On February 8th, Emory University's graduate psychology student Colette Delawarra nervously announced to the online world that she plans to protest nationally in the defense of science. “I've never done this before, but we have to be the change we want to see in the world,” she wrote in a post on the social media platform Bluesky.
A team of scientists quickly merged around her and formed a plan: meetings at the National Mall, satellite protests across the country, March 7th. They first threw a very rudimentary website because the visitor had to manually enter “www” or the web address had to cause an error. Within a few days, the (improved) site got so much traffic that it crashed.
The event, called Stand Up for Science, is like the revitalization of science marching that took place in cities around the world in April 2017, and isn't long before President Trump's first term. But this time, in a much more keen political situation and a post-Covid world, the protests are organized by a totally different team and have a clear vision.
“The spirit is the same,” Delawarra said. But she added, “Now we are in a position to defend against the attack.”
Many of the threats that mobilized scientists during the first Trump administration, including the extensive deletion of the federal database and a deep slash to the scientific budget, never passed. But this time, within weeks of the president's inauguration, Trump has already formed many of the federal scientific companies, funding a significant portion of his academic research.
Often, through executive orders, his administration has sought to terminate funding for global health programs, fire disease judges at the border, destroy climate policies, and suspend funds for nuclear protection. More than 1,000 workers from federal science agencies, including the National Park Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health, have been fired. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is widely seen as a vaccine skeptic and is currently the Secretary of Health.
Rather than leaving the position vacant for more than a year, as he did in his first semester, several scientific associations praised the position of scientific advisor for the rapid appointment of technical policy expert Michael Krazios' technical policy expert.
Still, the barrage of change has landed as a “gut punch,” Delawarra said. That Saturday morning in February – as the cold got cold on her phone, her coffee was drawn to the mirror in her bathroom, where she settled and thought of her reflection.
“Are you someone living by your values?” she asked herself. “If you truly believe that science is important to America as a scientist, what am I going to do about it?”
Margins for Science
The tradition of scientific activity led to anti-nuclear protests at the end of World War II through the environmental movement of the 1960s. “Historically, when the interests and livelihoods of scientists are threatened, they mobilize,” said Scott Frickell, a sociologist at Brown University who studies the relationship between science and society.
However, while the 2017 science march attracted an estimated 1 million people in cities around the world, unlike past moves, Dr. Frickell responded to a specific presidential administration rather than US policy.
Some scientists worried that taking that step would raise awareness of science as a partisan. In 2017, Robert Young, a geologist at Western Carolina University, published a Times essay expressing concern about March. “People who want to characterize scientists as merely another political interest group would use it as evidence of the case,” he said recently.
The ever-growing evidence suggests that scientists and scientific institutions engaged in political action influence the way they are perceived by the public. One study found that trust in scientists among Trump's supporters was that Nature, a well-known science journal, supported Joe Biden in 2020 for the president. Another study concluded that conservative attitudes towards scientists become more negative and more positive as a direct result of marching for science.
The organization held additional marches in 2018 and 2019, but they drew much less crowds. The move ultimately fledgled due to the competing perspectives among disseminated leaders on the politicization of science, what structures should be structured by organizations, what goals should be addressed next.
Eight years later, Jonathan Berman, one of the leaders of the 2017 Science March, said the Trump administration “moved from theoretical to experimental in terms of a direct attack on science.” Dr. Berman also expressed mixed feelings about the legacy of the movement that took place during Trump's first term.
“There are a few things I wanted to do differently,” he said. Leading explicit missions and policy goals, meeting members of Congress, and having a clearer message about the political nature of science.
“If they hadn't started organizing this, they would regret it more,” Dr. Berman said. “They showed me that they opened the door for a way that makes 'scientist activists' look like the kind of scientist you can do. ”
“It's all political.”
One of Trump's executive orders in particular struck a chord with Delawara. It was the removal of government-wide diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs, many of which supported the work of scientists from a historically underrepresented background. That obligation has led the National Science Foundation to review current grants that contain specific words commonly associated with these programs.
“The 'women' and 'women' were on that list,” she said. “They were my words. I am a woman. I am a woman.”
Delawarra had little experience in political activities. Through Blueski, she connected with four other researchers and joined in standing up for science. Those scientists were Sam Goldstein, a graduate student studying women's health at the University of Florida. Emma Courtney is a graduate student studying illness at the Cold Spring Harbor Institute in New York. Los Angeles-based psychologist Leslie Berndsen. JP Flores, PhD Bioinformatics students at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, had already gathered organising tips from their March 2017 leaders.
Stand Up for Science is different from the inspiration of 2017. The team is small, and members share a consistent vision and similar views on how to achieve it. The website sets out a clear set of policy requirements, including expanding scientific funding, restoring public access to scientific information, and restoring rejected federal scientists. They chose to protest Friday, when the US Senate is in session. And there is no doubt among organizers about the political nature of science.
“It's all political,” Dr. Bernten said. “We happened to not reach the present moment.”
However, in their movement's catchphrases, the group also emphasizes that the benefits of science extend across the political aisle. “Science is for everyone.”
“The law of gravity works for you, regardless of who you voted,” Delawarra said. If you use your phone today, or if you know the name of the bird outside the window last night or brush your teeth, she added, “it's the scientist's fault.”
Since February 8th, Stand Up for Science has gained over 50,000 followers on Bluesky, and has been approved by popular Science YouTuber Hank Green and recognized by Mark Cuban. Volunteers have organized satellite protests in more than 30 cities.
The organisational team submitted protest permission to Washington to a crowd of up to 10,000 people Friday afternoon, but it is unclear how many will appear. The event attracted speakers such as Bill Nye the Science Guy. Gretchen Goldman, chairman of the Coalition of Scientists of Concerns. Francis Collins, the recently retired leader of the National Institutes of Health.
“We stand up for science because we feel our backs are against the wall,” Flores said. “March 7th is not our ultimate goal. That's the beginning.”
