Science

Subterms

    Latest story

    200 Shares45 Views

    Now is the time for scientists to stand up against Trump’s repressive agenda | Daniel Malinsky

    by

    There is a stereotype that the natural political activists in academia are the humanities professors: literary scholars, social theorists and critics of culture are the ones who speak truth to power and fight back against oppression.Yet scientists also ought to stand up and organize against the Trump administration’s attacks – not only the attacks on scientific research and integrity, but also the attacks on immigrants, on political speech and on democracy. Scientists cannot see themselves as above the fray but rather in coalition with other workers resisting authoritarianism.History is replete with examples of scientists that have taken on great risks to resist authoritarianism. The Dutch neurologist GGJ Rademaker reorganized his laboratory into a base of resistance (complete with printing press, radio equipment and hidden weapons) against fascist forces in the Nazi-occupied Netherlands. Some German scientists, including the psychoanalyst John Rittmeister and biochemist Heinrich Wieland, opposed the Nazi regime by hiding Jews and distributing banned anti-fascist literature. Brave German scientists even aided the Allied forces during the second world war.At this year’s meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, the CEO of this research society, Margaret Foti, encouraged cancer scientists to take part in demonstrations and meetings with elected representatives. Professors from all corners of campus are already fighting back against funding cuts, the attempted deportations of our international students and usurpations of democratic governance. At Columbia, where I work, faculty have been organizing to urge our university leadership to provide real protections to students at risk of deportation and sue the Trump administration, among other demands. Contrary to the stereotype, much of the organizing work is being spearheaded by science faculty – psychiatrists, epidemiologists, astronomers, mathematicians, economists, statisticians, oceanographers – hand in hand with our colleagues in the humanities.Despite the notion that scientists are and should be cautious or apolitical, professors in the sciences are well-suited to political activism. The work of political organizing is not so different from the work of managing a research lab: skills in divvying up tasks, managing people with sensitivity and foresight, and creating clear, compelling narratives to communicate accomplishments (eg to peer reviewers reading our manuscripts) are all clearly transferrable to activism. All science professors were once science students, doing the typically monotonous labor of scientific work, spending hours carefully tinkering in the laboratory, debugging computer code, or meticulously collecting information on the human or natural world. Often political activity involves straightforward but time-consuming tasks such as printing leaflets or making phone calls to representatives. Sometimes there are simple logistics that need taking care of in organizing a protest march. Some activism involves strategizing in coalitions to distribute needed resources or build supportive institutions. None of this is as difficult as “rocket science” and it is in fact remarkably similar to the more banal parts of everyday science.Many recent actions taken by the Trump administration impinge quite obviously on the expertise of scientists: the attacks on federal research funding, the rollback of decades-long protections of our environment and human health, the excising of research specifically related to climate change or vaccine development. Robert F Kennedy Jr has recently promised to dedicate scientific resources to studying the alleged relationship between autism and vaccination – a question that has been addressed by dozens of studies and on which the scientific consensus to the contrary is clear – and thrown the weight of the government behind stigmatizing and dangerous initiatives related to autism, contested by experts and advocates. Donald Trump has also taken steps to sabotage congressionally mandated research on the climate crisis by dismissing expert authors of the National Climate Assessment. Opposing these moves and organizing against them as scientists is a no-brainer. Yet also scientists must fight tooth and nail against the secretive and seemingly baseless incarceration of immigrants, the usurpation of democratic checks and balances, and the reorganization of society along ever more hateful lines. These things affect all of us regardless of our job descriptions. It should go without saying that scientific inquiry cannot flourish in a society dominated by fear, censorship and hate.Scientists are drawn to the work we do for many different reasons, but I would venture that for most of us there is an underlying goal of advancing humanity – whether that is by finding cures to disease, new technology or more abstractly by pushing the boundaries of human knowledge so that future generations are better off. All of that is at risk if we remain “neutral” or “apolitical” at the wrong moment in history. Though there is a plausible argument for erring on the side of “apolitical” in normal times, to ensure trust and guard against undue politicization of scientific work, the argument stretches thin and breaks down given our current political environment and apparent slide toward fascism. Our scientific research itself must remain free from prejudice and aimed wherever the truth may lead, but the work before us is not only scientific research. We must also work to preserve the conditions of life that make both science and society flourish. In these times that means that scientists have a duty to dissent.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion

    Daniel Malinsky is an assistant professor of biostatistics in the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares103 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump health cuts create ‘real danger’ around disease outbreaks, workers warn

