Policy

Scientific community rethinks how to advocate for its priorities in the Trump era

By Andrea Widener

Credit: Natalie Hudson-Smith

The first year of the Donald J. Trump administration wasn’t a smooth one for science supporters.

It started with surprise limits on immigration to the U.S. from some countries, a move that many scientists saw as dangerous to scientific openness. The year continued with significant proposed budget cuts for most of the major science research agencies, as well as attacks on peer review and support for universities’ administrative costs.

The White House’s appointments to major science positions haven’t helped the situation (see chart, page 29). Many new leaders of key research agencies have neither a science background nor science connections. And the administration still hasn’t made any major appointments to the U.S. Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP)—including the director, who would normally serve as the president’s science adviser.

This situation has forced many organizations to change tack in their science advocacy efforts. “It has really rallied the scientific community to step up their advocacy on different levels in different ways,” says Suzanne Ffolkes, vice president of communications at the advocacy group Research!America.

In the past, many groups used OSTP as a conduit to the White House. “It is rough for science” not to have a White House champion to help explain the value of science to the country and the economy, says Jennifer Poulakidas, vice president for congressional and governmental affairs at the Association of Public & Land-grant Universities. Others question whether even a fully staffed OSTP would carry any weight with the administration.

The lack of support in the White House means the American Chemical Society and other groups are spending more time working directly with federal agencies or with legislators who are interested in science issues. “You work with Congress to deflect some of the big hits that are coming at you,” such as by demonstrating the value of research funding, says Anthony Pitagno, ACS’s director of government affairs. ACS’s goal for 2018 is to take that even further. “We want to get out of reaction mode and start working proactively” on issues such as a dedicated helium source for researchers and identifying sources for critical materials, he says.

A newfound willingness of more scientists and members of the science-supporting public to also speak out, through activities like the March for Science, should make it easier to convince legislators of the value of science. The show of support “was an affirmation of how many people do respect and value science,” says Joanne Carney, director of the Office of Government Relations at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

That public support translated into action on issues like keeping graduate student tuition waivers tax-free in the recent tax reform bill. “It was a win, and we hope to see more wins,” Ffolkes says.

In Congress, the Chemistry Caucus, which begins its third year in 2018, “will continue its educational focus to help members understand the importance of chemistry in the daily lives of all Americans,” says David Russell, spokesperson for caucus cochair Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.).

The Congressional Chemistry Caucus has yet to support any specific legislation because nothing has fit the bipartisan nature of the group, says Joel Creswell, who works on the caucus for its other cochair, Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.). “I think it could probably happen if the right opportunity arose,” Creswell says.

Creswell notes that despite a political environment that isn’t science friendly, Lipinski has found ways to accomplish science policy objectives by working across the aisle. Those efforts included advocating for the National Science Foundation’s I-Corps program to promote entrepreneurship and the Department of Energy’s Energy Innovation Hubs.

Bipartisan support for science is going to be especially important for advocates hoping to improve research funding, which is currently constrained under budget caps known as sequestration. The White House proposed even greater cuts to science in its 2018 budget. Those cuts were largely rejected by legislators from both parties, but the administration is likely to try again.

Overall, science interests in Congress will probably be overshadowed by major policy initiatives such as reform of Social Security and other entitlement programs, though one potential bright spot is the Trump administration’s promised infrastructure plan. “There are certainly elements there that could have science and technology components,” Carney says. Initiatives on cybersecurity and the opioid epidemic could also include R&D funding.

In the end, what science groups might need to prepare for most is the unexpected, Poulakidas points out. In the beginning of 2017, “We would not have been able to predict everything that we dealt with.”