With the end of President Donald Trump's first year in the White House, the relationship between the President and the US research community is very poor. This is a breakdown of epic proportions, with no fix in sight.
Among other summaries of the editors of SCIENCE magazine For 2017 there was also a summary of the bad things that happened this year. And among them - Donald Trump. "With the end of President Donald Trump's first year in the White House, the relationship between the President and the US research community is very poor. This is a collapse of epic proportions, when the correction is not in sight." The editors warn.
One of the reasons for the alienation is Donald Trump's actions on issues related to science: he withdrew from the climate agreement and significantly cut the budget of the main research agencies. In addition, many scientists are alarmed by the staffing of the main research centers - Trump has chosen several people with no scientific background to oversee key federal agencies, nor has he appointed a science advisor.
These developments are due to the president and his advisers not caring about science or its contribution to improving the health, prosperity and security of the nation. This is a reversal of the trend of support that science has received from policymakers on both sides of the political spectrum.
The personal dislike that many scientists feel towards the president because of his disdain for science has reduced many of them' appetite for government positions. An informal survey of 66 prominent scientists in the US revealed that half of them would refuse an offer to work for Trump. This is a surprisingly high percentage, considering the historically positive attitude among the community to public service.
Many of the scientists are torn between the desire to provide the government with the best possible advice on scientific issues and the fear that their efforts will be in vain. "I'm having trouble understanding how to interact with the Trump administration," admits Shirley Tillman, a molecular biologist and president emeritus of Princeton University. "I had no difficulty with previous Republican administrations because, despite political differences, they had faith in the soundness and commitment of scientific research." Says Tillman, who identifies as a Democrat, "I don't have the same confidence in the Trump administration."
"It is critical that scientists work with the White House to set priorities for the president's science budgets," says Arden Bement, from the National Institute of Standards (NIST), and former advisor to the National Science Foundation (NSF) under President Bush: "Unfortunately, the president will resist the advice, will not understand them, or distort them for personal and political reasons. It will be fruitless and frustrating.”
It is impossible to generalize Trump's research policy in one basket. On the one hand, he promised to maintain the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget and appointed professional people, including Scott Gottlieb as head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Brenda Fitzgerald as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), appointments of people who understand what their agency is doing.
In other areas, it seems that a special effort has been made to place deniers at the head of agencies - such as Scott Pruitt appointed to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Rick Perry appointed to lead the Department of Energy (DOE) which oversees, among other things, the US Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA). The head of NASA, former congressman James Bridenstine will also politicize the space agency. The assessment is that this is not negligence, but intentional."
Trump also failed to fill the position of director of the White House Office of Science and Technology, which has traditionally also served as the president's scientific advisor. But many scientists say they prefer the job to be unmanned than to be filled by someone unqualified. In any case, this is further proof that the president believes he does not need scientific advice."
The plenary session of the Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine in Washington testifies to the attitude - in 2008, three ministers in the Bush administration also participated in the meeting, but this time, although several representatives of the Trump administration were invited, not a single representative survived the entire day of the meeting.
See more on the subject on the science website:
- Are your findings science or evidence based? You will not receive a budget from the US government
- Trump is performing shock therapy on science and the scientific and environmental agencies
- US withdrawal from the climate agreement - three scenarios
- The war over the facts undermines the foundations of democracy
2017 summary on the science website:
- Neutron star merger - breakthrough of the year according to SCIENCE magazine
- Drought, hurricanes and Trump: 2017 summary in the environment
- 2017 in space: the chairman of the space agency is optimistic about the communication satellite program and the SpaceIL project
- 2017: SpaceX's incredible year
- 2017 in space - the end of the Cassini mission to Saturn
22 תגובות
Freedom of speech is one thing, the extinction of the academic freedom of the scientists is another.
The damage caused to humanity following the loss of freedom of expression and democracy due to articles like these, is seven times more severe than the damage that Trump caused (if caused) to humanity by opposing science.
What exactly is changing? Does the EPA stop chasing the scientists instead of hiring them? Is global warming denial over? Has the decision to allow factories to pollute rivers been changed?
My father gave up the respondents,
Half a year has passed and much of what you wrote is changing before your eyes.
Therefore, I would not post biased political articles on a site that is supposed to be free of politics.
My opinion is that every decision should be made according to science and not against it. And I don't care if it's right-wing, left-wing, black or white, Chinese or Japanese.
Without a single word being said in the article, we all already know the political views of the author of the article, Avi Blizovsky.
I promise you, science will continue to advance with or without Trump, and with or without Avi Blizovsky.
To the great scientist who prefers sending a man into space over "exploration"? It is interesting that the relevant scientists in Israel prefer to specialize in the miniaturization of satellites or maybe they too are just traitors who underestimate the recognition of Jerusalem?
And be careful, in science you usually don't deal with the right or the left. Dealing with facts.
There will always be differences of opinion. It's human nature.
Likewise miracles regarding "Trump was elected solely due to the hatred for Hillary".
