Out of the Lab and Into the Streets
The Scientific Community Must Step Up to Defend Science
Last week, Dr. Marcia McNutt, the current president of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), published an editorial in Science titled Science is Neither Red nor Blue. The editorial expresses concern that science has fallen victim to the same political divisiveness we see in society and that this erodes public trust in science. Dr. McNutt argues that at its most basic level, science is apolitical and should be as objective as possible when informing policy. And that scientists should stand up to defend science and scientists from political interference. I agree with that.
What is missing for me in the editorial is the important role the scientific community has in advocating for science-informed policy, especially crucial given the damage the incoming Trump administration can do to science, science-based policy, and our scientific agencies. Also missing is an acknowledgement that scientists are also citizens, and in that capacity can opine on proposed policy solutions.
The Role of Science in Policy
Dr. McNutt’s editorial reads, “Although scientists must never shirk their duty to provide the foundation of evidence that can guide policy decisions and to defend science and scientists from political interference, they must avoid the tendency to imply that science dictates policy. It is up to elected officials to determine policy based on the outcomes desired by their constituents.”
True enough. Most policy decisions across the government are informed by myriad factors: public concerns, cultural values, budget constraints and economic conditions, legal and institutional factors, technology, and, of course, science. Science is and should be an integral factor in policy decisions. We have seen what can happen to public health and our environment when science is ignored or entirely erased from decision-making processes. Examples include the prior Trump administration’s delayed and failed response to the COVID-19 pandemic, its weakening of clean air and water protections, and decisions on endangered species.
Dr. McNutt goes on to say:
“The scientific community must also better recognize that it may not be helpful to emphasize consensus in policy reports’ recommendations when the underlying values are not universally shared. For example, although science can affirm that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, science can only predict the outcome of the various policies that might be enacted to address the problem. It is up to society and its elected leadership to decide how to balance these options, including the use of renewable energy, climate adaptation, carbon capture, or even various interventions that reflect sunlight back into space.”
I disagree with Dr. McNutt’s comment on scientific consensus, and here is why. First, I don’t think consensus is what we strive for as scientists, especially scientists who work to inform policy decisions. Instead, scientists consider the weight of the current scientific evidence to determine whether a fundamental pattern is clear (or not). When the weight of evidence is strong enough, we can agree that it is conclusive and utilize it to inform solutions to societal issues (sometimes in the form of policy).
Climate change is a case in point. Scientists have warned that we have a very finite amount of time to limit global warming before our world suffers irreversible damage from climate change. The weight of evidence is conclusive – we have no time to wait and act.
There are different options and opinions about policy solutions to address climate change. However, given the dire consequences at hand and our limited time to act, I believe science should have a prominent place at the table when making such decisions.
Society and its elected leadership should, of course, have a strong and perhaps even a deciding voice in deciding how to balance these policy options. The risk is that science and evidence can be ignored or even entirely missing from the decision-making table. We’ve seen this happen. For example, the former Trump administration censored “climate change” across the government and pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement, a decision it plans to implement again.
Sidelining science in decision-making can result in actual harm to our environment and people, particularly underserved communities – Black, Indigenous, communities of color, and low-income communities. That’s why science must be at the head of the table when determining policy solutions to climate change and other pressing environmental and public health. This should not be a political statement but rather a necessary step to ensure that the most underserved communities and the generations that follow have a safe, healthy, and sustainable world.
Science Advocacy Saves Lives
If the past is prologue, we can expect the incoming Trump administration to sideline science in critical policy decisions once again. For example, recall that the former Trump administration disbanded two important scientific advisory committees that were set to inform new air pollution standards on ozone and fine particulate matter. Both pollutants have serious adverse health consequences, and underserved communities disproportionately suffer these harms.
Fortunately, passionate scientists advocated for science's rightful place in the policy process, helping the Biden-Harris administration reconstitute these advisory committees and reinitiate the process of updating these air pollution standards. The standard for fine particulate matter was updated earlier this year and is expected to result in cleaner air that will save thousands of lives.
The scientific community must push for the weight of scientific evidence to be a primary consideration in determining solutions to societal issues, especially because research shows that being vocal about needed policy changes works.
Our Scientific Institutions and Leaders Must Defend Science
We need to be prepared. The Trump administration will most certainly attempt to sideline science in policy decisions. It will get support from anti-regulatory zealots in corporate America and from spineless sycophants in Congress. The scientific community is a critical counterweight and must be ready to defend science for the public good. Our scientific organizations and leaders must urge and encourage scientists to be vocal advocates for science and science-based policy—as professionals and as citizens.
This will take courage, as it will be tempting to try to find some safe place or middle ground that will keep scientific and fact-based institutions in Trump’s good graces. Even Saturday Night Live recently poked fun at this phenomenon after the election. And we’ve already seen The Washington Post and The LA Times both make historic decisions not to endorse a presidential candidate in this election, arguably so that the Trump administration wouldn’t target them with frivolous lawsuits or pull government funding from their billionaire CEOs. As the federal government funds scientific research, education, and training, our academic and non-profit institutions face a similar dilemma. This includes the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine.
An administration hostile to science is at the doorstep, and scientists must be ready to engage. The health, safety, and well-being of our families, communities, and loved ones will be affected over and well beyond the next four years. Isolating yourself in your office or lab will not stop a political divide on science. As a science professional and citizen scientist, now is the time to speak out and defend science in government decisions. We need to use our expertise and privilege to fight for public health, the environment, and for underserved communities that bear a disproportionate burden.
SciLight will certainly be here to help defend science. I hope you will join us. Take a look at our recently released toolkit to help federal scientists know about their rights, protections, and resources available to help them defend science. We’ve also teamed up with the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund and Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law to help track attacks on science over the next four years.
SciLight is a volunteer newsletter 100% funded by our community and readers like you. We are not going away and will be a strong voice for defending science. If you have the means to support us, please become a paid subscriber today. Your funds are directly used to help us shine a light on attacks on science and science-informed policy and promote sound, sensible, and equitable safeguards and solutions.
That’s it for today - Thank you so much for reading SciLight!
If you want to share today’s post as a web page with your network, click this button:
If you have suggestions, questions, comments, or want to drop us a line - send it all to scilightsubstack@gmail.com