For the first month of the Trump administration, it appeared that there was little organized resistance to its attacks on the existing system of biomedical research.
Science activists from Trump’s first administration were burnt out and went their separate ways, drugmakers have been mum on the potential of slashing funding to universities, and both private foundations and scientific societies have capitulated to the new administration’s attacks on efforts to promote diversity in science.
But resistance is starting to form. Unions representing fellows at the NIH and several universities are planning a protest at the headquarters of the Department of Health and Human Services next week. Simultaneously, a grassroots group of scientists is planning a protest in Washington, D.C., and state capitals around the country in March. Organizers for both protests said they were being pushed to action by political attacks that have directly affected their livelihoods and their ability to conduct research.
“Things are changing very quickly and in a terrible direction. It seems like every week we have new slashes to funding or new changes to policies that harm science in America,” said Ian Fucci, a member of the NIH Fellows United union who is involved in planning the rally at HHS next week. “We have strength in numbers. …I think we’re ready to fight.” His union, which represents 5,000 fellows at the NIH from postbaccalaureate researchers to postdoctoral researchers, is being joined by Higher Education Labor United and unions at Johns Hopkins and other universities.
Organizers described an untenable status quo, where they felt unable to respond to the Trump administration’s apparent dismantling of funding for scientific research over the past month. For some, it was the order last week to substantially slash the type of funding known as indirect costs — which could devastate research institutions. Others cited the sustained attacks on efforts to diversify the academic workforce. “Everyone feels stuck right now, and it feels like we should do something to show people that we do care, whether it be standing up at a rally or trying to call your representatives,” said JP Flores, a bioinformaticist at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, who is part of the group organizing a nationwide protest on March 7.
The protest outside HHS is a direct response to the chaos the new administration has unleashed at federal science and health agencies — which has thrown some research into limbo and put the recruiting process for new students on hold. The March protest, titled “Stand Up for Science Protest,” is billed as a more general message to stand up for science because “science is for everyone.”
“It doesn’t matter who you voted for. It doesn’t matter if you voted or not. It doesn’t even matter if you live in the United States or not. You have benefited from the system of American science. Because of that, we want any person who feels that science is important to them and to American society, to be involved,” said Colette Delawalla, a clinical psychologist at Emory University who is another organizer of that protest along with Flores, and a handful of other organizers who have coalesced over social media.
In some ways, the current state of affairs mirrors Trump’s first administration — and the birth of the March for Science. Just like the seminal march in 2017, the Stand Up for Science protest is largely being coordinated by graduate students and early career scholars. They’ve also reached out to organizers of the March for Science to heed the lessons they learned. “It’s not good that we’re at the place where this is needed. That actually feels really bad,” said Jonathan Berman, one of the organizers of the March for Science. “But, it feels good to see them step forward, and I do hope that seeing us, having done a similar thing eight years ago helps them say, ‘Oh, we can do this.’”
Some commentators have noted a general lack of a “resistance 2.0” to challenge Trump. But during the first administration, it also took some time before wide scale protests erupted, said Dana Fisher, a sociologist who studies activism, including the 2017 march. There are some indications, she said, that the temperature is even higher this term — and may lead to more widespread or more violent protests.
In 2017, “people were feeling like that science was under scrutiny and data had been erased. But I don’t feel like we got this sense that people’s livelihoods were being threatened,” she said. “Once you have so many people who are feeling so, so personally attacked, so many people who are losing jobs, so many people who are losing livelihoods, are losing health care, and are feeling like their family members are at risk of losing their citizenship, you end up with a lot of people who may be willing to put it all on the line. And that is a very dangerous prescription for peaceful protest.”
Just last month, at the People’s March, Fisher found that a third of participants she surveyed were open to political violence. This increased political temperature is weighing on some of the protest organizers.
“I am so sick to my stomach about this,” Delawalla said. “I’m nervous that nobody will show up. I’m nervous about everything, I’m nervous that I’m gonna flub press interviews. I am nervous that there will be career backlash. I want things to be safe for people that are protesting. I want it to be a family friendly event. I’m wrecked about it, but sometimes you just have to go ahead and deal with it. Sometimes you can just be afraid and do it.”
