Despite the incredible successes of the US scientific infrastructure over the past decades, recent science and health policy changes enacted by the Trump administration, including those of dubious legality, have upended our innovation ecosystem and thrown the scientific community into turmoil. We’ve seen dramatic proposed cuts to federal R&D funding, mass layoffs (including entire communications staffs), grant freezes, and elevation of pseudoscience in our institutions, to name only a handful.
Meanwhile, the administration is attempting to whitewash these activities using the moniker of “Restoring Gold Standard Science.” In reality, that order is a travesty that uses scientific language to provide cover for politicizing science.
Let’s be clear. Destabilizing scientific infrastructure envied the world over through haphazard, draconian, and even vindictive policy comes with tremendous downsides and very real consequences.
So, how did we get here? How did we go from decades of broad political support of US science and scientists to unprecedented attacks on their autonomy and independent function? And why does it seem that recent US science policy changes caught the scientific and medical community off guard?
There are certainly a lot of interlacing issues at play that led to this moment. But, a key problem is that there isn’t enough active dialogue between scientists and society.
In fairness, the intense demands of our work pushed us to under-emphasize our social and political footprints. For too long, the scientific community, by and large, focused scientific training and labor on myopic, insulated pursuits. Perhaps with a more visible role in civic society, scientists would be more equipped and prepared to rally support and push back today. But, as the saying goes, “The best time to start was yesterday. The next best time is now.”
Instead of operating in isolation, we need to reframe ourselves as scientists IN society. Scientists must more widely interface with communities “outside” their work and seize a more active role in shaping societal direction.
To help us get there, let’s explore a bit about science’s historical roots to understand the origin of latent isolationist sentiment, and use it as a foil for taking concrete steps today and into the future.
The past: toiling in the ivory tower
I don’t mean to be overly critical of the scientific and medical community for being increasingly insular and politically detached. Science has been moving in that direction since its beginnings in the early modern period (1400–1800).
Originally, “natural philosophers,” the predecessors of modern scientists, embraced a wider and more interconnected approach to studying reality. There were no rigid barriers that kept science, the humanities, and even theology from one another. The natural philosophers believed that all branches of knowledge were inherently linked and relished opportunities to explore those interactions for humanity’s benefit. In fact, Francis Bacon, an early architect of the scientific method, was himself a lawyer and statesman. It was in these roles that he pushed for the establishment of knowledge-gathering institutions and research patronage.
However, as science matured, the work became increasingly complex. In turn, this led generations of scientists to increasingly idolize quiet toil in the lab, except for occasional peer-to-peer dialogue. As those deep dives into more specialized inquiries generated more success and professional recognition, leading scientists began to openly endorse and encourage their trainees to do the same. In fact, “How to be a scientist” tomes often suggest a head-down approach to avoid “distractions,” including political engagement. The seminal text, “Advice for a Young Investigator,” first published in 1897 by Nobel Laureate and neuroscience pioneer Santiago Ramón y Cajal, doesn’t mince words on this:
“To pursue fully the topic of our research with the limited facilities that we have, let us forget unrelated pursuits and the parasitic ideas connected with the futile trifles of everyday life. Using strength and perseverance, concentrate deeply only on information pertinent to the question at hand. During the gestation period of our work, sentence ourselves to ignorance of everything else that is going on—politics, literature, music, and idle gossip.”
The present: out of the tower and into the streets
Here is the problem with Cajal’s words: scientists are complete humans, and science doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The scientific community depends on the “world outside” to operate, and those outside depend on our community to deliver lasting advancement.
Jonas Salk, inventor of the polio vaccine, can serve as a model for the engaged scientist. Salk recognized that eradicating disease and advancing public health requires more than scientific discovery alone—they depend on social, political, and economic cooperation. His books on “biophilosophy,” such as Man Unfolding and A New Reality, argue that continued human evolution depends on shifting society toward more collaborative, evidence-based, and sustainable practices. Because of the intimate and innate connection between science and society, it is our humanity that can ultimately strengthen our position and help us overcome today’s turmoil.
To let our humanity shine, scientists must embrace the use of soft skills to connect with others. A groundswell of effective, empathetic scientific communicators can galvanize countless more to the cause, accumulating collective power to drive directional shifts.
Five steps for making community connections today as a scientist
Step One: Steel Yourself from Doom. “Doomerism” is an accelerant for authoritarian power grabs. We have power until the moment we opt to relinquish it. I’d argue that it is precisely why US science, a success story of governance, has come under attack—the goal to make us feel powerless.
