “Pediatricians care for a population that can’t speak, can’t vote,” she said, noting that doctors take an oath to protect patients from harm. “It is your role to be an advocate.”
Arthur Edelman, who studies ovarian cancer at the State University of New York’s University at Buffalo, was on the National Mall listening to the main stage sound check with his wife, Enid, on the afternoon before the march. The demonstration tents and the roughly 190 portable toilets had already been set up. (The song the keyboardist played was, naturally, “She Blinded Me with Science.”)
The 71-year-old had not marched since Vietnam, which he did then “because I didn’t want to die.” This march is different, he said. “It’s a struggle that doesn’t have to be such a struggle.” He was marching for “the air we breathe
and the water we drink.” Edelman was concerned about the future of his graduate students at a time when the NIH can only fund 9 out of every 100 grant proposals submitted. “That means you’re dead in the water unless you get results,” he said. Edelman will march on Saturday, which is also his birthday.
Under the heading of “What sign should I carry?”, the march’s official website nudges participants to go geeky rather than political: “Do you have a special love for cell biology or physics? Maybe you want to proudly tell the world that vaccines have kept you healthy? Or thank the EPA for keeping your water safe? This could be the right time to declare your support for a well-funded NIH! This isn’t about any one politician — this is about science and policy, scientists and science supporters.”
The lineup for the event on the Mall includes some of science and environmentalism's biggest names. Bill Nye, CEO of the Planetary Society and another honorary co-chair, will speak, as will climate scientist Michael Mann, coordinator of the first Earth Day Denis Hayes, NASA Astronaut Leland Melvin, and the heads of many science and environmental advocacy groups.
But the organizers also aim to buck stereotypes of science as stodgy, academic and dominated by older white men by selecting speakers from a broad range of ages, backgrounds and expertise. The lineup includes Taylor Richardson, a 13-year-old aspiring astronaut who raised $17,000 earlier this year to send other young girls to see the film "Hidden Figures;" YouTube star Tyler DeWitt; chemist Mary Jo Ondrechen, a member of the Mohawk Nation and chair of the board of the American Indian Science and Engineering Society; and Gallaudet University biologist Caroline Solomon, who is deaf.
YouTube star Derek Muller and the musician Questlove are slated to emcee.
Notably, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, the most well-known living American scientist, will not be attending a science march, according to a representative. Tyson did not respond to a request to comment on why.
No politicians have been invited to participate in the march, organizers say, even as they acknowledge that this was inspired by the Women’s March on the day after Trump’s inauguration.
“Science is nonpartisan. That’s the reason that we respect it, because it aims to reduce bias. That’s why we have the scientific method. We felt very strongly that having politicians involved would skew that in some way,” Caroline Weinberg, a public health researcher and co-organizer of the march, said at the National Press Club earlier this month.
Carol Greider, a Johns Hopkins molecular biologist and Nobel laureate, said in the conference call this week that she will bring dozens of students and postdoctoral researchers to the march. “People are actually questioning whether they can even go on and have a career in science,” she said, noting the Trump administration's proposal to cut nearly a fifth of the National Institutes of Health budget. “Potentially, we will lose an entire generation of people who are now trained and have the talent and are eager to make the next breakthroughs.”
Greider said it's possible to fight for science without “labeling ourselves” as being on one partisan side or the other. That was echoed by Elias Zerhouni, former NIH head under President George W. Bush: “This is not a partisan issue. This is not one administration versus another … It's really an age-old debate between rational approaches to the universe and irrational approaches to the universe.”
Not every scientist is convinced. Arthur Lambert, a cancer researcher at the Whitehead Institute at MIT in Boston, said he was initially excited about the science march. But as the event drew closer, it seemed increasingly unlikely that it would appear to be anything but partisan.
“It’s a bad idea to align all of science against any political administration,” Lambert said. “I don’t think that's their goal … But it runs that risk, especially after such a heated election.”
