The Anderson family making protest signs at home near Salt Lake City. They are planning to attend the March for Science on Saturday in Washington, D.C.Credit Kim Raff for The New York Times
The March for Science on April 22 may or may not accomplish the goals set out by its organizers. But it has required many people who work in a variety of scientific fields — as well as Americans who are passionate about science — to grapple with the proper role of science in our civic life.
The discussion was evident in thousands of responses submitted to NYTimes.com ahead of the march, both from those who will attend and those who are sitting it out. Nationwide, colleagues and friends are debating the meaning of President Trump’s election, and whether now is an appropriate moment for people in the sciences to speak out collectively.
Here is a summary of some themes that emerged in the responses and in follow-up interviews.
Jeffrey Anderson, an associate professor of radiology and bioengineering at the University of Utah, planned to fly from Salt Lake City to the march in Washington with his partner and four teenage children.
“The wholesale disregard of truth and fact by the president and his close advisers, their devaluing evidence and the scientific method, is so extreme that I can’t be silent,” he said.
Nadia Lelutiu, a laboratory manager working in vaccine research at Emory University’s School of Medicine, has never been involved in a public demonstration. But she joined the leadership of the March for Science Atlanta because she said it was time scientists “made some noise.”
“I don’t think quiet reserve
is serving us well anymore.” Mary Mangan
“Science continues to be undermined in favor of political ideology and it is getting worse under the current administration,” she said. “This threatens public health and environmental safety, and our livelihood now and in the future.”
Others expressed opposition to the march, seeing peril in what might come off as a partisan attack on the president and his supporters, even if they support some of its goals.
“Throwing our weight behind a protest movement may result in short-term gain, but it will more so contribute to the increased politicization of our work and further confound the public understanding of scientific rigor,” said Daniel Sharoh, an American working on a Ph.D. in cognitive neuroscience in the Netherlands.
He added that wearing the hats of activist and scientists at the same time damages “our need for insulation from daily politics in order to conduct basic research.”
An entomologist at the University of Florida, Joe Funderburk, described his concerns with the endorsement of the march by the Entomological Society of America, which he warned harms the credibility of its scientists.
“I, like many scientists, am asked to provide science information and knowledge to policy makers,” he said. “It must be free of bias. It must be free of political passion.”
Photo
“People need to be aware that the quality of life and life expectancy they enjoy are largely due to scientific advances and the investment of the U.S. in the sciences,” said Seun Ajiboye, who lives and works in Alexandria, Va.Credit T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times
Many acknowledged ambivalence about connecting science and protest. But the moment felt urgent enough to motivate them to march.
“I feel that as a concerned American, as well as a scientist, I need to advocate for the use of real, unbiased scientific facts in any policy decisions,” said Michele Millham, who does research on personalized medicine at a company in Connecticut and will march in Washington. “Even the concept of ‘alternative facts’ scares me.”
The Future of Funding for the Sciences
The March for Science was announced before the release of the administration’s proposed budget. But concerns about the future of sciencefunded bythe federal government were on the minds of many respondents.
“People need to be aware that the quality of life and life expectancy they enjoy are largely due to scientific advances and the investment of the U.S. in the sciences,” said Seun Ajiboye, a science policy analyst for the International and American Associations for Dental Research, who hopes the march will mobilize the public to support science funding.
A number of employees of federal agencies that face cuts in the administration’s proposed budget planned to march in Washington and at events in other cities. None were willing to be quoted by name, fearing retaliation in the current administration.
They expressed a variety of motivations, including a desire to show the public what would be lost if scientific research were not supported by the government and the belief that government scientists deserve greater public respect.
“I think our time would
be better spent if we all
took a science skeptic
out for a cup of coffee.” Caitlin E. Littlefield
Others worried that an activist approach would backfire.
Melissa Flagg, who served in the Obama administration as a deputy assistant secretary of defense for research, said the march was creating a “you’re with us or against us” mentality around research.
“It has been tone-deaf to the complexities that underlie a growing distrust of science funded by a removed and distant federal government that locally does not appear to be in service of the public good,” she said.
Science Times
“To rebuild trust we must consider new ways to serve the public.”
But one professor who has received support from the N.I.H. for her research said she would march in Washington because of risks to the next generation of scientific researchers.
“Persistent advocacy now by people like me is needed both to reinforce the value of science to all people and to help salvage continuity of scientific progress and careers for the next generation of innovators,” said Alice Telesnitsky, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan Medical School.
Questions of Diversity Arise
Issues of diversity and inclusion have prompted ongoing debate among organizers and supporters of the march and their critics.
In response to a diversity statement, some critics accused the organizers of being deferential to left-leaning politics. Some wrote to The Times to say they would not participate for that reason.
Photo
Melissa Flagg said the March for Science was creating a “you’re with us or against us” mentality around research.Credit Jared Soares for The New York Times
But a number of people working in science wrote that they felt unwelcome at the march because they believed that the organizers had done a poor job of addressing science’s interaction with historical legacies like racism and sexism.
Still others agreed that the march’s organizers had not adequately considered these issues in their planning, but felt that made it more important to participate.
“One of the reasons I will march, I’m not afraid of the naysayers who think science is only for them,” said Alfiee M. Breland-Noble, an associate professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University and director of the Aakoma Project and Lab, who will be marching with her children. “It’s for us all.”
Emily Nocito, a graduate student and researcher at the University of Maine School of Marine Sciences, offered a similar sentiment.
“As a female, I am marching for those who never had a chance in the sciences and for future scientists of all backgrounds,” she said.
Debating the Public Role of Science
Some scientists who will sit out the march questioned whether public demonstrations were the best way to appeal to people who are skeptical of science’s role in public decision-making.
Photo
Emily Nocito, who studies marine science in Maine, said she was marching for women who never had a chance in the sciences.Credit Sarah Rice for The New York Times
“I think our time would be better spent if we all took a science skeptic out for a cup of coffee to demonstrate that we’re not all that bad,” said Caitlin E. Littlefield, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Washington who is researching how forests respond to climate change.
But Daniel Bullock, a professor of psychological and brain sciences at Boston University, who will march with his wife and son in Washington, said that the event could help scientists better connect with the public.
“The march is a first chance to work on how to frame key messages and how to organize a nationwide campaign to broaden understanding of inconvenient truths that are being ignored by many policy makers,” he said.
But getting organized as scientists was also important to some participants, who said that it was time to assert their role as a group.
“Communities are not taken seriously politically until they act as a group and make noise,” Mary Mangan of Somerville, Mass., who is the president of OpenHelix, a company that trains people to use genomics software.
“I don’t think quiet reserve is serving us well anymore. Health issues, food issues, climate issues, energy issues — we have as much right to speak to these as anyone else, and added responsibility to do so, in my opinion.”
And ultimately, some said, doing nothing was not an option.
“I’m tired of saying we must make the best of a bad situation,” said Emily Nicholson, a geologist for an engineering firm in New Jersey who is driving down to Washington for the march.
“I recently became a scientist in order to leave a positive mark on the world, and it’s time I try harder to.”
