Boston – Official meeting theme American Association for Science ProgressIt will be held from February 13th to 15th and will be “in the shape of science tomorrow.”
The unofficial theme is “uncertainty.”
With thousands of scientists, advocates and policy experts in attendance, AAAS is the largest scientific conference held in the United States since the beginning of the second Trump administration. It is happening against the backdrop of threats to funding to support research, scrub public data from online sources, and help purge federal workers.
Even as the meeting began, thousands of employees across the federal government had been fired, including scientists from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency.
“We’re gathering in moments of confusion. AAAS CEO Sudip Parikh said in his welcome address on February 13th. “I don’t want to sugar coat it.”
“The unprecedented nature of recent weeks has made many of us uncertain, uncertain and frightening in the science and engineering community. These feelings are It’s valid.”
The researchers I spoke to described the climate of their institutions in second-hand terms such as “chaos,” “confusion,” and “crazy.”
“The general feeling right now is confusing,” says Miles Arnett, who is working on a PhD. in bioengineering from the University of Pennsylvania. “I went to the panel today with people who worked in the government. No one knows what’s coming,” Arnett says. “It has a paralytic effect.”
Some participants distanced themselves from where they worked when talking about their experiences. A federal researcher looked back at his name badge and didn’t know where he was working before he spoke to me. Others refused to grant their affiliation when asking questions during science sessions.
“I told so many people, ‘I’m here, I’m not saying what my affiliation is,'” said the science advocacy of the based alliance of scientists. Melissa Barga, the person who is Washington DC
And in almost every science story, the presenter hinted at the political situation. In a session on mistrust of science, Catherine Oginanova, a political scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, said, “OK, well, there are more misinformation than ever, there are no guardrails. Screw-based,” and New York’s Cold Springs. says Emma Courtney, the biologist at the Harbor Institute. The lecture ended with an illustration of a mushroom cloud captioned “End.”
Scientists have expressed fears about their livelihoods and public safety, as well as the long-standing fame of American scientific companies. Several speakers agreed that public funding would be a good idea and would ultimately lead to economic and technological advances after World War II. cited the “social contract” in
Until recently, American sense of intellectual freedom and opportunity attracted STEM students from all over the world. However, discussions at the AAAS conference suggest that it could change soon.
“Because of the strength of science, people come to America,” says Nada Salem, a Canadian native who studies bioethics and medical ethics at Harvard Medical School. Salem says she’s now hearing more and more international scientists talking about leaving the United States. “I’m really sad.”
Some American scientists may be trying to leave the United States. “Every day I wake up and see something new that is very upsetting,” says Aidan Zlotach, who works on a doctoral degree. Quantum Physics at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts. “As soon as I get my degree, my number one priority is to get out of the country,” he said, adding that Europe has many opportunities for quantum physics research.
Take action
There is a general consensus that American science is under threat, but there is no consensus on what to do or what can be done about it. Resistance to uncertainty is important I’m doing it Although it is science, landscape uncertainty is difficult for scientists to tolerate.
Among researchers there is a strong temptation to bow their heads, continue science and hope for the best hope. However, many meeting attendees expressed a desire for greater unity and collective action.
“Your silence is not going to protect you,” said Greg Goncalves, an epidemiologist at Yale School of Public Health, during a session on political determinants of health. From astronomers to zoologists, “They come for all of us and the people we serve.”
Just being with us and talking about how to adapt can help morale. “In a scientist meeting, the best thing you can do is talk about what you do can Zlotak says.
Some efforts are ramping up. A coalition of stakeholders collects signatures Open letter to the parliament They oppose the Trump administration’s actions on science, including continuing terminations, proposals to freeze subsidies and budget cuts. This letter has so far more than 50,000 signatures. By the afternoon of February 15th, more than 80 meeting participants had signed on.
Matt Hyde, director of communication strategies for the Coalition of Concern Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is about tracking the health, environmental, economic and other impacts of political behavior.
“Everything that’s happening now has immediate impact, but there are medium and long-term consequences for all states,” Heid said. Scientists say, “When science is censored, when scientists are censored, people should continue to emphasize how they get injured.”
One immediate example is that CDC’s epidemic intelligence services, which investigate disease outbreaks and health threats in the US and worldwide, face job openings even as avian flu spreads.
David Karpf, a communications researcher at George Washington University in Washington, DC, urged scientists not to be afraid to talk about how attacks on research affect them. “It speaks things directly and publicly,” he said in his speech. It’s enough to just state the facts. “The risk to individual scientists is relatively low if you stick to saying, ‘This is what happened, this is what’s lost.’ Keep in the frame that you are reasonable and your opponent is ridiculous. ”
Some researchers still see their words Presidential orders targeting languages on diversity, equity, inclusion, as well as gender, race, and climate change.
Dara Patel, an internist at Harvard School of Public Health, studies climate change and racial inequality. When applying for a new grant or grant renewal, you say, “What do you think my project is doing? I don’t know the words I should be using.”
She also wants more collaborations between scientists. “Many organizations are trying to fight in their own way, but they’re silent,” says Patel. For example, efforts to store deleted data from federal government websites are made in many different locations at once. Centralizing that data and working together is useful, she says.
There is a precedent for collective action. In March 2017, after the first Trump inauguration, scientists organized a global march for science in Washington, DC and around the world, with over a million people present.
“I was asking myself, where is it? What are you guys doing? Where are you guys?” says JP Flores, a graduate student in biology at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill University.
So Flores decided to start one. He connected with other graduate students who wanted to organize marches rather than blueskiing. The group is planning a gathering called Stand up for science March 7th, in Washington, DC, and at least 30 other cities across the country.
“I felt there was an action that individuals could take, but collective action is a place where it can really make a difference,” says Courtney of Cold Spring Harbor, one of the co-organisations.
The group has attracted a lot of support from individuals, but struggled to get sponsorship and material support from facilities and universities. That’s different from last time, Flores says.
But the stakes are now different. In 2017, it was a general sense that science as an abstract entity was under attack. Current executive action is already affecting the daily lives of scientists. Established researchers whose labs rely on federal grants may be more afraid to speak up than before, Courtney says. Students like her are more flexible.
“In general, it’s becoming more personal than corporate attacks and beliefs about science,” Courtney says. “I think a lot of people have a really similar goal now to try to protect American scientific businesses from current executive orders,” she says. “But I think the agency is struggling to try to navigate that uncertainty.”
Associate Admin Editor Kathy Martin contributed a report to this story.
