{"id":4948,"date":"2017-04-18T06:49:06","date_gmt":"2017-04-18T10:49:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/umaine.edu\/marine\/?p=4948"},"modified":"2017-06-07T13:02:48","modified_gmt":"2017-06-07T17:02:48","slug":"march-science-going-will-sit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/umaine.edu\/marine\/2017\/04\/18\/march-science-going-will-sit\/","title":{"rendered":"The March for Science: Why Some Are Going, and Some Will Sit Out"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n

New York Times<\/p>\n

By MICHAEL ROSTON<\/a> <\/span><\/span>APRIL 17, 2017<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/header>\n

\n
\n
\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>
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.<\/span> Credit<\/span> Kim Raff for The New York Times <\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

The March for Science<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

The discussion was evident in thousands of responses submitted to NYTimes.com<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

Here is a summary of some themes that emerged in the responses and in follow-up interviews.<\/p>\n

Rising to a Political Moment<\/h4>\n

The March for Science organizers have stressed that their movement intends to be nonpartisan<\/a>. But many of the responses made clear that people who are planning to march are motivated by the election of Mr. Trump and what they see as his administration’s approach to science<\/a>, from his proposed budget<\/a> that cuts funding for the Environmental Protection Agency<\/a> and the National Institutes of Health<\/a>, to the president’s climate change views<\/a> and statements on the safety of vaccines<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

“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.<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
“I don’t think quiet reserve
\nis serving us well anymore.” Mary Mangan<\/cite><\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

“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.”<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

“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.<\/p>\n

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.”<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

“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.”<\/p>\n

Photo<\/span><\/p>\n
\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>
“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.<\/span> Credit<\/span> T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times <\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Many acknowledged ambivalence about connecting science and protest. But the moment felt urgent enough to motivate them to march.<\/p>\n

“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.”<\/p>\n

The Future of Funding for the Sciences<\/h4>\n

The March for Science was announced before the release of the administration’s proposed budget. But concerns about the future of science<\/a> funded by<\/a> the federal government<\/a> were on the minds of many respondents.<\/p>\n

“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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
“I think our time would
\nbe better spent if we all
\ntook a science skeptic
\nout for a cup of coffee.” Caitlin E. Littlefield<\/cite><\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

Others worried that an activist approach would backfire.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

“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.<\/p>\n