All right, welcome back everyone for another deep dive.
Today, we're gonna be looking at something pretty complex.
We're diving into the potential impacts
of a second Trump term, specifically on science in the US.
So to do that, we've got a whole stack of articles.
We've got nature, we've got the hill,
inside higher ed, aip.org, even NPR has some thoughts on this.
And from reading through these sources,
a few really interesting themes have popped up.
I think there's a lot of concern about funding cuts,
some anxieties about specific cabinet appointments,
and this big question of how international collaboration
might fare, and well, a pretty politically charged climate.
To help us unpack all of this, we've got our expert here,
whose insights on science policy are just invaluable.
Yeah, well, thank you.
Especially given the complexities of this topic.
It's certainly a fascinating issue.
There are a lot of facets to it for sure.
The intersection of science and politics
always brings its own set of challenges.
Yeah, no, absolutely.
I think it'd be good to start it.
It would be good to have kind of a quick recap
of Trump's first term.
I remember being a bit of a roller coaster ride,
nature, for example, they point out those attempts
to slash research funding for the NIH and NSF.
Now those are pretty significant agencies
in the science world.
Yes, absolutely.
Those proposed cuts, although ultimately rejected
by Congress, really sent a strong signal
about the administration's priorities.
And then there was the China Initiative.
Oh yeah, inside higher ed brought that up as well.
And they were suggesting that it created
this real sense of anxiety,
especially around research security.
Yes, the initiative was intended
to safeguard US interests in a research and technology.
But it faced a lot of criticism.
It was criticized for unfairly targeting researchers,
specifically researchers of Chinese descent,
and really fostered this climate of suspicion
within academic institutions.
Absolutely, and we can't forget, of course,
Trump pulling the US out of the Paris Agreement.
The Hill highlighted that as a major international concern.
It put the administration's stance on climate change,
front and center, really.
Yeah, it signaled a real departure
from the global consensus on climate action.
That agreement had been such a major step
towards international collaboration
on this really critical issue of climate change.
Yeah, and then, of course, the kind of outfit in the room,
the COVID-19 pandemic, and the administration's response.
That period really brought the tension
between science and politics to the forefront.
The administration's approach sometimes
contradicted public health guidance,
and it faced a lot of scrutiny.
It definitely felt like a very turbulent time for science.
But I think it's interesting
how the scientific community reacted to that.
Oh, absolutely, we saw remarkable resilience.
Researchers mobilized to communicate their findings.
They advocated for funding,
and really pushed back against policies
that were deemed detrimental to scientific progress.
So it was almost maybe a galvanizing experience.
Like it forced greater awareness of the need for scientists
to be involved in policy and public discourse.
It certainly highlighted the importance
of scientists engaging beyond the lab,
not just staying in their research silos.
Now, as we look towards a potential second term,
these articles are raising some new concerns.
There are definitely anxieties bubbling up.
Yeah, let's dig into those.
What are some of these anxiety,
like these sources are flagging?
So one prominent concern
revolves around the potential impact
of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s appointment.
The Hill is particularly worried
about his stance on vaccines.
Nature goes so far as to call his potential influence
especially dangerous,
especially for low income countries
that are dependent on organizations
like the World Health Organization.
Absolutely, another area of concern is research security.
Inside higher ed suggests that we might see
further restrictions on international collaborations,
especially with China.
This is interesting because NPR actually focus on
how much the US relies on foreign talent,
specifically in STEM fields.
They discussed the H-1B visa program
and how those visas often used to recruit.
Top scientists and engineers were a target
during Trump's first term.
Yes, that reliance on foreign talent.
And US science is pretty significant.
Restricting access to that talent pool
could have a real impact on American research and innovation.
So it sets up this tension
between maintaining scientific openness
and addressing these concerns about national security.
What else are these sources worried about?
A significant concern is the possibility
of deeper budget cuts to science agencies.
Inside higher ed suggests
that the National Science Foundation in particular
might face something like an 8% reduction.
An AIP.org raises the possibility of some agencies
like NOAA facing significant restructuring
or even potentially being dismantled.
It's a drastic proposal
with some potentially significant consequences
for research and scientific advancement in those fields.
It seems like there's this push
towards a more business-oriented approach to science.
AIP.org points out these initiatives
to funnel R&D funding towards small businesses
and to accelerate the commercialization of research.
It does raise a very important question.
What's the right balance between fundamental research,
which might not have those immediate practical applications
and prioritizing research that leads
directly to commercial outcomes?
It feels like there are a lot of different perspectives on that.
We've definitely uncovered
a lot of potential challenges here.
