Placards at the ready Chuck Nacke/Alamy

The March for Science is set for tomorrow, when thousands are expected to descend on the National Mall in Washington DC. Hundreds of satellite marches are set to take place around the globe. Despite criticisms of the organising committee and a perceived lack of a clear message, it could be a turning point for how scientists approach government.

In the days after the 2017 US presidential inauguration, resistance to the anti-science stance trumpeted during the 2016 campaign grew in online discussions on Reddit. Several people, including physiologist Jonathan Berman, proposed a march on Washington similar to the Women’s March in January.

“There was this building desire among scientists to become more willing to enter into the political discussion, and we sort of got the timing right to become the fulcrum for that,” says Berman, who became one of the national organisers of the March for Science.


Within a week of launching a website, the movement had gained a Twitter following of more than a million people, he says.

On the morning of 22 April, environmental group the Earth Day Network will co-host a teach-in and rally near the Washington Monument, followed by the march through the streets ending at the US Capitol.

Mainstream support

To grow their grass-roots effort, Berman and his co-organisers felt it was important to secure the backing of mainstream scientific organisations.

“It was clear we needed to gain their expertise and support, and begin partnering with scientific societies,” he says. His first bite was from former congressperson and physicist Rush Holt, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

“I got this middle-of-the-night call from Rush, and it was kind of like being called into the principal’s office,” Berman says. “But he was extremely supportive of our efforts, and once we reached an understanding of our non-partisan goals, Rush helped connect us to other scientific societies.”

Partners of the march now include hundreds of universities and scientific societies. These have promoted the march to their members, suggested speakers for the teach-ins on the day, and will be key to rallying people for the science cause long after the march is over, says Berman.

One such group is the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which will capitalise on the gathering to train scientists and science supporters to be more politically active.

Diversity controversy

Some of that energy is focusing back on the march itself, however. The march and its organisers have faced criticism for their approach to issues involving diversity of leadership and the inclusion of marginalised groups – problems that have long plagued scientific culture.

Jacquelyn Gill, an ecologist at the University of Maine, tweeted that she left the organising committee last month over such issues. She said that initial resistance within the march’s leadership to issuing an internal statement that diversity and inclusion were core values had the effect of weakening the March and its goals by alienating those who stand to lose the most in the War on Science.

“#ScienceMarch also represents a tragic lost opportunity to do better than science’s racist, sexist, ableist, colonialist, oppressive past,” she tweeted.

But Berman believes some of these issues have been addressed. “Science has done a bad job over time of being diverse and doing all the things it should to ensure that opportunities or scientific careers are equal, and making sure that science itself benefits from all communities,” Berman admits. “I had hoped that we would instigate some of that discussion, and I think to a degree we have.”

Looking forward

The long-term goals for the march are also a bit fuzzy – though Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the UCS, sees it as a chance to highlight the role of scientific evidence in public discussion and policy. While he admits that President Donald Trump may not be swayed by the protest, he says other elected officials and citizens will be listening.

Berman says a key audience for the march is politicians themselves. But though there has been interest from US senators and members of the House of Representatives in speaking at the rally, the March for Science has not included any speaking spots for government officials.

“We don’t want this to be a platform for someone to get elected by speaking at our event, says Berman.”We want this to be an opportunity to elevate the voices of actual scientists and people whose everyday lives are affected by science. We want to talk about science to the politicians.”

Some have expressed concern that the march will politicise science, but Peter Frumhoff of the UCS rejects that dichotomy. He says science is inherently political because it affects policy. And besides, times have changed.

“What we’re seeing in the Trump administration and Congress, the rejection of science, the rollback of funding, the efforts to roll back science-based regulations, folks are angry,” he says. “I think people are motivated like never before to speak out, and I think that’s all good.”

Read more: How to protest against Trump in his expanded surveillance state;

We mustn’t let a superpower turn its back on rationality