      by

      Mass terminations and billions of dollars’ worth of cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have gutted key programs – from child support services to HIV treatment abroad – and created a “real danger” that disease outbreaks will be missed, according to former workers.Workers at the HHS, now led by Robert F Kennedy Jr, and in public health warned in interviews that chaotic, flawed and sweeping reductions would have broad, negative effects across the US and beyond.While Donald Trump’s administration is cutting the HHS workforce from 82,000 to 62,000 through firings and buyouts, grant cuts by Elon Musk’s so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) have also had a stark impact on state governments – and resulted in firings at state public health agencies.At the South Carolina department of public health, for example, more than 70 staff were laid off in March due to funding cuts.“Disease surveillance is how we know when something unusual is happening with people’s health, like when there are more food-poisoning cases than usual, or a virus starts spreading in a community,” an epidemiologist at the department, whose role was eliminated, said. “It’s the system that lets us spot patterns, find outbreaks early, and respond before more people get sick.”“When you lose public health staff, you lose time, you lose accuracy, you lose responsiveness, and ultimately that affects people’s health,” they added. “Without us, outbreaks can fly under the radar, and the response can be delayed or disorganized. That’s the real danger when these roles get cut.View image in fullscreen“It’s invisible work, until it’s not. You may not think about it day to day, but it’s protecting your drinking water, your food, your kids’ schools and your community.”A spokesperson for South Carolina’s public health department declined to comment on specifics, but noted employees hired through grants are temporary. “When funding for grants is no longer available, their employment may end, as happened with some temporary grant employees who were funded by these grants,” they said.In Washington, the HHS has been cut harder by Doge than any other federal department. Hundreds of grants to state, local and tribal governments, as well as to research institutions, have been eliminated, worth over $6.8bn in unpaid obligations.The HHS receives about a quarter of all federal spending, with the majority disbursed to states for health programs and services such as Medicare and Medicaid, the insurance programs; medical research; and food and drug safety. Trump’s budget proposal calls for cutting the department’s discretionary spending by 26.2%, or $33.3bn.RFK Jr, who has a history of promoting conspiracy theories and medical misinformation, was nominated by Trump and approved by the Senate along party lines, with Mitch McConnell the sole Republican dissenter.Following a reduction in force of 10,000 employees on 1 April, Kennedy Jr claimed 20% of the firings were in error and that those workers would be reinstated, though that has not happened.An HHS spokesperson blamed any such errors on data-collection issues, and did not comment on any other aspects of the Guardian’s reporting.Aids relief program ‘dismantled’At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an operating division of the HHS, employees working on maternal and child health at the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar) program were shocked to be included in the reduction in force, as earlier in the administration their work had received a waiver for parts of the program from federal funding freezes.All federal experts on HIV prevention in children overseas were fired as part of the reduction in force.“Our concern initially was that it was a mistake with the name. We hoped around that time it came out that there were 20% errors, that we would be included,” said an epidemiologist who was included in the reduction in force, but requested to remain anonymous as they are currently on administrative leave. They also noted that they were in the middle of planning and delivering a new pediatric HIV treatment medication set to be dispersed this year, and that that work was now at risk.View image in fullscreenThey said 22 epidemiologists in the branch of their CDC division had been fired. Pepfar was created in 2003 by George W Bush to prevent mother-to-child HIV transmission and credited with saving 26 million lives.“We were very shocked on April 1 that we were put immediately on admin leave,” said another epidemiologist affected by the reduction in force at the CDC. “We really feel our branch being cut was a mistake. The state department had said services were a priority and needed to continue, but then we were cut by HHS.”They noted HIV treatment had already stopped in regions of countries that had been reliant on USAID programs, such as Zambia.“It is one of the most successful global health programs in history, data driven with high levels of accountability and the dollars spent achieve impact. Our concern now is, yes, they are continuing Pepfar in name, but they are dismantling all the systems and structure that allowed it to succeed,” they added. “The US made a huge investment in this program in 20 years and a lot of it is now undone. We’ve now disrupted those systems that could have reduced and eventually removed US investment in these programs.”‘Long-term impact’ on US familiesInside the HHS, the Administration for Children and Families is responsible for enforcing court-ordered child-support payments. For every dollar it receives in federal funding, ACF says it is able to collect $5 in child support.A child-support specialist with the HHS, who requested to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, said reductions in force at the department have increased workloads on those who were not fired by multiple times, making it so state and tribal agencies have no way of ensuring they are compliant with federal requirements.“The regional staff with direct oversight of the program are gone,” they said. “There are entire regions that have two staff members managing a quarter of the work for the program with no management, no support, no knowledge of the program.”After the Trump administration took office, the agency was under an unofficial stop-work order, where staff were not permitted to provide guidance or support to grantees or even answer phones, until late February, the specialist said. A reduction in force followed on 1 April, when, the child-support specialist claimed, about half the ACF staff working on child support were fired.Their department is responsible for overseeing child-support programs at state, tribal and local levels. States “could very well lose millions of dollars in funding” if ACF does not provide key training and assistance and the states do not have qualified staff, the specialist cautioned. “And that is the long-term impact to vulnerable children and families in the country.”They added: “The entire function of the program is to give economic stability to children and families, so that they do not depend on any other government program, or their reliance on these programs is lower, because the children are supported by both parents.”‘A living hell’At the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, also within the HHS, one of 300 workers terminated as part of a reduction in force claimed it had been illegal, and had not followed any proper procedures. The National Treasury Employees Union has filed a grievance over how the firings were carried out, including incorrect information on notices.They explained that, on 1 April, they received a generic letter informing them of an intent of reduction in force. Hours later, they were locked out of their government logins. “We started emailing the management that was left, trying to get clarification on what our status was. Nobody could give us an answer,” the worker said.On 7 April, they discovered through their paystub that they had been placed on administrative leave, despite never receiving a notice. They didn’t receive an RIF notice until weeks later, after requesting it.“Based on my tenure, and as a disabled veteran, I should at least have a chance of reassignment,” they said. “I’m not mad about losing my job. It happens. I’ve been laid off. The first time was in the private sector, and it was way more humane, more empathetic, and I was given different offers.“This, on the other hand, is unbridled hate. This administration has gone out of their way to make it a living hell for all of its public servants.” More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      How ‘revenge of the Covid contrarians’ unleashed by RFK Jr puts broader vaccine advances at risk

