Trump presidency: main appointments, as well as WHO and climate positions, worry the scientific community
Like Donald Trump’s second presidential term Since his inauguration today, scientists around the world have issued warnings about the impact his policies could have on science, public health, climate and research funding.
Scientists are concerned about the consequences of the United States withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement – as it did under the first Trump administration – and the World Health Organization.
Trump’s nominees for key positions in federal science agencies have also caused consternation. There has been concern about the impact on science, with skeptics of vaccines. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. likely to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, supporting the federal government’s involvement in areas ranging from medical research to food safety.
Other nominees include Covid lockdown critic Jay Bhattacharyaproposed as director of the National Institutes of Health, and Lee Zeldinappointed director of the Environmental Protection Agency.
John-Arne Røttingen, CEO of Wellcome, said: “The United States has a critical role to play in advancing science and global health. The health security of all nations also depends on global collaboration.
“A Trump administration and a Department of Health led by Robert F Kennedy Jr will pose new challenges for science, health and equity. »
Rally for science
A US non-profit organization, the Union for Concerned Scientists, published two open letters last week mobilizing support for science ahead of Trump’s inauguration.
The firstsigned by more than 50,000 “science supporters, scientists and experts,” called on Congress to “oppose attempts to politicize or eliminate federal scientific roles, agencies and research that protect our health, our environment and our communities.”
A second letter spoke to 99 senators, some of whom play a role in confirming Trump’s proposed federal agency nominations, on behalf of 28 organizations that “support scientific integrity.” He asked to consider “respect for science”.
“In particular, we urge you to vote against nominees who lack the necessary qualifications, have serious conflicts of interest, or do not recognize any scientific consensus relevant to their agency,” it adds.
Opposing confirmations
The start of Zeldin’s confirmation hearings as Environmental Protection Agency administrator Friday drew criticism from environmentalists. The former congressman has a poor record on environmental legislation, as noted the American League of Conservation Voters.
“In his final role in government, Zeldin, then a member of Congress, regularly voted for more pollution and less public health protection. He opposed efforts to fund the National Flood Insurance Program even as sea levels rise. continue to threaten his own hometown (on Long Island) — and he voted to slash funding for the very agency he now claims to want to run,” said Melinda Pierce, legislative director of the environmental organization Sierra Club.
“Lee Zeldin called for the repeal of standards that protect clean air and clean water…We call on members of the United States Senate to oppose his confirmation and protect the lives and livelihoods of this generation and all future generations. »
Scientifically worrying
Researchers also expressed concerns to Research Professional News about Bhattacharya’s choice to lead the NIH, which describes itself as the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research.
Bhattacharya’s role in the debate over Covid lockdowns, in which he co-wrote an open letter calling for an alternative strategy protecting those most at risk while allowing those at minimal risk to “live their lives” life normally to strengthen their immunity”, saw him tagged by reviewer as “a pro-infection doctor” who wrongly claimed that “infection leads to permanent, strong immunity.”
“Given how bizarre Trump’s appointments to high office have been, Dr. Bhattacharya’s obvious lack of qualifications to be NIH director should come as no surprise,” Martin McKee, professor of European public health and director medical at the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine, told RPN.
“Scientifically, it is worrying that someone who was so wrong about the course of the pandemic finds himself in this position.”
Stephen Griffin, professor of cancer virology at the University of Leeds, also highlighted Bhattacharya’s stance on the pandemic as “particularly concerning, especially given the worrying proliferation of H5N1 influenza across the United States “.
McKee added: “Organizationally, this (the appointment) is also concerning given his lack of experience in leading something so complex. However, it is impossible to know what the consequences of this and other appointments could be.”
Loss on the world stage
Scientists also worry about the loss of American expertise and funding for global scientific collaborations. In particular, if the United States leaves the WHO – a process initiated by Trump during his first presidential term – it would likely have a huge impact. The United States is the largest donor country to the WHO, contributing $1.284 billion over the two-year period 2022-2023.
“U.S. health leaders bring tremendous technical expertise, leadership and influence, and their potential loss from the global stage would have catastrophic implications, leaving the United States and global health weaker,” he said. declared Røttingen.
He added: “The scale of the health challenges we all face means that it is in everyone’s interest that WHO can operate at full strength and with all countries as engaged members influencing their priorities. . »