Trump administration attacks on researchers’ scientific trigger reactions
“The risks of remaining silent at this decisive moment are much more important than the risks of expressing themselves,” explains a scientist concerning attacks by the Trump administration against science
St. Paul, Minnesota. State Capitol. Defend the scientific rally. Researchers, scientists and other supporters from the University of Minnesota protested the scientific scientific funding cuts by President Donald Trump.
Michael Soluk / UCG / Universal Images Group via Getty Images
Reduced funding,, mass fire and political edicts on what can be studied or spoken recently invited An open letter This was signed by a large band of the country’s main researchers, all members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.
“The voice of science should not be reduced to silence”, we read the letterwhich was published on March 31. “We all benefit from science, and we all lose if the country’s research company is destroyed.”
Until now, around 1,900 members of national academies have signed the open letter. The national academies themselves, which were Charter by Congress Provide scientific and technological advice, I have not signed. But a significant fraction of their overall membership of thousands of researchers, who were elected for their prowess and technical achievements, have done so.
On the support of scientific journalism
If you appreciate this article, plan to support our award -winning journalism by subscription. By buying a subscription, you help to ensure the future of striking stories about discoveries and ideas that shape our world today.
“In the three academies, there is a general concern about the impact of decrees and decisions, both on American science and on the well-being of the public, on our ability to continue to have clean air and clean water, (on) the economy“Explains the climatologist Benjamin Santer, who was previously at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and was one of the 13 scientists who co-wrote the letter.” All this is in danger. »»
During its first two months, the Trump administration has targeted the American research company in many ways, including the reductions in the financing of the National Institutes of Health, dismissal in agencies such as Environmental protection agencyTHE Department of Health and Social Servicesand the National Sciences Foundation And threats to university funding on equality of employment and diversity offices. President Donald Trump violated hormonal health studies like “Make transgender mice“In a March speech at the congress, and his administration has Prohibited words linked to climate science and racial equality in federal agencies and laboratories. These institutions included LLNL, where SANTER has published pioneer studies Document the effect of humans on the climate in the 1990s.
“Think about it. We can’t talk about reality,” said Santer. “We cannot talk about what is really going on in the real world that affects us all.”
From Albert Einstein To J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientists have long braved dangerous political moments in public life. For example, a lot nuclear scientists Controlled weapons throughout the Cold War. During The first Trump administrationMembers of the National Academy of Sciences, including SANTER, published two open letters which have decreed the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris climate agreement and Broader government attacks on science. The letter of March, however, represents a first in that it comes from members of the three national academies and aimed at the public and legislators under the new Trump administration.
“In the end, the scientific community must convince the congress that attacks against science are an attack on the regulatory authority of the congress. (Such attacks are) bad for their districts and a threat to members’ chances of winning a re -election, “said political scientist Matt Motta of the Boston University School of Public Health, who was not signatory to the new open letter. “I think this letter helps to ring this alarm and is probably a line of conduct which is worth taking – despite the potential risk of partisan reaction.”
In public inquiries, trust among scientists remains high compared to Trust Congress or Trump. There is A partisan division on opinions on science, however, with republican voters being more critical of federal agencies. “In fact, I would say that the objective of administration efforts is to harm researchers, in particular those of universities,” explains economist David Card of the University of California in Berkeley, who studied belonging to national academies And was not a signator of the Mars letter either. “For many supporters, (the open letter) will be interpreted as proof that the administration is doing the right thing.”
The concerns about the Trump administration’s attacks on their establishments and immigrant students have dissuaded certain scientists from signing the open letter, explains Steven H. Woolf, Emeritus Director of the Center on Society and Health at the Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine and one of the letter co-authors. According to the requests of the administration, the University of Columbia acquired from the reprimand of the students of the students and to the establishment of its study department of the Middle East, from South Asia and African under a new supervision in March. A researcher at the Harvard Medical School who was under a university visa in Russia been detained In an immigration detention center in Louisiana, and a Turkish student who studied childhood development at Tufts University was seized on a street by immigration officials To write an opinion article This criticized the United States policy towards Gaza.
“There are risks associated with the use of your voice in the United States in the spring of 2025,” said Santer. “I firmly believe that the risks of remaining silent at this decisive moment are much more important than the risks of expressing themselves.” *
“We respect the point of view of our members and their commitment to express themselves on these important questions,” wrote national academies concerning the open letter in a press release American scientist. Academies have committed to “non -support impartial scientific councils,” added the press release.
Beyond the open letters, scientists must reach Congress in person and through their scientific societies to postpone Trump, explains Jon Miller of the Social Research Institute of the University of Michigan. Patient defense groups must also hear scientists to push legislators, he said. “The contributions and the mentions of the campaign are much more effective than to sign petitions,” adds Miller.
*Publisher’s note (4/2/25): This sentence was modified after publishing for better clarifying the comments of Benjamin Santer.