      by

      The US health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, entered office with a pledge to tackle the US’s chronic disease epidemic and give infectious disease a “break”. In at least one of those goals, Kennedy has been expeditious.Experts said as Kennedy makes major cuts in public health in his first weeks in office, the infrastructure built to mitigate Covid-19 has become a clear target – an aim that has the dual effect of weakening immunization efforts as the US endures the largest measles outbreak since 2000.“If his goal is to undermine public health infrastructure, he’s making strides there,” said Dorit Reiss, a University of California Law School professor whose research focuses on vaccine law. “If his goal is combating chronic diseases – he’s not doing very well.”The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been characterized by upheaval since Kennedy and the billionaire Elon Musk’s unofficial “department of government efficiency” (Doge) cumulatively axed 20,000 jobs – roughly a quarter of the 82,000-person workforce.And it appears that turmoil will continue: a leaked budget memo shows the administration poised to propose a budget cut of another $40bn, or roughly one-third of the department’s discretionary spending.Amid the cuts, attacks on Covid-19 infrastructure have proven thematic, and show the administration’s hostility toward work that once mitigated the virus. That’s included attacking promising vaccine platforms and elevating once-ostracized voices to high-level roles.“The Covid-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago,” a spokesperson for HHS told the Guardian in response to questions about its strategy.“HHS is prioritizing funding projects that will deliver on President Trump’s mandate to address our chronic disease epidemic and Make America Healthy Again.”Gregg Gonsalves, a Yale University associate professor and infectious disease epidemiologist, calls this strategy the “revenge of the Covid contrarians”.“They’re not interested in the science, they’re interested in their conclusions and having the science bend to their will,” said Gonsalves. “They want to create a Potemkin village of their own making that looks like science but has nothing to do with science at all.”Among Kennedy’s changes: attacks on the promising platform that supported Covid-19 vaccine development, delayed approval of a Covid-19 vaccine, the clawing back of grants that provided local immunization support and studied vaccine safety, and elevating one-time critics of Covid-19 policy.“When the new administration came in, we were hearing even within the organization: ‘We can’t say Covid, we’re not allowed to say Covid,’” said Lori Tremmel Freeman, chief executive officer of the National Association of County and City Health Officials (Naccho), about her members’ conversations.Freeman noted that “we kind of saw the writing on the wall a couple months ago that: ‘OK, they really don’t want anything Covid-related to be pursued any more.’ Everything Covid-related is quite honestly at risk.”In the latest change, Kennedy said this week he may remove Covid-19 shots from the childhood vaccine schedule, which would probably make the shots harder to get by limiting insurance coverage.“The recommendation for children was always dubious,” Kennedy told Fox News. Although a minority of children are vaccinated, the shots are recommended, especially for immune-compromised children.Freeman believes the desire to erase the government’s Covid legacy led to HHS’s decision to claw back $11bn in public health funds from states and localities. In effect done overnight, the clawback gave local officials only hours to lay off workers, cancel immunization clinics and even stop construction projects.“That’s why we feel like the drawback of the funding occurred: Covid,” said Freeman.A spokesperson for HHS characterized this as a savings, and said most canceled awards were for Covid-19-related work.The pullback led to the cancellation of more than 50 measles immunization clinics in Texas, where the measles outbreak has already claimed the lives of two unvaccinated children, to pilot programs such as “Text4Vax”, which sent reminders about pediatric vaccines to parents.Among the canceled grants were also programs that would seem to align with Kennedy’s rhetoric about vaccine safety – among them, a study of the safety and effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines in pregnant women in California and global Covid-19 vaccine safety monitoring in New Zealand.“If you start to take away people from health departments – the immunizers, the educators, the clinicians – through some of these other funding cuts , it disables the program naturally,” said Freeman. “You can’t put as many shots in arms.”Larger cancelled grants included a $2.25bn grant program to reduce Covid-19’s impact on the people worst affected, which had been sent to states and localities from South Dakota to Florida and the Virgin Islands to Vermont.Under Kennedy’s watch, HHS has also taken the unusual step of delaying an expected vaccine approval, reportedly under the watch of a Kennedy political appointee.The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which sits under the umbrella of HHS, delayed the expected 1 April approval of the Novavax Covid-19 vaccine. Novavax confirmed to the Guardian that its application remained on hold, and said it would have “no further comments”.Reiss said she doesn’t think “any vaccine that’s in the pipeline is going to go forward under Kennedy” or that “he will let any vaccine go far now”.Dr Tracy Hoeg, a political appointee, was reportedly involved in the decision. Hoeg also appeared as the FDA’s representative at a special advisory committee on immunizations in April, where she took the opportunity to question the efficacy of Moderna’s Covid-19 vaccine.An HHS spokesperson told the Guardian: “The FDA’s independent review process for the Novavax vaccine, like all vaccines, is based solely on ensuring safety and efficacy, not political considerations. Any delays are a result of scientific review, not a lack of priority. It’s important to focus on the facts rather than unfounded speculation.”Scientists have also said they fear for the future of messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine technology – the platform that underpinned the fast development of Covid-19 vaccines and that held promise for treating and preventing a wide range of diseases.Hoeg served on Florida’s public health integrity committee, which served as a platform for Covid-19 criticism during the pandemic. At the time, it was chaired by the Florida surgeon general, Dr Joseph Ladapo, who has also sown doubt about the safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines.Hoeg could be further buttressed by insiders such as Dr Matthew Memoli, who, Kennedy said, “is going to be running Niaid [National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases]”. Memoli, whom Kennedy described as “the top flu researcher at NIH”, is known for opposition to Covid-19 vaccine mandates and declined to be vaccinated. In March, Memoli sent an email to NIH grant officials requiring any grant applications that reference mRNA technology to be reported to Kennedy’s office. He also canceled government-backed studies on vaccine hesitancy.The nominee for HHS general counsel, Michael B Stuart, is also well-known for involvement in vaccine fights. Stuart, a former West Virginia lawmaker, in 2023 proposed a bill to exempt virtual public school students from vaccine requirements and allow private schools to set their own requirements, according to Stat.“Dismantling the sort of vaccine infrastructure this country relies upon – that’s been in place for several dozens and dozens of years – only impacts the chronic disease front he’s trying to ameliorate as well,” said James Hodge, a professor of law at Arizona State University and a health law expert who said he worries about the future of vaccine advisory committees. “Acquiring infectious diseases leads to chronic conditions later.”Still, some of Kennedy’s most ardent supporters and reported informal advisers, such as the former cardiologist Peter McCullough, have argued these actions don’t go far enough.“The big threat is that we still have Covid-19 vaccines on the market,” McCullough told KFF Health News. “It’s horrendous. I would not hesitate – I would just pull it. What’s he waiting for?” McCullough did not respond to requests for comment from the Guardian. More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump administration has set Noaa on ‘non-science trajectory’, workers warn