Recent political developments in Washington are among the primary drivers of this march. Before he became president, Trump promoted anti-scientific theories. He tweeted in 2012, “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.” He echoed the fully discredited notion that there is a link between vaccines and autism. During the presidential transition he reportedly discussed with vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the possibility of creating a vaccine safety commission.
To run the Environmental Protection Agency, he appointed Scott Pruitt, who as Oklahoma attorney general had sued the agency many times and who, during an interview in March, said he did not believe that human activity is a primary driver of the observed climate change — a statement at odds with scientific research.
The entry ban pushed in the early days of the administration, and associated rhetoric about building walls and restricting immigration, alarmed many leaders of science-related institutions that rely on the expertise of foreign nationals (at MIT, for example, 40 percent of the faculty was born outside the United States, according to the university's president).
The administration has not taken some actions initially feared by the scientific community, such as wholesale deletions of government climate data. The EPA’s website continues to describe climate change as largely driven by human activities.
Trump has yet to appoint anyone to several key science-related posts. He has not picked a White House science adviser. He hasn’t nominated anyone to run NASA or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the U.S. Geological Survey. He has let Francis Collins stay on an interim basis as head of the NIH, though it’s not clear that Collins will be permanently retained. Public health positions are unoccupied that are crucial for responding to a global pandemic, a disaster every president since Ronald Reagan has faced.
Behind the scenes at the March for Science, there has been internal controversy about inclusiveness and diversity, and whether social justice should be central to the march’s messaging. On social media, a number of scientists have said they are skipping the march because they think the organizers haven’t focused enough on racism, sexism, and the scientific community’s centuries-long history of marginalizing women and people of color.
Meanwhile, conservative critics have derided the march as an ideological enterprise in which what’s being advocated is not science, exactly, but left-leaning policies, such as the Obama administration’s environmental regulations designed to curb carbon emissions.
It's unclear what percentage of participants in Saturday's science marches around the country will be involved in research directly. Among the non-scientists will be Dennis Moore, a patrolman at the Cherry Hill, N.J. Police Department, who said he's going to the Boston march to make the point that science benefits everyone.
“I've always been kind of a nerd,” he said, mentioning that he was wearing a flux capacitor T-shirt as he spoke. “Science is our best tool for understanding the world around us … but I think we’re basically just de-emphasizing science in our lives and in our communities.”
The first official march-related event in Washington kicked off Thursday evening in Dupont Underground, an abandoned trolley car station and former fallout shelter that is now a cavernous arts space. “Poetry x Posters” featured seven-foot-tall posters with science-themed poems. “I pledge allegiance to the soil of Turtle Island,” one poster read, “one ecosystem/in diversity/under the sun.” Four poets spoke from a stage while the audience of a few dozen listened, drinking wine from plastic cups and beer from tall cans. The poets professed a fascination with science, if not always a deep understanding.
Science and poetry both arise from the same desire for exploration, said poet Jane Hirshfield. “If you don’t think at all, you think of them as opposites,” she said. “They are allies in discovery.”
In one far corner of the subterranean network sat tables for making protest signs, with markers, construction paper and glue-sticks. For the first few hours of the event, though, people were more interested in the bar.
Pharmacists Joining the March for Science Pharmacists and pharmacy groups are taking part in a national march in support for science. April 21, 2017 By Valerie DeBenedette http://drugtopics.modernmedicine.com/node/434997
Pharmacists will be represented at the March on Science in Washington, DC, and at satellite marches around the country and the world.
The mission of the diverse and officially nonpartisan march, which takes place on April 22, is to celebrate science, to speak out against attempts to discredit scientific discourse, and stand up for science in the public good and evidence- based public policies.
The American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) will have a small contingent marching, said Kirsten Block, PhD, the group’s Associate Director of Research and Graduate Programs. Lucinda Maine, RPh, PhD, and Cynthia Boyle, PharmD, are also marching along with others from AACP. Maine is the group’s CEO and Executive Vice President, while Boyle is immediate past president and Chair of Pharmacy Practice and Administration at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore.