Are there any, I don't know, glimmers of hope
for action and advocacy amidst all these concerns?
There are definitely opportunities,
even in a potentially challenging landscape,
these sources point to several avenues
for action and advocacy.
Okay, let's explore those.
What are some of the ideas being floated?
Well, a lot of articles are emphasizing the importance
of direct engagement with policymakers.
The Hill, for instance, urges scientists to be proactive,
to really educate those in power
about the societal and economic benefits of research.
So it's about making the case for science,
demonstrating its real-world impact.
Exactly, and then there's the critical role
of public communication, both nature and the Hill,
stress the need for clear, open communication
to help rebuild public trust in science.
This feels especially crucial,
given our current era of misinformation.
Absolutely, the ability to communicate
complex scientific findings, but in an accessible way,
an engaging way, is more vital than ever.
It's not just about debunking misinformation,
it's also about inspiring the next generation of scientists
and fostering a deeper appreciation for science
in our daily lives.
What about the role of institutions
beyond the federal government?
Several sources highlight the potential.
For state governments, private industries,
and non-governmental organizations to play a larger role,
especially in areas like climate change,
where federal action may be limited.
So it's about building those coalitions
and finding that common ground,
working together to drive that progress,
even when the federal landscape presents obstacles.
Precisely, collective action can be a powerful force.
You know, one thing that really struck me,
especially in that NPR article,
was the emphasis on international collaboration.
Yeah, they really underscored
how much American science relies on talent
from all over the world.
Yeah, it's not just about
attracting those brilliant minds to the US,
it's also about the partnerships and networks.
That form, when researchers from different countries
work together, science often thrives
when diverse perspectives and approaches converge.
But this idea of global scientific exchange
seems to be facing potential headwinds
under a second Trump administration.
Several sources pointed to that.
They're raising concerns about tighter restrictions,
particularly on collaborations
with nations perceived as competitors, like China.
The Inside Higher Ed article specifically mentioned,
the recent expiration of the Science and Technology
cooperation agreement between the US and China.
And it's uncertain whether that will be renewed,
which could really signal a shift,
towards a more restricted approach.
You know, this agreement has facilitated
some really valuable exchanges for decades.
Then there's the issue of visas for foreign researchers.
NPR shared the story of Laili Mordazavi.
She's a brain scientist at Stanford.
And she's anxious about securing a visa to work in the US.
She's even considering positions in Canada or the UK.
It's a valid concern.
During Trump's first term,
there were several attempts to limit H1B visas,
which are often used to recruit
those highly skilled professionals,
including scientists and engineers.
It's almost like we're potentially closing the door.
Yeah.
On some of the brightest minds in the world.
NPR even suggested that countries like Germany
might benefit by attracting that top talent
that might otherwise come to the US.
It's definitely a competitive global landscape for talent.
And policies that make it harder for foreign researchers
to work in the US,
could have lasting consequences for American science.
This tension between international collaboration
and those research security concerns,
really speaks to a broader theme we're seeing here.
This America first idea,
and how that might play out in the realm of science.
It's a theme that echoes throughout these articles,
AIP.org for example,
discusses proposals to withhold federal funds
from universities that accept money
from the Chinese government.
And also to restrict the number of visas granted
to students from what they call enemy nations.
It's definitely a complex issue,
protecting national interests,
and ensuring research security,
are valid concerns.
But science has historically flourished through openness,
collaboration, and the free exchange of ideas.
It's a delicate balance to strike, it really is.
It's America first philosophy.
Also seems to be influencing the conversation
about science funding and priorities.
Yes, several sources point to a potential shift
towards a more, you know, utilitarian,
results-oriented approach to science,
an emphasis on research that yields clear economic benefits.
And that can be swiftly commercialized.
Like those proposals from AIP.org,
to increase funding for small businesses,
and push for that quicker commercialization.
It feels like there's an underlying assumption
that market forces should be the primary drivers
of scientific progress.
It's a perspective gaining traction, for sure.
And it has implications for what type of research
gets prioritized and funded.
Will there be that continued support
for curiosity-driven research,
the kind that might not have those
immediate practical applications,
but could lead to groundbreaking discoveries down the line?
That's the crucial question.
Nicholas Sturks, who's the president
of the New York Academy of Sciences,
he makes a really compelling argument in the Hill
about the importance of foundational curiosity-driven research.
He uses CRISPR gene editing technology as an example.
You know, it's had a massive impact
on medicine and agriculture.
But it originated from curiosity-driven research
into bacterial immune systems.
It's a prime example of how investing
in that fundamental research,
even without those immediate practical applications,
can yield unexpected and transformative results
in the long run.
