On February 8, Colette Delawalla, a graduate student at Psychology at Emory University, announced nervously to the online world that she was planning a national protest over science. “I have never done it before, but we have to be the change we want to see in the world,” he wrote in a position in Bluesky, a social media platform.
A team of scientists quickly merged around and formed a plan: a rally in the National Shopping Center, satellite protests across the country, March 7th. Within a few days, the (improved) location took such a large traffic that it crashed.
The event, named Stand Up for Science, is something of a rejuvenation of the journey of science that took place in cities around the world in April 2017, not too long in President Trump’s first term. But this time, in a very sharpened political climate and a post-Koudouni world, protests are organized by a completely different group and with a distinctive vision.
“His spirit is the same,” Ms Delawalla said. But, he added, “We are now able to be in the defense as opposed to the offense.”
Many of the threats that mobilized scientists during Trump’s first administration, such as the widespread deletion of federal databases and deep cuts in science budget, were never passed. But this time, within a few weeks of the presidential inauguration, Mr Trump has already reshaped much of the federal scientific business, which is funding a significant part of academic research.
Often, through executive orders, its administration has ended funding for global health programs, launching diseases of the nation’s borders, climate -based climate policy and tried to suspend funding for nuclear protection. More than a thousand workers in federal scientific services, including the National Park Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, have been fired. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is widely regarded as a skeptical vaccine, is now the Health Secretary.
Some scientific associations applauded the quick appointment of Michael Kratsios by Mr Trump, an expert in technological policy, in place of scientific adviser, instead of leaving the vacancy for more than a year, as he did during his first term.
Still, the barrier of changes landed as “bowel fists”, Ms Delawalla said. On Saturday morning in February – her coffee was growing cold as she fell on her phone – Ms Delawalla was pulled in the mirror of her bathroom, where she thought of her reflection.
“Are you someone who lives with your values?” she asked herself. “If I really believe as a scientist that science is important to America, what will I do about it?”
Course for science
The tradition of scientific activism extends behind the 1960s environmental movement to anti -nuclear protests at the end of World War II. “Historically, when the interests of scientists and the means of living are threatened, they are mobilized,” said Scott Frickel, a sociologist at Brown University, who studies the relationship between science and society.
But the march for science in 2017, which attracted about a million people to protests in cities around the world, was different from previous moves, Dr. Frickel said because it was in response to a particular presidential administration, not to US politics.
Some scientists were concerned that taking this step would increase the perception of science as a party. In 2017, Robert Young, a geologist at the University of Western Carolina, published an essay on The Times expressing concerns about the march. “Those who want to characterize scientists as another group of political interests will use it as proof of this case,” he said recently.
A growing body of evidence suggests that scientists and scientific institutions involved in political action influence the way they perceive the public. One study found that confidence in scientists among Mr Trump’s supporters declined after nature, a prominent scientific newspaper, approved Joe Biden for President in 2020.
The organization made additional marches in 2018 and 2019, but they drew much smaller crowds. The movement eventually disappeared, partly due to the competitive perspectives between a pervasive set of leaders about the structure that the organization should take, what goals should face the next and politicization of science.
Eight years later, Jonathan Berman, one of March’s leaders for science in 2017, said Trump’s administration “moved from the theoretical to the experimental in direct attacks on science”. Dr. Berman also expressed mixed feelings about the legacy of the movement that took place during Mr Trump’s first term.
“There are some things I wish I had done differently,” he said, as he leads with explicit missions and political goals, meeting with members of Congress and a clearer message about the political nature of science.
“I would have more regret if they had not started organizing this,” said Dr. Berman, referring to the new movement. “They have told me that he opened the door for a way to see the ‘scientist-activist’ as a kind of scientist you can be.”
‘Everything is politically’
One of Mr Trump’s executive commands, in particular, hit a string for Ms. Delawalla: removing the programs of diversity, equality, inclusion and accessibility to the entire government, many of which supported the work of scientists from historical underpinnings. This command has led the National Foundation of Sciences to review grants containing certain words usually linked to these programs.
“” Woman “and” Woman “were in this list,” he said. “They were my words. I’m a woman. I’m a woman.”
Ms Delawalla had little experience in political activism. Through Bluesky, she was associated with four other researchers, and together they formed science. These scientists were Sam Goldstein, a postgraduate student who studied women’s health at the University of Florida. Emma Courtney, a postgraduate student studying illness at the Cold Spring Harbor Labs in New York. Leslie Berntsen, a Los Angeles -based psychologist. and JP Flores, Ph.D. Student at the North Carolina University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, who had already gathered advice from March 2017 leaders.
The stand up for science differs from its inspiration in 2017. The team is small and the members share a stable vision, with similar views on how to achieve it. The site determines a clear set of political requirements, including the expansion of science funding, the restoration of public access to scientific information and the restoration of redundant federal scientists. They chose to protest on Friday when the US Senate is in a meeting because it has a clearly defined audience -target: US policymakers. And there is no doubt among the organizers about the political nature of science.
“Everything is politically,” said Dr. Berntsen. “We didn’t get to the current moment by accident.”
But on the label of their movement, the team also stresses that the benefits of science are expanding throughout the political corridor: “Science is for everyone”.
“The law of gravity works for you, no matter who you voted for,” Ms Delawalla said. If you used your mobile today or you knew the name of a bird outside your window or brush your teeth last night, he added: “It’s because of a scientist.”
Since February 8, Stand Up For Science has gathered more than 50,000 Bluesky fans, approved by Hank Green, popular Science YouTuber and recognized by Mark Cuban. Volunteers have organized satellite protests in more than 30 cities.
The organizational team has filed a protest in Washington for a large number of up to 10,000 on Friday afternoon, although it is not sure how many people will appear. This event has attracted speakers such as Bill Nye the Science Guy. Gretchen Goldman, President of the Union of Interested Scientists. and Francis Collins, the recent retired leader of the National Institutes of Health.
“We are lifting science because we feel that our backs are against the wall,” Mr Flores said. “March 7 is not the ultimate goal for us. It’s the beginning.”
