This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Activism

Science March Or Not To Science March

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
February 4, 2017
Filed under
Science March Or Not To Science March

Scientists plan to march on Washington — but where will it get them?, Washington Post
“Mike Brown, the Caltech astronomer who famously “killed Pluto” with his discovery of dwarf planets in the outer solar system, said he still has misgivings. He’s not opposed to activism in general — Brown took his daughter to the Women’s March in Los Angeles in January and called it “one of the most amazing things I’ve ever done.” But he’s not sure marching is the best way for scientists to advocate for their work. “Having a bunch of scientists marching takes the interesting thing about scientists away from them,” he said. “These are educators and teachers and scientists [whose] super power is teaching you cool things about the universe around you.” Maybe instead of marching, researchers should take Young’s advice and conduct a teach-in instead, he mused. “I don’t know,” he said. “The attacks on science are pretty unprecedented, and maybe all these softer ideas are just crazy.”
March for Science
@ScienceMarchDC

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

16 responses to “Science March Or Not To Science March”

  1. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    Here’s a letter my daughter wrote that was published in Florida
    Today:

    I grew up on Merritt Island, but today I am a physics graduate student at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. My collaborators and I work together to figure out what the universe is made of and how it works. Interpreting the data produced by particle physics experiments is a formidable challenge made easier by the invaluable resource of colleagues like my Iranian friend Fatemeh Elahi.

    As a theorist, Fatemeh creates the models that explain and give meaning to our experimental results. Her contributions to the field are made possible by her exceptional intelligence and expertise. If Fatemeh is replaced by someone less capable, it will slow down scientific progress for everyone.

    The U.S. does not employ foreign researchers out of charity. We employ them out of necessity. The recent and sudden change in our immigration policy will prevent some of the world’s most promising researchers from coming here. In the end, our nation will suffer for it.

    People are different. But when we become colleagues and friends, those differences are easily seen for what they are: usually superficial, often enriching. America, physics and I are better off having known Fatemeh.

    Anna Woodard, Chicago

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      You should be very proud of young Anna- and Chicago isn’t a good place for a Florida girl!

      Our current malaise over immigration is a natural consequence of the scare tactics used by the federal government. Beginning with 43, we have terrified ourselves, thinking that any one of us could be blown to bits. And any second now!

      But that’s not true. The odds are better of winning the lottery. We are scared little rabbits and meanwhile have allowed our police forces to militarize, compromised personal liberty, and lionized every ‘First Responder’, all the while allowing our ugly underbelly of racism to creep in, informing our immigration policies.

      In a larger sense working people have been so marginalized that many seek a scapegoat. And at the same time, hispanic populations are quickly becoming a dominant force in America politics, providing a perfect foil for racist leadership.

      Middle America fears the browning of America.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Actually its not even new. The first emergency Congressional legislation on immigration was the Immigration Act of 1917. The reason given were the same as now, fear of lost of jobs and how immigrates were changing American culture and society. It just comes and goes in waves generally linked to the economy or foreign affairs. We are riding a new wave now. It will pass as the others have.

  2. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    Public awareness and media coverage?

  3. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    In my opinion a March for Science is about as wise as stepping out into the open and waving a flag in front of a hungry T-Rex.

    Republicans really don’t care about the bulk of federal spending on science, indeed it even gives them bragging rights about bringing the bacon home when a local university or research institute gets a research grant. Their argument is mostly with climate research, and even there it is more about the solutions scientists are advocating for reducing carbon use, and by implication consumers’ lifestyles, than the science. If the researchers just published their results and didn’t speak out about it they would probably be ignored. Indeed, I expect much of what NASA does will be ignored as the focus appears to be on the EPA and Dept. of Energy climate change regulations and solutions.

    But becoming active and making noise, especially in terms of attacking the Trump Administration – well that is the equivalent of waving a flag in front of a T-Rex, with the same predictable results.

    • Coracle says:
      0
      0

      Ignoring the assault of this administration on science across the board is not a useful tactic. Staying quiet in hopes of not being noticed is naive. Staying quiet and letting only climate research be denigrated or destroyed is irresponsible – and similarly naive.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Science is respected when scientists stay above politics. That is why there is no assault on astronomy, physics or biotech science.

        The only assault on science is on climate science because the climate scientists chose to get in the mud with the politicians. Now they are reaping the results. But it would be dumb for other scientists to double-down on their mistake and join them in the bog.

        • Coracle says:
          0
          0

          Your first sentence is simply untrue. A small number of climate scientists have engaged openly in political discourse, yet it is the entire discipline that is being trashed by a one partisan political side, regardless of the activism levels of the scientists involved.

          Some of the antiscientific arguments within climate do attack or deny basic physics (e.g. radiative transfer, and biology, not to mention attacks on GMO safety to vaccines from other directions and groups. So the second sentence is also not true, and second paragraph is fundamentally flawed.