      by

      The Trump administration has shunted one of the US federal government’s top scientific agencies onto a “non-science trajectory”, workers warn, that threatens to derail decades of research and leave the US with “air that’s not breathable and water that’s not drinkable”.Workers and scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) are warning of the drastic impacts of cuts at the agency on science, research, and efforts to protect natural resources.“The problems are still there. We still have harmful algal blooms, we still have fisheries that are collapsing, waters you can’t swim in. These problems don’t go away because we fired all the people who were trying to solve a problem,” said one Noaa veteran, who wished to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. “How do you save the arms and legs or the feet and hands when the core is dying?”The longtime research scientist with more than 20 years at Noaa has taken early retirement. “I left because it was just so demoralizing and fearful and scary,” they said.Trump administration officials are seeking to abolish the scientific research division at Noaa, the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (Oar) office. It is the latest of a series of cuts at the agency that began the second Trump administration with 12,000 employees around the world, including more than 6,700 engineers and scientists.The cuts are disrupting the collection of data sets, including recordings of global temperatures in the air and ocean, and that data cannot be replaced, said the Noaa veteran.The dismantling of Noaa, they said, would harm work in many areas, from finding solutions to combat harmful algae and improving sustainable fisheries to work on new medicines and industrial products and collecting information for disaster preparation.“We can look at other countries that are actively making these mistakes, where they have air that’s not breathable and water that’s not drinkable,” they said. “I think it’s done. I think this is done. The enemies are in the gate. I don’t see any indication so far of anyone stopping it. They’re just letting it burn. I honestly don’t understand how US science will recover.”More than 800 probationary employees at the agency were fired, reinstated, then refired this month. Employees have reported having their firings backdated and having their health insurance canceled even though premiums were being taken out of their paychecks.Rachel Brittin, worked as the federal deputy director of external affairs at Noaa before she was fired, then reinstated, then fired again as a probationary employee, with just a few months left on her two-year probation.“The whole situation is a mess,” she said. “How is Noaa going to be able to keep up with the services it provides? I don’t know. I don’t know how that’s going to happen, but it’s very scary to me. The loss of anybody at Noaa is directly connected to services lost by every individual in the United States.”Contractors for the agency have been furloughed as all Noaa contracts over $100,000 have to now be approved by Trump’s Department of Commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick.Doge has slated 31 offices and building leases at Noaa for termination around the US. Nearly $4m in funding to Princeton University as part of a cooperative agreement with Noaa was cancelled on 8 April.Fourteen Noaa data services on earthquakes, marine, coastal and estuary science at have been slated for decommissioning, more than twice as many as in 2024.Four regional climate centers providing weather analysis tools and data for 21 states in the US have gone dark after lapses in funding, with the remaining two covering the US set to face a funding lapse in June.A reduction in force plan to cut an additional 10% of the agency’s workforce is anticipated and at least several hundred workers have taken voluntary buyouts or early retirement according to Noaa workers interviewed by the Guardian, though Noaa and the Department of Commerce did not disclose the numbers.“It seems clear that the actions that have been taken have intentionally reduced our ability to do our jobs,” said a Noaa scientist who requested to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. “You’re not expected to get anything done.”They said due to firings, early retirements and resignations, scientific research teams around the agency have been left with gaps of expertise that can’t be replaced.“We are scrambling,” they added. “We are finding workarounds, but its becoming increasingly difficult.”Marty Kardos, a research molecular geneticist at the northwest fisheries science center at Noaa, decided to resign after the agency’s violations of their collective bargaining agreement with workers meant he would be forced to move from Montana to Seattle in a week or resign.“The agency is on a non-science trajectory,” Kardos said, speaking in a personal capacity. “All the plans for research we were making for the upcoming years are out of the window. Morale is extremely bad.”The attrition of scientists and management at Noaa is effectively undermining the agency’s ability to sustainably manage fisheries and identify and recover endangered species, he said.“The agency is essentially, openly hostile to their mission and their people,” Kardos added. “A lot of this seems to be related to deregulation. The agency is responsible for the Endangered Species Act for marine species and one way to hamstring the act without repealing it is to get rid of the scientists who help to implement it.”The cuts come as the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) and the Trump administration have installed allies in key positions at the agency.Neil Jacobs, the Trump nominee for Noaa administrator and acting head of Noaa in the first Trump administration, has yet to be confirmed. Jacobs was caught up in “Sharpiegate” – a bizarre 2019 incident when the White House was accused of altering a Noaa map of the predicted path of Hurricane Dorian with a black marker to support an incorrect claim by Trump that the Florida-bound storm would also hit Alabama.A staffer from Doge, Bryton Shang, announced this month he was appointed as a senior adviser to the Noaa administrator. Shang was one of the two Doge staffers who flew to Los Angeles during the wildfires in January, and attempted to open a large water pump system in California.Erik Noble, dubbed Trump’s “eyes and ears” at Noaa during his first administration, is back at the agency as deputy assistant secretary for oceans and atmosphere and is reviewing contracts at the agency with Keegan McLaughlin, a special assistant at the commerce department and former intern for the 2024 Trump campaign.Noaa was a target of Project 2025, the conservative roadmap for a second Trump administration. That document pushed to “break up NOAA” and labeled the agency “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry”.“Understanding things lets us make decisions that can put us on a track to things getting better. Knowing bad news doesn’t create the bad news. It lets you be prepared to take actions that may let you avoid the worst consequences,” the Noaa scientist at Oar added on the Trump appointees and the authority they are being given over scientific decisions.“Pretending that our resources are inexhaustible doesn’t make them inexhaustible,” they added. “I don’t think people understand the arrogance of thinking: ‘Hey, I think I understand this, even though I know nothing about it.’ This whole antithesis to experts, I don’t understand it. Would you want to do that with your own personal health? Why would you do it with any kind of complex system?”Noaa and the Department of Commerce did not respond to multiple requests for comment. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Trump administration is sabotaging your scientific data | Jonathan Gilmour

