The Guardian view on Trump’s war on science: politicising a generation of researchers | Editorial

DDonald Trump’s war on science has been brutal and extremely damaging, but it’s worth noting that he has lost some of his biggest battles. Last year, Mr. Trump demanded that U.S. federal funding for scientific and medical research be cut by about half. But the budget passed by Congress in February actually resulted in a slight increase in overall funding — even though specific Trump targets, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, were cut. He also continues to chip away at science in other ways, including this week firing the board overseeing the National Science Foundation.

Maga’s attacks on science have been purely political. His defeats have been political of a different kind, showing that the bipartisan consensus for science is still intact and that he has the power to keep Mr. Trump in check for the moment. Scientists themselves seem to realize the potential of such a policy. The organization 314 Action, which supports Democratic campaign scientists, reported that more than 700 candidates — vying for local, congressional and gubernatorial offices — sought its support before this year’s midterm elections, three times the usual number. Many have cited the White House’s war on science as the reason for their political shift.

What is happening in the United States is not unique. Wherever right-wing populists triumph, science risks suffering. Jair Bolsonaro’s rule in Brazil saw him attack scientists and cut environmental funding. In India, the Hindu nationalist government of Narendra Modi has purged the theory of evolution from school textbooks. In Britain, Reform UK has already attempted to reduce local public spending, aiming for net zero spending. Having scientists in power alone will not solve this problem – but as unexpected targets of populist politics, they are now part of the coalition resisting it.

Scientists tend to avoid political parties for a specific reason. Historians identify an implicit scientific social contract that emerged in Western states after World War II that made the state the primary funder of research but theoretically discouraged direct government political interference. Many scientists believe that engaging in politics endangers this pact: if scientists aren’t interested in politics, they won’t mind. During Mr. Trump’s first term, some argued that even protesting science budget cuts would lead scientists to get caught up in the culture wars. Scientists may be uncomfortable with politics, but the foundations of their relationship with the state are under attack.

Indeed, one of the lessons of recent decades is that science increasingly cannot avoid politics. There has been a concerted campaign from the right to sow doubt about health and climate science; on the left, there has been a push for diversity and a tendency to examine the social value of scientific research. Although many view these as a positive development, previous generations of scientists might have argued that they compromised scientific autonomy.

Scientists no longer just defend funding. They defend the idea that science must be independent of politics. What scientists gain by organizing protests, speaking to the public through their academies, and now running for office is a better understanding of the changing public sphere of which they are a part. The public could find an ally against right-wing populism – and a deeper, more serious engagement with the scientific challenges facing society. Mr. Trump set out to tame the scientists. He may have rather politicized them.

• Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.