Yeah, it highlights the importance
of scientists being able to effectively communicate.
The value of science to policymakers and the public,
not just advocating for funding,
but explaining that process of scientific discovery,
helping people understand that it's not always a straight line
from research to results.
Exactly.
Science is a journey, not just a destination.
And it's a journey worth taking,
even when the destination is uncertain.
We've talked a lot about potential challenges.
What are some things that make you optimistic
about the future of science?
Even within a potentially difficult political climate?
Well, one encouraging aspect is that
there's this growing recognition
that science isn't solely a federal issue.
It permeates every facet of our lives.
And as we've discussed, there's this burgeoning movement
to engage state governments, private industries, and NGOs
in advancing those science-based solutions.
The Hill highlighted the role.
Yeah.
You know, that state governments can play
in tackling issues like climate change.
Absolutely.
And there's the power of the scientific community itself.
You know, nature urges scientists to speak out,
engage with policymakers,
and communicate their findings to the public.
Yeah, they call for courage, tenacity, strength, and unity.
A reminder that scientists have a responsibility
to defend the integrity of science.
Yeah.
And advocate for its role in society.
It's not just about scientists, though.
You know, public understanding and appreciation of science
are paramount.
Yeah.
They understand how science works.
The more they understand its importance
and how to critically evaluate scientific information,
the better equipped will all be
to navigate these challenges ahead.
It's about empowering individuals
to be those critical thinkers, to be informed citizens,
capable of engaging in meaningful conversations
about science.
We've covered a lot of ground today
from those potential anxieties,
to those opportunities for action.
What are your key takeaways from this deep dive?
I mean, what concerns you the most?
And what gives you hope?
Welcome back to our deep dive,
looking into the potential impacts
of a second Trump administration on science
here in the US.
We've covered a lot of ground, haven't we?
Unearthed potential challenges, anxieties
about specific policies,
but also some of those, you know,
glimmers of hope and opportunities for action.
What's so interesting to me, though, is how
this whole conversation about science
and a potential second Trump term
really connects to these even larger questions
about the role of science in society.
Absolutely.
I think the concerns raised in these articles,
you know, things like funding cuts,
restrictions on collaboration,
the politicization of certain scientific issues,
it all speaks to this broader tension
that's been simmering for a while now.
It's this fundamental question of,
who gets to decide what science is pursued
and how those decisions are made?
Yeah, traditionally, science has been seen
as this objective pursuit of knowledge, right?
Driven by curiosity and this desire
to understand the world,
but increasingly it's being viewed
through this more utilitarian lens
with an emphasis on its practical applications
and ability to drive economic growth.
There's this expectation for science to deliver.
Immediate solutions, right?
And if it doesn't, some start to question its value.
Yeah.
Whether it deserves funding.
It's a perspective that's gaining a lot of traction,
especially in a political environment,
where there's this pressure
to demonstrate those tangible results.
It's interesting how this tension
between those different views of science,
these to be playing out many of the issues we've discussed.
And you take, for example, the debate over funding
for basic versus applied research,
or even those concerns
about restricting international collaboration
for the sake of national security.
Absolutely, it's about finding that balance, right?
Between supporting scientific inquiry
for the sake of knowledge,
recognizing that potential for unexpected breakthroughs,
while also making sure that science
addresses societal needs
and those pressing challenges we face.
It's a tough balancing act for sure.
So where does all this leave us?
I mean, what does all of this mean
for the future of science in America?
I think these sources offer a cautionary tale.
They highlight those potential pitfalls,
but they also provide some hope,
suggesting ways that the scientific community
and their allies can navigate this evolving landscape.
Like by engaging with policymakers, right?
Forming coalitions with various stakeholders
and effectively communicating the value of science,
not just its practical applications,
but also its ability to deepen our understanding
of the world.
Exactly, and I think it's important to remember
that this isn't just the responsibility of scientists.
We all have a role to play in supporting science,
whether that's staying informed about scientific issues,
participating in those thoughtful discussions,
or advocating for policies
that promote scientific literacy
and investment in research.
As we wrap up this deep dive,
I wanna leave you with this question.
Given the challenges and opportunities we've discussed,
what role do you envision for yourself
in shaping the future of science?
It's definitely a question worth pondering.
I think the future of science
really rests in our collective hands.
That wraps up today's deep dive.
Huge thanks to our expert for guiding us
through this very intricate topic, and to you, listener.
Thank you so much for joining us
on this journey of exploration.
Keep exploring, keep questioning,
and keep the conversation going.
Until next time.