BOSTON – the official theme of the meeting of American association for the progress of scienceheld from February 13 to 15, “Science Shaping Tomorrow”.
The unofficial theme is “uncertainty”.
With thousands of scientists, defenders and political experts present, the AAAS is the largest scientific meeting to take place in the United States since the start of the second Trump administration. This occurs in a backdrop of Threats to funding supporting researchRating public online sources and a purge of federal workers.
Even if the meeting began, thousands of employees through the federal government have been dismissed, including scientists from the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Environmental Protection Agency as part of the plan from Trump to reduce the government.
“We are gathered in a moment of agitation. It’s a turmoil, “said AAAS CEO Sudip Parikh, in a welcome address on February 13. “I don’t want sugar.”
Joseph Francisco noted the chairman of the board of directors of the AAAS: “The unprecedented nature of the past few weeks has left us many of us in the community of uncertain, anxious and frightening sciences … these feelings are valid. “
The researchers with whom I spoke used words as “chaos”, “confusion” and “crazy” to describe the climate in their institutions.
“Right now, the dominant meaning is confusion,” explains Miles Arnett, who is working on a doctorate. in bio-engineering at the University of Pennsylvania. “I went to a panel today with people who have recently worked in government. No one knows what will happen, ”says Arnett. “It has a paralyzing effect.”
Some participants have moved away from where they work by talking about their experiences. A federal researcher turned his badge, so I couldn’t see where he was working before talking to me. Others refused to do their affiliations when they ask questions during scientific sessions.
“I had so many people who say to me:” I am here as a citizen, I do not say what Washington, DC
And in almost all scientific discourses, the presenters alluded to the political situation – If they did not respond squarely. In a session on distrust of science, political scientist Katherine Ognyanova of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ “ended essentially with saying:” Ok, well, there are more levels of disinformation than ever , and there are no daycare rails, so we are nice to screw ”, explains biologist Emma Courtney of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York. The speech ended with an illustration of a cloud of subtitled mushrooms, “the end”.
In addition to fear for their livelihoods and public security, scientists have expressed their fear for the long -standing prestige of the American scientific enterprise. Several speakers have cited an “social contract” from the post-second world war, when scientists and the government have agreed that public funding for basic research was a good idea and would end up leading to economic and technological advances.
Until recently, this feeling of intellectual freedom and opportunity in America Drew Stem students from around the world. But discussions in Reunion Aaas suggest that it could change quickly.
“People come to America because of the strength of science,” says Nada Salem, who comes from Canada and studies bioethics and medical ethics at the Harvard Medical School. Salem says she is now hearing more and more international scientists talking about leaving the United States. “It’s really sad.”
Some American scientists may also seek to leave the United States. “Every day, you wake up and see something new that is very overwhelming,” explains Aidan Zlotak, who works on a doctorate. In quantum physics at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts. “As soon as I finished my diploma, my first priority will be to get out of the country,” he said, adding that there are many research opportunities in quantum physics in Europe.
Act
Although there is a general agreement that American science is threatened, there is no consensus on what to do – or what can be done. Tolerance to uncertainty is important for TO DO Science, but uncertainty in the landscape is more difficult to tolerate for scientists.
There is a strong temptation among researchers to keep your head down, continue to do science and hope for the best. But many participants in Reunion expressed the desire for greater unity and collective action.
“Your silence will not protect you,” said epidemiologist Gregg Gonsalves of the Yale School of Public Health during a session on the political determinants of health. From astronomers to zoologists, “they come for all of us and the people we serve.”
The simple fact of being together and talking about how to adapt is useful for morale. “During a scientist meeting, the best thing you can do is talk about what you can Do it, ”says Zlotak.
Some efforts are increasing. The Union of Scientists concerned collects signatures for An open letter to Congress Oppose the actions of the Trump administration against science, including current layoffs as well as granting gels and proposed budget cuts. The letter has so far has more than 50,000 signatures. More than 80 participants in the meeting signed in the afternoon of February 15.
Another idea is to follow the health, the environment, the economy and other impacts of political actions, explains Matt Heid, director of the communications strategy at the Union of Countd Scientists in Cambridge, Mass.
“Everything that is going on will have an immediate impact, but also medium and long -term impacts that will hit each state,” explains Heid. Scientists should “continue to emphasize how when science is censored, when scientists are censored, people are injured”.
A pressing example is that the CDC epidemic intelligence service, which studies epidemics of diseases and health threats in the United States and in the world, faces traces of employment Even when the bird flu spreads.
Communication researcher David Karpf from George Washington University in Washington, DC urged scientists not to be afraid of talking about how research attacks affect them. “Speed things directly and publicly,” he said in a conference. The simple fact of stating the facts is enough. “The risk for individual scientists is relatively low if you want to say:” This is what happened, and this is what has been lost “. Get the framework that you are reasonable and that your opponent is absurd. »»
Some researchers always look at their words, in the light of Executive orders targeting language On diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as gender, race and climate change.
Dhara Patel, doctor in internal medicine at the Harvard School of Public Health, is looking for climate change and racial inequalities. When you ask for new grants or subsidy renewals, “What am I saying my project?” I don’t know what words I am supposed to use.
She also wants more collaboration between scientists. “Many organizations are trying to fight in their own way, but they are compartmentalized,” explains Patel. For example, efforts to preserve data that has been deleted from federal websites occur in many different places at the same time. It would be useful to centralize this data and work together, she says.
There is a precedent for collective action. In March 2017, after the first inauguration of Trump, scientists organized a March for science In Washington, DC and all over the world who has been assisted by more than a million people.
“I was just wondering, where is it?” What does everyone do? Where is everyone? Said JP Flores, a student graduated in biology at the University of Caroline du Nord Chapel Hill.
Flores therefore decided to start one. He connected with other graduate students who wanted to organize a walk on Bluesky. The group plans a rally called Defend science March 7 in Washington, DC, and in at least 30 other cities across the country.
“I had the impression that there were actions that individuals could take, but collective measures are the place where you can really make changes,” said Courtney by Cold Spring Harbor, one of the co- organizers.
The group collects a lot of support from individuals, but has more difficulty obtaining sponsorships and material support from institutions and universities. It’s different from the last time, says Flores.
But the issues are different now. In 2017, the dominant feeling was that science as an abstract entity was attacked. The current actions of the executive already affect the daily life of scientists. Established researchers whose laboratories rely on federal subsidies may be more afraid of expressing themselves than before, says Courtney. Students as they have more flexibility.
“It becomes more personal than a simple attack on business and belief in science in general,” explains Courtney. “I think many people have really similar goals right now by trying to protect the American scientific business from current decrees,” she said. “But I think the institutions find it difficult to try to sail in this uncertainty.”
The deputy editor -in -chief Cassie Martin contributed to report to this story.