In the first few months of the new administration, we have witnessed an unprecedented dismantlingopens in a new tab or window of the national scientific and research enterprise. While certain shifts were anticipated in the wake of the 2024 presidential election, the speed and scope of these changes have been alarming. The consequences are rippling across every domain of science and medicine, leaving the academic community grappling with how to move forwardopens in a new tab or window in a rapidly shifting landscape. While debate is integral to the advancement of science, division across partisan lines harms the advancement of science and our collective health.
At a time when many individuals and organizations are unsure of how to respond, one thing is abundantly clear: silence will not protect science. As health equity researchers, our fields of science -- reproductive health, workforce diversity, and cancer disparities -- are once again at the center of conflict. One commonly observed response has been to obscure or rebrand "controversial" areas like diversityopens in a new tab or window or sexualityopens in a new tab or window in an attempt to avoid scrutiny. For example, researchers are considering and being asked to make changes to language in grants and manuscriptsopens in a new tab or window.
This strategy is both ethically and strategically flawed. Obfuscation erodes public trust and weakens the integrity of scientific inquiry. The recent threat of NIH indirect cost cutsopens in a new tab or window and canceling of grantsopens in a new tab or window and public health programsopens in a new tab or window serves as a stark warning: when we permit vulnerabilities in one area of research, the resulting fracture inevitably undermines the entire scientific infrastructure. //
George_Avery_PhD
2 days ago
We needed people to speak up when leaders at NIH tried to suppress the Lab Leak hypothesis in order to cover up the fact that the agency may well have paid to create the COVID virus. We needed people to speak up when Washington was trying to suppress those who held true to the fundamental virtue of science, which is skepticism - not just on COVID, but other areas of science. We needed to speak up when the Climategate e-mails revealed a conspiracy to suppress dissenting research. We needed to speak up for years as nutritional research clung to the ideas of Ancel Keyes, even when it was revealed that he suppressed his own results when they did not fit his ideas. We needed to speak up over the crisis in peer review. We need to speak up about health economists who neglect to consider that government intervention is itself a market failure. We needed to speak up about the misrepresented and exaggerated risks of nuclear power, and the false idea that solar and wind generation can meet growing baseline needs.