While the situation is dire, that doesn’t mean it’s all over. Headlines focusing on “permanent” and “irreversible” damage may shock some into action. Still, I’d wager they’re more likely to make people fall into doom spirals. Look at climate science communications for an example of this.
Instead, embrace the resilience you’ve developed from your work and lend that strength to others when you can. Though it may be painful, what has been broken or removed can be fixed and replaced if we remain standing.
Resilience can also help you converse with people who hold differing or undecided viewpoints. Remain calm, but don’t give way to faulty perspectives backed by limited, poor, or non-existent evidence. Check out physician Doctor Mike’s performance on the series Surrounded for a masterclass in this.
In these situations, start by asking, “What is your evidence?” or “What makes you think that?” These questions are a powerful tool for learning about your audience and determining what needs to be discussed and confronted.
Step Two: Find Your People. If recent events in the US have left you feeling disheartened and lonely, that’s your sign to build up your network. The Union of Concerned Scientists (especially its Science Network), Stand Up for Science, the National Science Policy Network, AAAS, your favorite professional society, your university network, Slack, Discord, and social media are great places to start. Use them to seek out relevant demonstrations, signature campaigns, talks, and rallies. If you start talking with others about what keeps you awake at night, it can light a fire in your belly and theirs.
Step Three: Embrace Your Character and Culture. Working in communications, I can tell you that how you present is often what holds back meaningful dialogue. Certainly, the content of what you say matters a lot, but it is easily overshadowed by an overly contrived or dull public persona. Instead, be your authentic self but lean into your more emphatic and even theatrical tendencies. People listen to storytellers because they bring content to life.
Plus, there is value in breaking the scientist stereotype that makes us seem inaccessible. Expressing your culture helps show people that scientists do more than wear lab coats, push up their glasses, and forget to comb their hair.
Step Four: Share Your Scientific Narrative. Get out there and share your passion for science. Seek out opportunities to engage with those outside your immediate circles. Writing op-eds for your local newspaper is a great way to go. As another, you could work with Stand Up for Science and lead a teach-in, open lab, or science demo in your community.
At a minimum, spend time reading up, crafting your narrative, and putting it out there in some format. Don’t be afraid to let it fly. You can always iterate and improve. Even a casual conversation with your neighbor, friends, PTA members, pickleball club, hairdresser, or whoever counts. The most crucial point is that you get your thoughts “out of the lab and into the streets.”
But I can’t emphasize the “narrative” part enough. Every discussion of science should include a story, complete with setting, characters, conflict, and a theme (or take-home message). Just don’t lose the plot! As Rush Holt Jr., Ph.D., former US congressman, former AAAS President, and physicist, put it during a talk I caught during grad school, “take them on a journey” and “help them see themselves in your work.”
Step Five: Get Political, Not Partisan. For decades, scientists have largely avoided sharing their policy perspectives so as not to appear “biased” to onlookers. To me, that fear is misplaced. For one, we are biased. We are biased by data. In addition, we cannot control how others choose to propagandize us, and we cannot counter false assertions by standing on the sidelines.
However, I do want to warn against embracing overtly partisan behavior. Publicly cozying up too much to specific parties and overtly partisan actors can affect your trustworthiness. Uncritical allegiance can create uncomfortable scenarios that distract from your goal. When in doubt, stick to what you know. Focus on policies and actions when communicating externally.
The future: securing prosperity in open society
When we emerge from this, we will need to take a long, hard look at how to protect science and research for the long haul. That means changing how we empower the next generations of scientists with a more complete set of skills. As good as Santiago Ramón y Cajal’s book is, it doesn’t reflect the needs of scientists today.
Academic programs must enhance their soft skills development activities, especially in science communication. We must stop pretending that liberal arts courses and non-scientific training aren’t relevant to science.
Skill set diversification can come from more formal classes and training, but also from encouraging external opportunities beyond the scope of a traditional dissertation. If you’re in a position to provide advice to early-career scientists, encourage them to embrace advocacy efforts, join acting/improv classes, mentor local high schoolers, take on internships, attend different conferences, learn how to promote their work, and so on. Though many programs do encourage students to do some of these activities, most do so with the understanding that it “doesn’t distract” from their research project. To that, I say, be distracted and follow your instincts.
Going further, I also think it’s high time for more folks with scientific training to take up elected roles. An injection of evidence-based decision-makers serves to keep our government grounded in reality and act as a bulwark against demagoguery.
Though there are many more ways for you to get involved and support science, I hope these words provided some food for thought. See you out there!