Here at SciLight, we believe that exposing scientific integrity and science-policy issues is incredibly important information that the public deserves, especially given the recent and impending threats to our democracy. For the past three months, we’ve worked hard to ensure we’re bringing you our analysis and the voices of experts in the science policy space. We’re going to continue to do so. But today, we’re asking you to support SciLight if you value it, and you have the money to do so. This will never be a paywalled newsletter - our work is here for you even if you can’t afford it. But we do need your help to keep going. We hope as many people as possible subscribe to SciLight to support our efforts. If you can’t subscribe, we’re also open to payment in the form of baked goods if you ever see us at a coffee shop. :)
My personal experience with scientific integrity
I was incredibly excited when I got an offer call from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to serve as a postdoctoral fellow in 2015. Not too long before, I had interned with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and felt I found my career calling.
The work I did with the EPA made my soul happy. I not only informed the agency’s scientific work on climate change, but I also impacted people’s lives through policy. This work further instilled in me the critical importance of working in public service.
But the warm fuzzies didn’t last long. When Trump was elected, my heart sank like almost everyone else’s that election night. I was scared about our country’s future. I also knew that on election night my job would likely soon be cut.
You see, if you’re a fellow with an agency, it’s very easy for leadership to cut your employment. Agencies often keep fellows on a year-to-year basis. But because these contracts have a time stamp, it’s easy to not renew them without cause.
I was conversing with EPA leadership about staying on as a full-time employee. But when Trump was elected, any hope of me staying on quickly vanished. Why? Because the former president and his administration were anti-science, especially when it came to climate change.
Sure enough, my potential hire as a full-time staffer quickly went from a “probably will happen” to a “definitely not going to happen.” I’ll never forget a member of the leadership team saying, “You should start looking for other jobs.”
Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter” came to mind. While I wasn’t wearing the letter “A” around the agency, I had certainly adorned the words “climate change” in my work. The incoming administration didn’t see that kind of science as a worthy investment, so I was on the chopping block - a grantee that was easily thrown out.
My scientific work was politicized — I was targeted because of the kind of science I do. So, I spent the next seven years researching and reporting on scientific integrity to ensure that other federal scientists didn’t experience what I did.
SciLight is making a difference
I started SciLight because I felt that research and work on scientific integrity were fading into the background post-Trump. The Biden Administration made important strides in this area, but the urgency seemed to diminish. Yet, there were countless examples of scientific integrity still at play, in the federal government and states. Trump may have been voted out of office, but there were still political leaders across the country manipulating data on COVID-19 vaccines, sidelining science in climate change policy, or spreading misinformation about diversifying the scientific workforce. These actors were not being called out for these scientific integrity violations. It seemed that there was a need for someone to pick that work up and highlight ongoing political interference in science.
When I started SciLight, I had no idea whether it would be successful. It was just an idea that I had, brought Andy into it, and then got started. Would it be successful without the backing of a nationally recognized organization? I didn’t know, but I wanted to try. I’m so glad that I did.
With your support, this newsletter has grown from zero to nearly 600 followers in a mere three months! Among those followers are influential policymakers, journalists, and scientific experts. With your help, we’re still growing. At no time has the growth of this newsletter slowed. It signals that people understand that the issues we cover are still important. More important than ever, I think, given the Supreme Court’s recent decisions and this year’s pivotal election.
We’ve brought to light many issues that otherwise weren’t extensively covered, such as how DOI’s use of indigenous knowledge in its climate change decisions isn’t a scientific integrity issue, Project 2025’s plan to dismantle NOAA, and exposed group’s plans to undo federal scientific integrity policies.
Behind the scenes, we’ve provided expert guidance to others covering these issues. For example, we provided background information to Last Week Tonight with John Oliver for a story they did on Project 2025. We’ve also helped inform a story in The Washington Post on what a second Trump term would mean for scientific integrity. We’ve provided information to other reporters at E&E News, The Guardian, and Politico. Our work also has been shared or cross-posted by the American Institute of Physics and The Union of Concerned Scientists. And if other folks reach out to us, we’ll continue to provide expert guidance and information on scientific and science policy matters.
We’re still growing and hope to make even bigger waves as SciLight becomes more well-known as a resource on scientific integrity and other science policy issues. But in 3 months, we’re quite happy with what we’ve accomplished for an independent newsletter.
We’re going to keep it up!
There are so many science policy issues that need good people working on them—artificial intelligence, pandemic preparedness, climate change, the global extinction crisis, and others. Policies in these areas all require science-based processes that must be free from political interference.
When Trump and his administration held office, it was clear why this work was so important. The former president’s doctoring of a hurricane path with a Sharpie marker and his administration’s failure on the pandemic response highlight the problem. Given that many of these issues haven’t crept up as often under the Biden administration, it has made folks forget about the damaging consequences of sidelining and politicizing science in policy.
But Trump or not, there will always be cases of political interference in science, censorship of science, mischaracterization of how science works and what scientific integrity is, and consequent harm to people and our environment. And that’s why we’re here—to bring these issues front and center and describe their solutions to help protect the health and safety of communities and our environment. We also want to help others learn how to talk about scientific integrity and science policy issues confidently.
We’re excited to continue this work, to shine a light on these issues, and to help build a network of people who can recognize and discuss scientific integrity issues when they see them. But we need your support to continue this work. If you can, please support this independent venture. We hope you agree it is vital work now and worthy of your investment.
That’s it for today - Thank you so much for reading SciLight!
If you enjoyed today’s post, please like it, or share it with others. You can also support the work we do to shine a light on the politicization of science by becoming a paid subscriber!
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
Nice one, Jacob! Keep up the great work. I enjoyed this background to your newsletter. Hope the great growth continues!