      by

      United States science has propelled the country into its current position as a powerhouse of biomedical advancements, technological innovation and scientific research. The data US government agencies produce is a crown jewel – it helps us track how the climate is changing, visualize air pollution in our communities, identify challenges to our health and provide a panoply of other essential uses. Climate change, pandemics and novel risks are coming for all of us – whether we bury our heads in the sand or not – and government data is critical to our understanding of the risks these challenges bring and how to address them.Much of this data remains out of sight to those who don’t use it, even though they benefit us all. Over the past few months, the Trump administration has brazenly attacked our scientific establishment through agency firings, censorship and funding cuts, and it has explicitly targeted data the American taxpayers have paid for. They’re stealing from us and putting our health and wellbeing in danger – so now we must advocate for these federal resources.That’s why we at the Public Environmental Data Partners are working to preserve critical environmental data. We are a coalition of non-profits, academic institutions, researchers and volunteers who work with federal data to support policy, research, advocacy and litigation work. We are one node in an expansive web of organizations fighting for the data American taxpayers have funded and that benefits us all. The first phase of our work has been to identify environmental justice tools and datasets at risk through conversations with environmental justice groups, current and former employees in local, state, and federal climate and environment offices, and researchers. To date, we have saved over a hundred priority datasets and have reproduced six tools.We’re not fighting for data for data’s sake; we’re fighting for data because it helps us make sense of the world.The utility of many of these datasets and tools comes from the fact that they are routinely updated. While our efforts ensure that we have snapshots of these critical data sources and tools, it will be a huge loss if these cease to be updated entirely. That’s why we are “life rafting” tools outside of government – standing up copies of them on publicly accessible, non-government pages – hoping that we can return them to a future administration that cares about human and environmental health and does not view science as a threat.The second phase is to develop these tools, advocate for better data infrastructure, and increase public engagement. There’s a question of scope – if the government stops sharing National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration data, we don’t have the resources to start monitoring and tracking hurricanes. For many of these critical data sources, the government is the only entity with the resources to collect and publish this data – think about the thousands of weather stations set up around the world or the global air pollution monitors or the spray of satellites orbiting the earth. On the other hand, we do have the expertise to build environmental justice tools that better serve the communities that have borne the brunt of environmental injustice, by co-creating with those communities and by building from what we have saved from the government – like the Council on Environmental Quality’s CEJST, the Environmental Protection Agency’s EJScreen, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Social Vulnerability and Environmental Justice tools.A common refrain of the saboteurs is that if these functions that they are targeting are important enough, the states or the private sector will step in to fill the gap. While some of these functions of the federal government are replicable outside of government, privatization will render them less accessible, more expensive and subject to the whims of the markets. The states can also step in and fill some gaps – but many of the biggest challenges that we’re facing are best tackled by a strong federal government. Furthermore, many states are happily joining this anti-science crusade. The climate crisis and pandemics don’t stop politely at state borders. If data collection is left up to the states, the next pandemic will not leave a state untouched because it dismantled its public health department – but such actions will leave a gaping hole in our understanding of the risks to the residents of that state and its neighbors. What’s more, some states do not have the resources to stand up the infrastructure required to shoulder the burden of data collection. Coordination between federal and state governments is essential.Data is being stolen from us; our ability to understand the world is being stolen from us. Americans will die because the Trump administration is abdicating its responsibility to the people – this censorship regime will have dire consequences. That’s why we must stand up for science, we must be loud about the importance of federal data and we must put the brakes on Trump’s un-American agenda.

