The March for Science—which will take place this Saturday, April 22, on Earth Day—has produced a stir within the scientific community and generated a slew of headlines. While it is difficult to determine the extent of the controversy, there have been a few notable voices of concern, including one widely read op-ed by a coastal geologist who called the endeavor “a terrible idea.”

While we understand the misgivings expressed by some of our fellow scientists, it is our position at PSE Healthy Energy, a science and policy institute, that the benefits of the march outweigh the risks.

The main worry in the scientific community is that the march could intensify the political polarization of science, turning some fact-based topics into partisan issues. The march could reinforce the false narrative that exists in some quarters that scientists are part of a special interest group and use data for their own purposes. Some scientists fear the march could backfire, and that science may actually lose support if aligned with street demonstrations, a tactic that may alienate some people. Others scientists are concerned the march will trivialize science by mixing it with other political messages. After all, one of the central tenets of the scientific approach is that science should be separate from the passions of politics and private life.

These concerns have some validity. There is a possibility the march may have some unintended consequences, rendering scientists’ work even more difficult than it already is in the current political climate. But we still believe the effort is worth it. The March for Science can serve as a necessary wake-up call for both the public and our elected officials that the fact-finding apparatus of our decision-making process is at risk. Many of the world’s most prominent scientific organizations agree and are partnering with the March for Science to help make this opportunity a success.

Scientists are not alone in their concern that science has been under attack—or, at the very least, that it is underappreciated. The march began as a response to the Trump administration’s perceived hostility to science. This hostility is partly evidenced by proposed funding and research cuts at the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Institutes of Health. It is also revealed by the way in which some in the administration have indicated a disregard for empirical evidence when it conflicts with their existing agenda. To be sure, politically motivated manipulation of scientific findings is nothing new. It does, however, seem to have reached new levels with the current administration’s open disdain for objective facts.

In this sense, the march cannot help but be political. However, we encourage its participants to think of the experience as something more. Indeed, the mission of the march suggests that it is far bigger than politics.

Fundamentally, the March for Science is about the essential role empirical evidence plays in policy decisions. This should be a message that transcends partisan identities. It’s a message that, since our inception, we at PSE Healthy Energy have advocated for with regard to how society produces, transmits, and uses energy. Our organization integrates scientific information across multiple disciplines to support the adoption of responsible, evidence-based energy policies. We believe science provides a better understanding of the world and enables us to identify reasonable, healthy, and sustainable energy options. Science can improve political decision-making and create better, more informed policies. Many of the central tenets of our organization are expressed in the principles and goals of the March for Science.

In a way, the March for Science has already achieved some of its main goals, insofar as it has sparked new debate about the role of science in a democracy. For example, the march has fueled a constructive conversation that is useful for clarifying the role of values in science. Scientists of all disciplines often fail to recognize the role that values play in their work. Values inform the choices scientists make throughout their research, from the hypotheses they test, to the experimental comparators they choose, to how they interpret evidence. Hydrologists, for instance, may test water downstream from a wastewater treatment facility presumably because they care about water quality. Values cannot be completely excised from science; instead of being suppressed, they should be acknowledged and made transparent.

Science also helps to inform what we as a society choose to value. We want physicians who understand biology and human anatomy because we value our health. We want civil engineers who comprehend physics because we value our safety. Likewise, we should want policies and regulations imbued with empirical justification, especially when those policies influence the health of the environment and our communities. Ignorance and rejection of science are harmful to society.

Many of our fellow Americans seem to have forgotten that empirical understanding helps to protect the things we care most about in this world. The March for Science can serve as a reminder. The march can remind us that scientific understanding should be fostered and celebrated, not inhibited. The march can remind us that science serves an important role in a functioning democracy—that science needs to be seen and heard in order for citizens to make well-informed decisions. In the end, this is what the March for Science is about, and it’s why we’ll be supporting those marching on Saturday.