What are you basing your claims on? Please indicate if working. If you have no established information, you can write "I assume that...". If you cannot know a certain detail for sure - you assume that this is the case because it makes sense to you.
What happened to some objectivity?
Let's not forget that both sides did not hesitate, as befits an election, in denigrating the human intellect. This is my opinion on it.
In matters of science: the problem in terms of science in the US is a very serious thing and not because of research institutes, but those who participate in those institutes. What I posted in my previous response about Mi'zio Kaku's claims (from 2011); implies that the problem is deeper than it seems.
I recommend looking at something interesting on this topic:
https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17306/static/report/nsf17306.pdf
I recommend you look at what Michio Kaku said about 7 years ago.
The problem is much more serious than just Trump (this is before Trump was elected).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0Y9j_CGgM
What will happen next? We'll see. Trump has to close a considerable deficit that opened up in the last terms in the US due to wars and a medical insurance program. Medical insurance came too early, at a time when the US must drastically reduce its deficit.
Mr. Beli Sobsky - you should be ashamed of this political article on a website that is supposed to be scientific!
This whole stupid article is motivated by the hatred that very certain circles have (liberals, 0mulans, socialists and all kinds of listists) and there is nothing and half a thing between it and reality!
Shame on you!
Click Byte. It's a shame that the site goes down to this level.
To the point: when the scientists decide to intervene in politics and science becomes a tool in the hands of political groups (see your address on the ban on the use of the word 'gender', etc.) they should not be surprised that there is a backlash from the other side of the political map.
Either you are above politics or you are not. There is no middle ground.
I guess that's also what Zahar meant to say.
Oh, and of course following the claim that the basis is not factual - the article was written by the editors of Science as part of a larger article about the events in science in 2017
I guess you can't blame them for not sticking to the facts.
http://vis.sciencemag.org/breakthrough2017/?__utma=89778187.159741502.1514718019.1514718036.1514718036.1&__utmb=89778187.0.10.1514718036&__utmc=89778187&__utmx=-&__utmz=89778187.1514718036.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)| utmccn = (direct) | utmcmd = (none) & __ utmv = - & __ utmk = 61504613
Zohar
Unfortunately, there is a very strong basis for attacks against Trump. The man has already caused a lot of damage, such as approving factories without testing their environmental impact and up to a brain drain from the USA. In addition - the little esteem that the USA had in the world is going down the drain.
Trump was elected solely because of the hatred for Hillary.
Zohar, it's not a matter of left and right, science needed to be the common denominator and then everyone would add their political or economic opinions to it, science turned under Trump from a tree of knowledge into another opinion, which has the same weight as vanity. it's dangerous.
By the way, the mop that returns is the applied mop - and this is what killed the Roman Empire, which stopped developing the science that flourished under the Greeks, and was content with technological improvements.
The colleges are infected with an extremely extreme left-wing democratic structure and this is the reason for disconnection.
However, the return of the companies with the funds, the investment in the army and the infrastructure will inevitably generate a cash flow for the MOP.
It seems that there is a trend of anti-Trump articles on the site of science articles without a reasonable factual basis... one can only criticize the decline in the standards of the site
Indeed, let's put it in perspective, his support for NASA is important, but it also has a price - the cessation of Earth exploration by NASA, and besides, it's null and void compared to the damages.
The main thing is that people publish only bad things, but also forget the good things. A bit of objectivity and facts versus personal opinions.
He does contribute a lot regarding the expedition to Mars.
Let's not forget that the one who made extensive cuts is precisely Obama and not Trump!
Obama chose to stop the continuation of the issue of shuttles and sending people into space. He canceled a lot of future and interesting NASA programs!
He saw it as a waste of money, so NASA and the like had to deal with the possibilities of sending probes instead!
There was a budget problem due to the US war in Iraq and all sorts of other places due to ISIS and the like. Obama chose the main thing to promote mandatory health insurance in the US which does not really work as he said it would. She is not as effective as he expected her to be. Obama did not choose to cut from other budgets as Trump chose. He will cut from UNRA and the Israel Defense Forces.
/www.aaas.org/news/science-and-technology-funding-under-obama-look-back
Trump is really not a cakewalk, but let's put into perspective what he has actually done so far!
The field of research in the United States has been the focus of ridicule due to the enormous amount of money wasted on non-science related fields. Under Obama, funds would be transferred without inspection. Regarding the climate agreement - changes were needed, because Trump did not want to harm the workers' jobs. The initiators just had to work a little harder and would have gotten his cooperation.
Not to mention that the comments do not appear on the right side like before and you have to go to recent comments, and also that the response itself is more difficult to write than before and part of the response does not appear clearly..
Avi,
Another thing - note that on the "Recent Comments" page, each comment is duplicated twice (sometimes even three), it's annoying and interferes with following the sequence of comments, please fix this bug.
It's really sad to have a president who is so anti-science, let's hope he doesn't cause too much damage during his tenure.
Avi,
There is really no indication (on the main page) of the number of comments next to each article, is it complicated to sort it out?