The March for Science: Why some are going, and why some will sit out
The March for Science on Saturday 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 Donald 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. RISING TO A POLITICAL MOMENT
The March for Science organizers have stressed that their movement intends to be nonpartisan. But many of the responses made clear that people who are planning to march are motivated by the election of Trump and what they see as his administration’s approach to science, from his proposed budget that cuts funding for the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health, to the president’s climate change views and statements on the safety of vaccines.
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.”
“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.”
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 politi-
cization of our work,” said Daniel Sharoh, an American working on a Ph.D. in cognitive neuroscience in the Netherlands.
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.
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 science funded by the 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 other events. None were willing to be quoted by name, fearing retaliation in the current administration.
They said they wished 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.
Others worried that an activist approach would backfire.
Melissa Flagg, who served in the Defense Department in the Obama administration, said the march was creating a “you’re with us or against us” mentality around research.
But one professor who has received research support from the National Institutes for Health 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 STARTING TO 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.
But a number of people wrote that they believed that the organizers had done a poor job of addressing science’s interaction with 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.”
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.
“I think our time would be better spent if we all took a science skeptic out for a cup of coffee,” said Caitlin E. Littlefield, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Washington who is researching how forests respond to climate change.
Getting organized as scientists was 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.”