{"id":37769,"date":"2017-02-07T10:39:12","date_gmt":"2017-02-07T18:39:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/world.edu\/?p=37769"},"modified":"2017-02-07T10:39:12","modified_gmt":"2017-02-07T18:39:12","slug":"scientists-engage-activism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/world.edu\/scientists-engage-activism\/","title":{"rendered":"Should scientists engage in activism?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"agu-scientists-rally\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Have you heard that scientists are planning a march on Washington<\/a>? The move is not being billed as a protest, but rather as a \u201ccelebration of our passion for science and a call to support and safeguard the scientific community,\u201d although it comes as a direct response to recent policy changes and statements by the Trump administration.<\/p>\n

Not everyone thinks the nonprotest protest is a good thing. It\u2019s \u201ca terrible idea<\/a>,\u201d wrote Robert Young, a geologist at Western Carolina University, in The New York Times. The march, Young said, will just reinforce a belief among some conservatives that \u201cscientists are an interest group,\u201d and polarize the issue, making researchers\u2019 jobs more difficult. Others find that argument less than convincing<\/a>, pointing out that science and politics have always been intertwined.<\/p>\n

As the founders of the blog Retraction Watch and the Center for Scientific Integrity, we often see researchers reluctant to push for or embrace change \u2013 whether it\u2019s to the conventional way of dealing with misconduct in journals (which for years was basically to not do so) or addressing problems of reproducibility of their experiments. To the timorous, airing dirty laundry, and letting the public in on the reality of science, could endanger public trust \u2013 and funding.<\/p>\n

So this isn\u2019t the first time scientists and engineers have voiced similar concerns. Take the example of Marc Edwards and his colleagues at Virginia Tech: To many people watching the Flint water crisis, they were heroes. After being asked to visit by concerned residents, they found, and announced, that people in the beleaguered city were being exposed to excessive amounts of lead through their tap water. They also launched a crowdfunding campaign to raise money for water filters for city residents and created a website<\/a> to push their findings about the hazards of the city\u2019s water supply and shame governments at all levels to act.<\/p>\n

If not for their tireless efforts, thousands of children may have been exposed to dangerous amounts of lead for far longer than they already were. Even the Environmental Protection Agency has acknowledged that it waited too long to sound the alarm<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"<\/a>

Marc Edwards testifying before Congress about the situation in Flint. AP Photo\/Andrew Harnik<\/p><\/div>
\nBut that\u2019s not exactly how the editor of a leading engineering journal sees things.<\/p>\n

In October, a remarkable editorial<\/a> appeared in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. The essay, by University of California, Berkeley engineering professor and Water Center Director David Sedlak<\/a>, ES&T\u2019s editor-in-chief, expressed concern that some of his colleagues in the field had crossed the \u201cimaginary line\u201d between scientist and advocate.<\/p>\n

\u201cSpeaking out against a corrupt or incompetent system may be the product of a culture where idealism, personal responsibility, and Hollywood\u2019s dramatic sensibilities conspire to create a narrative about the noble individual fighting injustice,\u201d Sedlak wrote.<\/p>\n

By becoming \u201callies of a particular cause, no matter how just, we jeopardize the social contract that underpins the tradition of financial support for basic research.\u201d In other words, don\u2019t cross Congress \u2013 which many scientists already view as hostile to their profession<\/a> \u2013 and risk retaliation in the form of budget cuts. That\u2019s no small pie, either. Through its oversight of the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Energy and other agencies and programs, Congress holds the strings to a research purse worth nearly US$70 billion a year<\/a>.<\/p>\n