          It would be naive for scientists to pretend that just because it’s not controversial today, their work is safe from being politicized by someone who believes they have something to gain by denying, undermining, or compromising their work. Especially in an administration where respect for fact and critical thinking is so abysmal.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            You do know its mostly liberal Democrats that assault GMO (biology) science and are anti-nuke (physics). BTW where was your outrage when President Obama reduced funding for research on nuclear waste or GMOs for political reasons? Or did you agree with him on cutting science research in those areas because he increased funding for your climate research?

            As for your march, it would probably be good for scientists to get out of the laboratory and get some exercise swinging signs, chanting slogans, maybe setting some trash fires to get media attention. But what do you really expect to see as results? Do you expect the public to bow down and ask forgiveness for their blasphemy against science. To say it is OK to let government funded scientists to determine if they will continue to have good paying jobs or not? Or do you even expect massive increases in funding?

            The more likely result will be for the public to see scientists as just another special interest group complaining because their entitlements and power are going away with the draining of the swamp. And build more support for President’s Trump’s efforts to drain it.

          • Coracle says:
            0
            0

            “You do know its mostly liberal Democrats that assault GMO (biology) science and are anti-nuke (physics).”
            I do indeed (and thank you for helping prove that your second sentence – “there is no assault on astronomy, physics or biotech science.” – was false). I brought my examples up specifically because attacks on science are not, as I said, all from one direction or group. The process of science itself is apolitical, and non-partisan, and partisan and/or political attacks can and do come from different quarters.

            “BTW where was your outrage…”
            If we were having a conversation about that subject at that time, you’d have known I didn’t care for those decisions either. Do you equate politically colored funding decisions with assaults on science? Because if you do, then you’re arguing against your own second paragraph in the previous post. If you don’t then it’s not relevant to the discussion.

            You make assumptions about “[my] climate research” and “[my] march”. I’m not a climate researcher, nor am I an organizer of the march. Your ignorant denigration and stereotyping of scientists is one reason the march needs to happen. Your insinuation that “trash fires” would be a feature of the march is rather malicious and inflammatory nonsense.

            The results I hope to see from the march are to improve communication between scientists and the public. Promoting the value of critical thinking, and the contribution of evidence based analysis to understanding of how the world works. Ideally it will enable and encourage scientists to engage the public (and vice versa) to a higher and long-lasting level of mutual understanding, and help better inform people who need to make a variety of different decisions.

            As for the inquisition:
            “Do you expect the public to bow down and ask forgiveness for their blasphemy against science” Who are “they”? The use of “blasphemy” also denotes a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of the nature of science itself. But aside from the ridiculous, no “bowing down” is being sought by anyone.

            “To say it is OK to let government funded scientists to determine if they will continue to have good paying jobs or not?”
            The question itself denotes fundamental ignorance of how funding for science works. “Gov’t funded scientists” don’t control agency budgets, nor do individuals independently determine how much money goes their own or any particular way.

            “Or do you even expect massive increases in funding?” Flat has been the new up for many programs for many years now. No one I know believes the march is the key to funding increases. No one I know expects increases during this administration – quite the opposite. Most hope merely to minimize inevitable losses, and that showing the value of and support for science is one of the ways of doing that.

            “The more likely result will be for the public to see scientists as just another special interest group”
            That’s certainly one risk of the march – and guaranteed to be one way the march is attacked no matter its final size. If it’s merely a small group of scientists showing up, the group becomes easy to marginalize. If however, the march consists of scientists, and those who value science (a much larger group), then it becomes more powerful. If it includes even a fraction of the people who _benefit_ (which is everybody), and understand where that benefit comes from, then it could be significant indeed.

            One last point. No scientist I know considers their work an entitlement. Thinking they do is yet another fundamental misunderstanding on your part.

          • Tmos says:
            0
            0

            So how are you going to spin these revelations that NOAA lied and manipulated the date? The whistleblower is a man called Dr John Bates, who until last year was one of two NOAA ‘principal scientists’ working on climate issues.

          • Coracle says:
            0
            0

            NOAA didn’t lie or manipulate anything.
            Berkeley Earth: https://www.carbonbrief.org
            ICARUS: https://icarus-maynooth.blo
            Several others: http://climatefeedback.org/

            Even Bates himself – your ‘whistleblower’ – says there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”

  4. Jackalope3000 says:
    0
    0

    Look at the list of people who developed the atomic bomb. The world’s smartest people fled fascism, found a welcoming place here and enabled the US to become the world’s dominant power. Seems like the Trump administration is making a concerted effort to reverse that.

  5. gelbstoff says:
    0
    0

    I don’t think is prudent for scientists to go marching. The Trump administration has not done anything nefarious against science yet (other than some unfortunate Cabinet selections and then the OSTP candidates….). However, even if they start behaving like the Bush administration, scientists should not march. We should write, and write often.
    G.