Elephant

Editor and General Manager

As in the one in the room. A few things to note, some widely reported, some less so, regarding the new administration taking office in D.C., and of interest to scientists.

First, some of the more prominent cabinet and department head nominees. Rick Perry, Secretary of Energy, expressed his desire to abolish the Department of Energy during the 2012 Republican presidential primary. At that time, details were not available regarding his plans for the national labs that will soon be under his purview. Betsy Devos, Secretary of Education, was a supporter of the Common Core initiative, until her nomination. I guess the question is: Who will she seek to serve—her new boss or the students? Scott Pruitt, Environmental Protection Agency. The Oklahoma attorney general, a vocal supporter of the fossil-fuel industry and anti-regulation litigator, has frequently taken on the EPA. He would oversee an agency that the president has vowed to dismantle. Mick Mulvaney, senator from South Carolina and the candidate selected to head the Office of Management and Budget, asked in a now-deleted Facebook post, “Do we really need government-funded research at all?” Kellyanne Conway, senior advisor to the president. Notable for admitting that the administration feels compelled to “… go out and clear the air and put alternative facts out there.” While this statement is not directed at the research community in any way, it may be seen as a clue to how the administration feels about the benefits of scientific rigor.

It is also worth mentioning that the administration has purged nearly all mention of climate change programs from the White House and State Department websites and ordered a freeze on federal grant spending at the EPA and other government agencies. Memos ordered employees of at least four agencies not to send out news releases or create social media posts, blog entries or official website content, and to consult with senior officials before speaking to the news media. (Communications holds are not unusual during transitions, though they usually don’t feel so ominous.) The president threatened federal funding for U.C. Berkeley when some rogue protesters took over a peaceful demonstration on campus (something that he apparently can’t do, at least not without some changes to existing statutes).

On another front, a number of scientific societies are so concerned about policy changes that they felt compelled to make public comment. In a joint statement on the Administration’s Executive Order on Immigration, the AACR (American Association for Cancer Research), ASH (American Society of Hematology), ASTRO (American Society for Radiation Oncology), ASPHO (American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology), AACI (American Society of Cancer Institutes) and LUNGevity, expressed “…deep concern about the Administration’s executive order that has denied U.S. entry to people who bring unique expertise to the practice of medicine and the conduct of cancer and biomedical research. Our nation depends on the contributions of the greatest minds from around the world to maintain the high quality of our biomedical research enterprise and health care services.” In a letter to President Trump on the immigration restrictions, 151 signing organizations, led alphabetically by the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), banded together to state that the restrictions on immigration will have “…profound implications for diplomatic, humanitarian, and national security interests.” It went on, “The 151 undersigned organizations—representing a broad spectrum of professional scientific, engineering and education societies, national associations, and universities—are deeply concerned that this Executive Order will have a negative impact on the ability of scientists and engineers in industry and academia to enter, or leave from and return to, the United States. This will reduce U.S. science and engineering output to the detriment of America and Americans. Scientific progress depends on openness, transparency, and the free flow of ideas and people, and these principles have helped the United States attract and richly benefit from international scientific talent.” The American Chemical Society also saw the need to issue a statement, which read in part, “As the world’s largest scientific society, the American Chemical Society (ACS) expresses its concern over the Presidential Executive Order ‘Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States’ and the chilling effect this order may potentially have on the freedom of scientific exchange among scientists and students worldwide.”

Let’s start with the cabinet nominees and their group. The position of the Republican Party in my lifetime is that they are “pro-business,” one of those politically flexible terms that sounds good and means little. It seems from here that the current crop of nominees support well-established businesses (for example, oil companies) at the expense of new enterprises (for example, solar energy), which will actually be the drivers of growth going forward. As for national labs, federally supported research conducted by government agencies and their collaborators in institutes and academia are a national treasure. Scientists work on the cutting edge in many areas, frequently taking on projects that are years, even decades, in development, without the kind of near-term payoff that would attract business investment. Their progress will keep the country economically and technologically competitive in the future. As to Common Core, a workforce well versed in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) will be vital to economic growth and employability. Anyone needing a reminder of the dangers of regulatory rollbacks need look no further than Flint, Michigan. Not only would following regulatory guidelines have protected citizens, it would have been far more cost-effective. A win-win, unless you are in the disaster remediation business. Regarding immigration, I think the letters of the various societies said all that needs be said.

Here at the SLAS conference in D.C., a very small and informal survey of attendees and exhibitors uncovered a not-unsurprising level of concern. Administrations come and go, and bring changes to policies and funding for research, education and regulation. But it seems we are now in uncharted territory. The pushback from scientific societies is welcome and necessary. It seems that endurance will be needed as well.

Steve Ernst is editor and general manager, American Laboratory/Labcompare; [email protected]

Related Products

Comments