AACP is part of a coalition of pharmacy and pharmaceutical science groups that are taking part in the event, according to Block, including the American Society of Pharmaceutical Scientists, US Pharmacopeia, and the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.
There had been some concern about whether the March for Science, which has been planned for several months, was going to be a partisan or political event, Block said. “I heard about it in its infancy and didn’t feel entirely comfortable with a lot of the political messages coming out of it,” she said. “Maybe the scientist in me was a little cautious about wading into that spectrum. But at the same time, I feel obligated to speak up because I’ve spent too much of my life training in this field and seeing what good science does for society not to say anything.”
The march needs to be a conversation with policy makers and with the community about the value of science in society and how science plays a role, Block added. "My biggest goal is to start a conversation and hope that it doesn’t end when the march ends, that it is not just a day of shouting."
The AACP contingent does not plan to carry signs, she said, but will be wearing buttons with the message: Pharmacists help people live healthier, better lives.
Organizers of the march have asked the scientists who take part to bring along a nonscientist. Block is bringing her husband, who is trained as an artist and who will be taking pictures that AACP will share on its social media. You can follow them on Twitter, @LMaineAACP, @KFBlock and @CynthiaJBoyle, and follow the conversation with #RxInnovation and #MarchForScience.
More than two dozen medical and health-care groups, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Physicians, say they are taking part in the March for Science.
Scientists prepare to march on Trump BY DEVIN HENRY 04/21/17 06:00 AM EDT 2,239 http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/329810-scientists-prepare-to-march-on-trump
4.7K
Scientists and climate activists opposed to the Trump administration are bringing their message to the streets of Washington.
Two marches in D.C. this month will bring out scientists and other protesters who say the Trump administration’s policies sideline science’s role in public policy, undermining the science on climate change and other issues.
Organizers will host the March for Science on the National Mall on Saturday, followed by the People's Climate March the week after.
President Trump is the unifying factor for both marches, both in how they came together and what messages they’ll promote.
“I think it’s fair to say that this administration catalyzed the happening of this march, there’s no doubt about that,” said Lydia Villa-Komaroff, a national co-chairwoman of the March for Science who will speak at the Saturday event.
The March for Science idea grew out of the Women’s March, a protest that drew millions of demonstrators around the country in January, one day after Trump was sworn in as president.
Science activists saw the event as something they could replicate and devised similar action — a large D.C. rally with satellite protests around the country — based on showing general support for science policy.
Speakers in Washington will include television science educator Bill Nye and other activists, musicians and former administration officials. The event’s Twitter account has 350,000 followers and its Facebook page has more than 527,000 “likes” but organizers don’t yet have attendance projections.
Activists have tried to pitch the March for Science as a non-partisan event, and Saturday’s demonstrators won’t demand specific policy outcomes beyond supporting science as a guide for public policy.
Next weekend’s climate march, on the other hand, will directly pressure policymakers to back away from the Trump administration’s energy proposals and work on tackling climate change.
“The March for Science is about recognizing this truth, and the People’s Climate March is about acting on it,” said Lindsay Meiman, a spokeswoman for 350.org, a climate group that’s part of the steering committee of the climate protest.
The idea for the People’s Climate March was originally conceived last year, Meiman said, with supporters planning to make their case for a quicker transition from fossil fuels to whoever captured the White House.
It’s pitched as the sequel to a 2014 New York climate march that drew 400,000 people and ranks as one of the largest single protests in U.S. history.
Trump’s election, followed by his administration’s work dismantling much of former President Obama’s climate agenda, only raised the stakes for this month’s event. Organizers expect “tens of thousands” of attendees in Washington and at the 300 other simultaneous events around the country.
“After Donald Trump was elected, we understood it was more important than ever to come together to take action around both pushing back against this administration … [and] putting forward a vision for transitioning off fossil fuels,” Meiman said.
Activists and Democrats have lambasted the Trump administration’s approach to science policy, from proposed deep spending cuts at key federal science agencies to its work undoing Obama-era climate change regulations and policies.
