Donald Trump's assault on American science has proven fierce yet incomplete. His bid to slash federal research funding by roughly half faltered in Congress, which approved a slight overall increase in February. Yet the president continues to erode scientific institutions through smaller measures, including this week's dismissal of the National Science Foundation's oversight board.
The pattern reveals something consequential: Trump has lost the largest battles because a bipartisan coalition still backs robust science funding. That political reality, however fragile, has held him in check. But it has also catalyzed an unexpected shift among researchers themselves.
314 Action, an organization recruiting Democratic scientists for elected office, documented a dramatic surge in interest ahead of the midterm elections. More than 700 candidates seeking local, state congressional and gubernatorial positions sought the group's backing, triple the typical number. Most cited the White House's hostility toward science as their reason for entering politics.
This represents a fundamental break with post-war tradition. For decades, Western scientists operated under an implicit social contract with government: the state funded research generously, but politicians stayed out of scientific decisions. Many researchers viewed political engagement as a threat to that autonomy, believing that neutrality offered protection.
That assumption is now obsolete. Across democracies led by right-wing populists, science has become a casualty. Jair Bolsonaro attacked Brazilian scientists and gutted environmental research. India's Hindu nationalist government stripped evolutionary theory from school curricula. In Britain, Reform UK has pushed local spending cuts targeting net zero initiatives.
The assault comes from multiple directions. Conservative campaigns have methodically undermined confidence in climate and public health research. Simultaneously, progressive pressure has mounted for greater diversity in science and scrutiny of research's social implications. Whether viewed as beneficial or problematic, these forces have shattered the notion that science exists apart from politics.
Scientists face a choice they once avoided. They can no longer defend funding alone. They must defend the principle that science should remain independent of political interference. Some have concluded that isolation was always an illusion.
By running for office, speaking publicly through their academies and organizing in opposition to administration cuts, researchers are gaining something valuable: a clearer grasp of how the public sphere works and where science fits within it. The public gains a constituency with technical expertise willing to resist populist attacks on expertise itself.
Trump sought to bring scientists to heel. Instead, he may have taught them politics.
Author James Rodriguez: "When politicians attack the very idea of expertise, researchers face a reckoning they can't ignore or survive."
Comments