      Jonathan Gilmour is a data scientist at Harvard’s TH Chan School of Public Health, a fellow at the Aspen Policy Academy, and coordinator at the Public Environmental Data Partners. More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Massachusetts governor calls Trump’s attacks on Harvard ‘bad for science’

      by

      Massachusetts governor Maura Healey said on Sunday that Donald Trump’s attacks on Harvard University and other schools are having detrimental ripple effects, with the shutdown of research labs and cuts to hospitals linked to colleges.During an interview on CBS’s Face the Nation, the Democratic governor said that the effects on Harvard are damaging “American competitiveness”, since a number of researchers are leaving the US for opportunities in other countries. After decades of investment in science and innovation, she said: “intellectual assets are being given away.”In the past week, the US president cut off billions of dollars to Harvard in federal funds, after the university refused to concede to a number of the administration’s demands. Trump also called for its tax-exempt status to be revoked, a potentially illegal move, against the world-famous college in Cambridge, Massachusetts.Of the moves against colleges, Healey said: “It’s bad for patients, it’s bad for science, and it’s really bad for American competitiveness. There’s no way a state can make up for the cuts from federal funding.”She added: “I was in a hospital recently, Boston Children’s, where some of the sickest kids in the country receive care. Cuts to Boston Children’s and other hospitals are a direct result of Donald Trump’s actions, as these are part of a teaching hospital system.“These cuts to universities have significant ripple effects, resulting in layoffs of scientists and doctors, and clinical trials for cancer treatments have been shut down.“As governor, I want Massachusetts and America to soar. What Donald Trump is doing is essentially inviting other countries, like China, to take our scientists and researchers. This is terrible, especially considering what he has done to the economy. I am working hard every day to lower costs in my state, cut taxes, and build more housing, while Donald Trump is making life more expensive and harder for all of us.”Since Trump took office, his administration has deployed an “antisemitism taskforce” to demand various policy changes at different universities around the country.Columbia University, one of the first institutions targeted by the taskforce, quickly caved to the Trump administration’s demands to restore $400m in federal funding. Some of the measures that Columbia conceded to included banning face masks on campus, empowering security officers to arrest people, and placing control of the Middle Eastern department under a new senior vice-provost.Former Columbia University president Lee Bollinger said on Sunday that the Trump administration’s attacks on academic institutions represent a significant attack on first amendment rights.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“This is a kind of weaponization of the government’s power,” Bolinger said on CNN, adding that it “seems like a campaign of intimidation”.“This is a kind of weaponization of the government’s power,” he said.Earlier this month, the federal government sent Harvard two separate letters with specific demands. After the university publicly rejected those demands, the administration quickly froze nearly $2.3bn in federal funding.The conflict between the administration and the elite university took a strange turn on Friday, with the New York Times reporting that an 11 April letter from the administration with additional demands – which escalated the showdown – was “unauthorized”. The university disputed that the letter was “unauthorized,” claiming the federal government has “doubled down” on its offensive. More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Fifteen years after Deepwater Horizon, Trump is setting the stage for disaster | Terry Garcia

