To March or Not to March for Science?
National demonstrations prompt enthusiasm, debate
Science advocates in Copley Square in February 2017 for a Rally to Stand up for Science. Photo by Jessica Rinaldi/the Boston Globe via Getty Images
When stem cell and molecular biologist A. (she has asked us not to reveal her full name out of concern for future immigration status) came to the United States for a postdoctoral fellowship at BU, she didn’t imagine that she’d be attending quite so many marches. But as a scientist and immigrant—currently forbidden to travel freely into and out of the United States by the Trump administration’s travel ban—she has already felt compelled to stand up for climate science and to speak up on how the ban has affected her and her peers. “It’s kind of funny, because I have never been to marches before,” she says. “I never felt like I had to do such a thing.”
On April 22, A., driven by her sense that scientific research “is not valued as much as it used to be,” will be rallying again, this time at the March for Science. The march is an international event, with a central gathering on the Washington Mall in the nation’s capital, and 480 satellite marches, among them one on the Boston Common that’s expected to draw 50,000 people. “I think it’s a good initiative, and perhaps it will lead to something positive for science,” says A., who plans to attend the Boston March with a handful of colleagues. “Scientists have not been participating like they should have been, and for once they are speaking up.”
Alarmed by the Trump administration’s proposed budget, which would slash federal funding for science and humanities research, and dismayed by government appointees who show open contempt for evidence-based policy, like Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt’s rejection of established climate change research, scientists—traditionally a cautious, apolitical group—are starting to speak out. “We all now feel like there’s much more onus on us to advocate for facts, for science, for truth, in a way that we didn’t feel was necessary before,” says Gloria Waters, a BU vice president and associate provost for research. “Scientists need to have a greater voice, and let people know what they’re doing for the public good.”
While some welcome the March for Science as part of this political awakening, others worry that it may convey an anti-Trump message, which could alienate some conservatives, politicize science, jeopardize funding, and further polarize the country. Kyle Pedro (MED’19), a PhD candidate in microbiology and part of the Immunology Training Program, says he actively follows politics, “cares about science and evidence-based policies, and finds it really frustrating when politicians seem to be making decisions that are not based on evidence, or making policies that are not based on evidence.”
Charles River Campus
Noon: BU community gathers at Metcalf Science Center plaza, 590 Comm Ave, then proceeds to Boston Common.
Medical Campus
1 p.m.: MED affiliates gather at the Boston Public Library (Copley side), then proceed to Boston Common.
Boston March for Science
1 to 2 p.m.: Parkman Bandstand kid-centric entertainment.
2 to 4 p.m.: Main rally with speakers and music at main stage, science activities for kids at the Kids’ Corner.
Despite that frustration, Pedro has not yet decided whether to attend the March for Science. “There are real concerns,” he says, adding that he and others have been influenced by a widely read January 31 opinion column in the New York Times titled “A Scientist’s March on Washington Is a Bad Idea.” The column, by coastal geologist Robert S. Young, who had an unpleasant brush with politics after releasing a 2010 report on sea level rise, warned that the march “will only serve to trivialize and politicize the science we care so much about, [and] turn scientists into another group caught up in the culture wars.”
“I remember seeing that article and thinking, man, is this really a good idea?” says Pedro. “While this march is intended to be nonpartisan, I think it’s a reaction to Donald Trump and the Republican Party gaining control of Congress, and some of the policies that they put forward. I think it has a partisan stance, regardless of whether that is what the organizers want from it.”
Nathan Phillips, a College of Arts & Sciences professor of earth and environment, had similar concerns after reading the Times editorial. “Early on I was thinking this march might not be a good idea, because it will make scientists look like just another special interest group who are out there asking for their cut of the federal pie,” he says. “But then I started thinking that it’s not only about scientists; it’s about science. And everyone should be a supporter of science.”
March organizers and partners have taken great pains to promote the march as a proscience, nonpartisan event. Its mission statement calls for supporters to “unite as a diverse, nonpartisan group to call for science that upholds the common good.” More than 170 scientific organizations have signed on as partners, including major professional societies like the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Geophysical Union, the Society for Neuroscience, and the American Physical Society. AAAS chief executive officer Rush Holt, a physicist and former US representative from New Jersey, has been a notably outspoken proponent, urging members to attend the march and make “it positive, nonpartisan, inclusive, and diverse.” The AAAS is also holding a full day of science advocacy and communication workshops in Washington, D.C., on April 21, the day before the march.
Other professional societies have taken strong stands as well: the American Association of Physical Anthropology, holding its annual conference in New Orleans on April 22, has canceled the plenary talk so attendees can attend the local satellite march.
Some researchers say that such overt endorsements from professional societies and scientific leaders make them uncomfortable and put inappropriate pressure on them to attend the march. On the other hand, many say that the endorsement of national associations has helped allay their concerns about the march. BU anthropology PhD candidate Elizabeth Crocker (GRS’17), director of communications for the Boston satellite march, says: “I can tell my department, ‘The American Anthropological Association has endorsed the march,’ and when they hear that, their attitude changes from, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ to, ‘Well, let’s talk about this.’”
Crocker says she hopes that the march will be a turning point for science, one that ultimately leads to more open, productive conversations among scientists, policymakers, and the general public. Phillips agrees. “Providing more data is not the solution,” he says. “It’s about communication. It’s about relating to the public. I think that’s the ingredient for success in the March for Science: it is about science, it is about scientists, but scientists are diverse—we’re parents, we’re brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers. We are part of the community, and we care about the same things.”
Comments & Discussion
Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.