Trump’s first budget proposed large funding cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Energy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA’s Earth science budget.
Along the way, officials have begun the process of stripping away key climate policies from the Obama administration.
Those efforts have raised concerns from across the political spectrum, including among some Republicans.
On a call with reporters previewing the science march, Elias Zerhouni, the NIH head under President George W. Bush, said he is concerned about new spending cuts targeting federal scientific research, while Bush’s first EPA chief, Christine Whiteman, warned about “politicized” science within the government.
“We do not want to promulgate regulations, rules and laws based on anecdotal evidence,” she said. “It’s not just NIH, it’s EPA, it’s NOAA. We’re seeing science becoming politicized across the board.”
But Trump allies say those criticisms could be lobbed at scientists, as well.
“The problem we face now is that there are very large megaphones at the disposal of people who are promoting their own special interests in the guise of scientific facts,” said Myron Ebell, the director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Ebell, who headed Trump’s EPA transition team, said scientists have begun using their research to make policy recommendations, something he suggests goes beyond their expertise and should be left to lawmakers.
“Climate policy is not science, and saying, ‘I know what we have to have is the cap-and-trade system or the Clean Power Plan' ... I mean, give me a break.”
Rush Holt, a former New Jersey congressman who heads the American Association for the Advancement of Science, has sought to cool expectations for the marches, saying activists shouldn’t expect to move lawmakers or the administration by protest alone.
“The first thing, before the marchers make demands that Congress do this or the president do that, is there is some remedial work for the public and policymakers to understand the value of science,” he said.
“You don’t want politicians prescribing what questions can be answered by science. ... Scientists should be saying: Here are questions we should answer and here is what we need to answer them.”
Rep. Don Beyer (Va.), a Democrat on the House Science Committee, said he expects the message to be “don’t cut” funding for research, a message he hopes resonates with appropriators in Congress.
“For me, it’s a matter of remembering the larger picture,” he said. “This won’t last forever and we need to keep people’s spirits up, and keep good research being done.”
March for Science organizers say event isn't anti-Trump By Robert King | Apr 19, 2017, 4:12 PM http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/march-for-science-organizers-say-event-isnt-anti-trump/article/2620712
Organizers of the March for Science say the Saturday event isn't a protest of President Trump, even though his policies will be front and center among the expected throng of scientists in Washington.
The march is expected to focus on the importance of scientifically vetted evidence, organizers said during a call with reporters Wednesday. Being held on Earth Day, it will start near the Washington Monument and end in front of the Capitol.
"It is not just about Donald Trump," said Rush Holt, a former congressman and CEO of the group American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Holt conceded that "a few" of the signs would have a "direct or indirect reference to Trump, but most of them will be talking about the idea of evidence and the free exchange of ideas."
But several people on the call criticized Trump's skinny budget that would cut the National Institutes of Health's budget by 20 percent next year.
If the budget is approved, "there will be no new grants for young scientists starting out," said Carol Greider, professor of molecular biology at Johns Hopkins University and a Nobel laureate in medicine.
However, organizers attempted to say that funding problems happened before Trump.
"These worries have been there," said Lydia Villa-Komaroff, an honorary co-chairwoman of the march.
Organizers were questioned, however, on whether they are making things worse by creating an "us vs. them" backlash among Trump supporters.
"I don't think we are going to be labeling ourselves as one side or the other," Greider said. "The Women's March didn't necessarily label all women as being on one side or the other."
However, that march took place one day after Trump's inauguration, and the millions of participants nationwide were decidedly against Trump and his policies. The march also served as a catalyst for the March for Science, which was announced shortly after the Women's March.
"The March for Science is not to attack anybody," said Elias Zerhouni, president of global research and development at drug maker Sanofi. "It is to defend fundamental right or value and drive for humanity and to better advance if you will the well-being of humanity."
Holt also pointed to marches taking places around the world to emphasize that the march in Washington is not just about the president.