      by

      Last month, I joined nearly 500 former and current employees of National Geographic, where I was executive vice-president and chief science and exploration officer for 17 years, urging the institution to take a public stance against the Trump administration’s reckless attacks on science. Our letter pointed out that the programs being dismantled are “imperative for the success of our country’s economy and are the foundation of our progress and wellbeing. They make us safer, stronger and more prosperous.” We warned that gutting them is a recipe for disaster.In the face of this danger, none of us can remain silent.I say this from the unique perspective of having been closely involved in the two most significant environmental disasters in US history: the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon oil spills. Fifteen years ago this Sunday, an enormous explosion tore through the BP Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and unleashed an environmental catastrophe that devastated the Gulf of Mexico. The explosion triggered the release of more than 3m barrels of oil that polluted 1,300 miles of coastline from Louisiana to Florida. Eleven lives were lost, ecosystems were ravaged and the economic toll soared into the billions.I served on the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, which investigated the root causes of the disaster, and before that I led the federal government’s implementation of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan. I have witnessed first-hand the human and economic toll exacted by these events. Men and women who, for generations, had made a living from the sea were suddenly confronted with the possibility that an entire way of life would be lost.Despite such painful lessons of the past, we find ourselves once again hurtling toward disaster. The Trump administration’s personnel and programmatic cuts at science, environmental and safety agencies, and the wholesale rollback of environmental regulations, threaten to unravel decades of progress in safeguarding our country. These actions aren’t just misguided – they’re a dangerous rejection of the hard-won knowledge gained from former crises and a gamble we cannot afford to take.Among the many alarming moves by the Trump administration are plans to weaken offshore drilling safety measures implemented in response to the Deepwater Horizon calamity, such as the reversal of the Biden administration’s ban on drilling in sensitive coastal areas, including the Arctic, and the closure of regional offices responsible for oil spill response. Eliminating these measures demonstrates a callous disregard for lessons learned at a staggering human and economic cost.Disturbingly, these actions are but a small part of a larger effort to weaken environmental regulation and oversight under the guise of restoring government efficiency. Take the recent rollback of dozens of Environmental Protection Agency health and safety regulations and the reported plan to eliminate the agency’s scientific research office. The administration claims these moves will unleash US energy and lower the cost of living, when in fact the only thing they’re guaranteed to achieve is undermining fundamental protections that keep our air and water clean. The mass layoffs and plans to dismember the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), where I was deputy administrator from 1997 to the end of 1999 and prior to that its general counsel, have nothing to do with cost savings – they’re an outright assault on science. Targeting programs that monitor ocean health, track ecosystem changes and study climate impacts – essential to understanding and mitigating looming threats – will leave us blind to and defenseless against the dangers ahead.Cuts to science funding amplify the harms, jeopardizing our ability to innovate solutions, assess risks and respond effectively to crises. In 2010, we lacked even basic data about ocean conditions in areas around the ruptured Deepwater Horizon well. This absence of critical knowledge hindered response and recovery efforts, including understanding the impacts of using oil dispersants in the deep ocean. After the spill, robust government support for science enabled researchers to develop new response and cleanup technologies, better understand long-term ecological impacts, and provide critical insights that helped shape environmental and safety policy. Without government support, these advances would have been impossible – and they will be impossible in the future as funding is slashed.The Trump administration’s insistence that its actions will reduce bureaucratic burdens or spur economic growth is false and deliberately misleading. It’s gaslighting on a national scale. The only sure result is that the burden of risk will be shifted on to communities, small businesses and ordinary Americans. The destruction of habitats and livelihoods is not an abstract consequence of environmental disasters. They devastate families, cripple economies, poison food supplies and leave communities struggling for decades. Businesses are boarded up, and community members suffer life-altering health consequences. After the Deepwater Horizon spill, losses in commercial and recreational fishing, tourism and property values amounted to tens of billions of dollars; cleanup and restoration costs exceeded $60bn – far surpassing what preventive measures would have required.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump and his industry allies will paint such an event as an unforeseeable tragedy, a terrible mishap, a sad accident. Don’t buy it.As we mark this somber anniversary, we cannot allow the cautionary tales of Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon to fade into history, only to be repeated when the next horror strikes. Science and environmental protections are our first line of defense against catastrophe. Now is the time to demand that our government stop the madness and commit to strong environmental and safety regulations, rigorous scientific research, and adequate funding for the agencies tasked with protecting our health and shared resources. The price of ignoring science and dismantling regulations is far too high.

      Terry Garcia was National Geographic’s executive vice-president and chief science and exploration officer for 17 years. He also served as the assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and deputy administrator of Noaa, as well as its general counsel More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Documents reveal Trump’s plan to gut funding for Nasa and climate science

      by

      Donald Trump shows no signs of easing his assault on climate science as plans of more sweeping cuts to key US research centers surfaced on Friday.The administration is planning to slash budgets at both the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (Noaa) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa), according to internal budget documents, taking aim specifically at programs used to study impacts from the climate crisis.Craig McLean, a longtime director of the office of oceanic and atmospheric research (OAR) who retired in 2022, told the Guardian that the cuts were draconian and would “compromise the safety, economic competitiveness, and security of the American people”.If the plan is approved by Congress, funding for OAR would be eviscerated – cut from $485m to $171m – dismantling an important part of the agency’s mission.All budgets for climate, weather and ocean laboratories would be drained, according to the document reviewed by the Guardian, which states: “At this funding level, OAR is eliminated as a line office.”“The elimination of Noaa’s research line office and all of its research capabilities is a crushing blow to the ability of our country to protect our citizens and also to lead the world,” said the former Noaa administrator Rick Spinrad, adding that the document included “an extraordinarily devastating set of recommendations”.The proposal would also cut more than $324m from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), instructing the agency to align its work with administration priorities to “unleash American energy”. Species-recovery grants, habitat conservation and restoration, and the interjurisdictional fisheries grant program, which supports coordinated management and research with the states, would all lose funding. The document also outlines a plan to move the NMFS under the US Fish and Wildlife Service.Noaa is facing a $1.3bn cut to overall operations and research, with various programs on the chopping block, and the National Ocean Service would be cut in half.Science done outside the agency would also be undermined with cuts to Noaa’s climate research grants program, which provides roughly $70m a year.“It’s a really disturbing and concerning development – but I would say it is not all that surprising,” Spinrad said of the plans outlined in the document, noting that there have been many indications the administration would take steps such as these. “But it also has an element of randomness associated with it,” he added. “There are specific programs called out, the reasons for which are absolutely not clear.”The fallout from cuts this deep, should Congress adopt the president’s plan, would be felt in communities around the world, and in far-ranging sectors, from agriculture to emergency management.“By making a complete divestiture in science and in our research enterprise, we are basically saying we are not interested in improving our quality of life or our economy,” Spinrad said.The administration also outlined plans to severely defund research at Nasa, the country’s space agency. The agency is slated for a 20% overall budget loss, but deeper cuts would be directed at programs overseeing planetary science, earth science and astrophysics research, according to Ars Technica, which first on Trump’s plans when agency officials were briefed last month.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionNow documents have been issued to back up those plans, halving funding for science at Nasa.The plan for Nasa would also scrap a series of missions, including some that the federal government has already poured billions of taxpayer dollars into. The Nancy Grace Roman space telescope, which could offer glimpses into distant galaxies after its scheduled launch next year, is among them, along with the Mars Sample Return and the Davinci mission to Venus. The Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, which employs roughly 10,000 people, would also be closed.“This is an extinction-level event for Nasa science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy for the Planetary Society, told the Washington Post. “It needlessly terminates functional, productive science missions and cancels new missions currently being built, wasting billions of taxpayer dollars in the process. This is neither efficient nor smart budgeting.”Still not set in stone, these “passback” documents are a part of how the government goes about budgeting. They are issued by the White House to federal agencies before the discretionary budget is released and are seen as a guidance on presidential priorities. The numbers aren’t final and could be changed, and Congress will also have to act on the plans to finalize them.Spinrad is confident that many legislators won’t support the cuts. “Many of the actions put forward by [the White House’s office of management and budget] are in direct contradiction to congressional intent,” he said. “Zeroing out programs that Congress has worked hard to authorize over the years – that’s a clarion call to specific members and sponsors.”There’s also likely to be strong pushback from the public and from industries that rely on the tools and services made possible by the country’s scientists.But the drastic degree of these cuts also shows the administration’s position on climate science and its determination to hamper US research, experts say. That alone is enough to cause concern.“This proposal will cost lives,” McLean said of the document if it is enacted. “When a room full of doctors tell you that it’s cancer, firing the doctors does not cure you.” More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      White House ends funding for key US climate body: ‘No coming back from this’

      by

      The White House is ending funding for the body that produces the federal government’s pre-eminent climate report, which summarizes the impacts of rising global temperatures on the United States.Every four years, the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is required by Congress to release a new national climate assessment to ensure leaders understand the drivers of – and threats posed by – global warming. It is the most comprehensive, far-reaching and up-to-date analysis of the climate crisis, playing a key role in local and national decision making about agriculture, energy production, and land and water use.The next assessment is due by 2027. But now, Nasa has ended its contract with the consulting firm ICF International, which convened the USGCRP and coordinated the federal agencies that contribute to the quadrennial report.“There’s really no coming back from this, and it means we are all less informed about climate impacts, and won’t have the most up-to-date information on risks and threats,” said one federal staffer who was engaged in USGCRP activities, and who requested anonymity to avoid retribution. “USGCRP helped me to leverage resources from other agencies for use in my own work. But without these networks, I’m left without a support system and the latest science on climate change.”The end of the contract, first reported by Politico and confirmed by multiple sources to the Guardian, imperils the federal government’s climate research, say experts.“The firing of USGCRP staff guts the entire climate research and services ecosystem leaving teetering silos of climate teams, already reeling from federal cuts due to Doge,” the anonymous staffer said.Another federal worker with knowledge of the program, who was also granted anonymity, said the contract’s cancellation will mean “the Sixth National Climate Assessment is effectively destroyed.”USGCRP staff who hailed from the 15 federal agencies had all been told to abandon the body; its only remaining staff were from ICF and have now been fired, the second worker said. “Climate research as a whole will be hobbled because USGCRP’s interagency working groups are essential coordinating bodies across the entire government, including and beyond the 15 USGCRP member agencies.”The move came one day after the rightwing outlet the Daily Wire published an article attacking ICF International saying the firm was “raking in millions to spread climate doom”. Since its publication, the second worker said they had had a “pit in their stomach”.The attack on the USGCRP and national climate assessment did not come as a surprise. In the Heritage Foundation’s far-right policy blueprint Project 2025, Russ Vought – now Trump’s head of the office and management and budget – called to end the USGCRP or fill it with pro-oil industry members.Since Trump’s second term began in January, the monthly meetings of delegates to the body from federal agencies have been cancelled, the anonymous worker said. “We were waiting for new principles to be sent from each agency, which never happened, so that could have been a sign in retrospect,” they added.Andrew Rosenberg, a former Noaa official who is now a fellow at the University of New Hampshire, called the end of the contract “very foolish” and “thoughtless”. National climate assessments provide an important synthesis of “science across fields” – and are not particularly expensive to produce because the authors are all volunteers, he said.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn February, Trump officials also denied US scientists permission to attend a meeting of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s leading climate science entity. The federal government also cancelled its contract with ICF International to maintain US support for and involvement in the body.“Extreme weather disasters displaced millions of people and caused billions of dollars in damage in 2024 alone,” said Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech University climate scientist who has served as lead author on three national climate assessments. “Given the accelerating pace and scale of climate impacts today, a sustained and more comprehensive national climate assessment process is so essential,” Hayhoe said. “We need it today, to build a better future tomorrow.”The move is a sign of the Trump administration’s fealty to the fossil fuel industry, said Michael Mann, an eminent US climate scientist. The sector donated in record levels to Trump’s re-election campaign.“It is pure villainy,” said Mann. “A crime against the planet – arguably, the most profound of all crimes.” More