An anti-science movement is here in Washington. Why aren't you?

This week (12/14), on CNN's broadcast of "New Day," co-host Chris Cuomo interviewed an advisor from President-elect Donald Trump's transition team, Anthony Scaramucci. The founder of SkyBridge Capital and co-host of Fox Business Network’s program “Wall Street Week,” Scaramucci answered Cuomo's questions about why the transition team requested the names of those at the Department of Energy who have worked on climate change research. Then this happened ...

Scaramucci: There are scientists that believe that that’s not happening... There was an overwhelming science that the earth was flat and there was an overwhelming science that we were the center of the world... We get a lot of things wrong in the scientific community... I don't know. I'm not a scientist."

Did he just compare climate science research to flat-Earth theory? Oh, yes he did. To be fair, Scaramucci went on to say that clean air and clean water are very important issues to the new administration, however soon after that, he called the science on climate change "ideological" despite an overwhelming consensus (97%) from your peers and colleagues in the scientific community.





WINTER (FOR SCIENCE AND RESEARCH) IS COMING.

With a recent article in The Atlantic, science writer/journalist Ed Yong wrote about how the new administration, with the support of a Republican Congress, could wage its war on scientific expertise, i.e. you:

"In 1996, under the guidance of Newt Gingrich, Congress passed the Congressional Review Act (CRA). It allows them to issue a “resolution of disapproval” that repeals rules issued by independent agencies like the EPA or FDA, or even by the Executive Branch. And it makes the process very fast, immunizing it against delaying tactics like filibusters.

It only becomes powerful under a very particular set of circumstances—when an incoming President wants to negate their predecessor’s recent works, and when their party controls both houses of Congress. That’s what happened in March 2001, when George W. Bush repealed a Clinton regulation that protected workers from ergonomic injuries—the only time in history when the CRA has been successfully used. And it’s what might happen when Donald Trump gets inaugurated in January. He’ll walk into the Oval Office with a Republican-controlled House and Senate behind him, allowing him to shoot down any significant regulation that Obama passed after mid-May."

A list of those regulations approved by President Obama includes ...

FDA ban on chemicals in antibacterial soaps.

EPA rules on methane and ozone emissions, formaldehyde levels in wood products, and efficiency standards for heavy vehicles.

Rules on drilling for Arctic oil.

Rules managing wastewater from fracking.

The CRA is a "bomb" that can eliminate rules from the past, but the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, introduced by the Senate last year, if passed, will have the same destructive power to prohibit rules from being enacted in the future. Ed Yong's article explains:

"... the Act would allow Congress to block important legislation by simply doing nothing... As it is, making regulations isn’t easy. Agencies have to recruit scientific experts, do research, compile evidence, go through peer review, face pushbacks from industry, and give the public many chances to comment. At any time, they could be sued or challenged in court. The REINS Act would allow Congress to discard all that empiricism for what amounts to a downvote."





CHANCES ARE, YOUR FEDERAL FUNDING IS ABOUT TO GET SLASHED.

If the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress believe that science is "ideological," with a competing "liberal" agenda, don't expect an increase in your federal funding and research grants. Depending on the nature of your science, you may lose it all.

If you're researching climate science, you're close to the bottom of the priority list. Perhaps, above the studies on the affects of cocaine addiction on monkeys' brains. Republicans have already announced their intent to continue supporting, if not increasing, NASA's deep space research budget. But that will likely come from the appropriations funding NASA's Earth science projects.

If you're involved in basic or pure research, without a clear theory to develop technological advancements or support practical applications to serve the interest of the American people (i.e. constituents), those same cracked-out monkeys might have a better shot at seeing some of that congressional scratch.

In a recent interview with Motherboard (a VICE news channel), former Democratic congressman and current CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Dr. Rush D. Holt said, "Trump has shown little interest in science … He has no public record (on his views on science) and his campaign record is very hard to read." Which leads us to believe the President-elect will not assert his influence on Congress and allow them to decide freely on discretionary spending for research. That's chilling if you consider how few scientists hold public office versus how many Senators and Representatives consider themselves creationists.





PROXIMITY CREATES A CRUCIAL ADVANTAGE.

I've learned that the best way to meet most challenges, develop greater influence, to solve any problem is by getting closer to it. In this digital age, it's easy to connect remotely with anyone around the world in an instant, but to have a deep and meaningful connection, one that's necessary to build leverage, sometimes you need to be in arm's length. Or in the case of Washington politics, within whispering distance.

If you get research grants through NASA, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, or the Department of Defense, just to name a few, all of them have their headquarters in the DC/MD/VA metro area.

If your research organization has a science communication strategy (if you don't, please read Why Science Needs a Creative Strategy Today for the World of Tomorrow immediately after reading this article), the DC area has a plethora of distribution networks for sharing your research story. Every responsible news network, organization, and journalist has a bureau or desk in Washington. The number of science associations and the wealth of philanthropic foundations in this area interested in supporting your science will shock you.

Now more than ever, you need to connect with the 21st century audience that isn't sitting in a classroom or university lecture hall, the great American consumer. Make no mistake, fans equals funds! Go where they are – video, mobile, at home, on the go, in the malls, online retail – which is everywhere you are not (yet). Some of the biggest digital media distribution networks on the planet are here in the Washington, DC area. PBS is here. Discovery Communications is here. National Geographic Channel is here. The Smithsonian Channel is here. BET Networks is here. TV One is here.





WHAT IS YOUR PURPOSE ON EARTH?

This isn't a call to bring your labs, your teams, or your technology to the Nation's capitol. Not at all. This is a warning: Unless you have some form of representation or agent standing up for your research organization in Washington, you need to consider a communications or public affairs and public relations (yes, those two are very different) office in the area. It's certainly possible that we could all be wildly surprised by a turn of events or an unexpected changing of the minds in this new government. Are you holding your breath for that? Instead, you need to seize the opportunity to create that event or be the change in powerful minds, connect with the public through science experiences and branded research stories. But it's not going to happen if you're sheltered in place and hiding from the discourse in your lab.

Yes, it will be uncomfortable at first. Yes, you will be more vulnerable at times. However, waiting to make the move until you're on the precipice of losing your funding and future will only put you in a mode of deeper defense, from which rising to a position of influence is exponentially more challenging.

The closest science advisor to the President, since 1976, is the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Since 2009, that person has been Dr. John P. Holdren, who holds advanced degrees in aerospace engineering and theoretical plasma physics from MIT and Stanford. He's a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a foreign member of the Royal Society of London, and former president of the AAAS. It is unclear if anyone is currently being considered for that position in the Trump White House, if that individual is anywhere near as qualified to lead science policy, or if the OSTP will play its traditional role as an advisor to the new President.

In fact, earlier this summer, James Carafano, a Heritage Foundation analyst and member of Trump’s transition team, made a series of science policy recommendations for the president-elect, including eliminating the OSTP altogether. If that were to happen, without an advocate in the White House, how would your science hope to get close to advising policy? Who could you trust to communicate in the appropriate language the meaning of your research? Would anyone understand the impact or value it would have?

Sketch by “Arrival” screenwriter Eric Heisserer

The latest alien invasion film, "Arrival," is a thought-provoking story with a respectful appreciation for science. The first and most obvious question it asks is how will we communicate before we can communicate with extra-terrestrial intelligence? For many in the field of science and research, they are experiencing a very new form of terrestrial intelligence, or as Jon Stewart recently referred to it as the "post-accountability America." They don't even know where to begin. The basis for understanding and learning should begin with the fundamentals of communication, which starts by just being there. Showing up. Face to face. Or, as I wrote earlier in the case of Washington politics, within whispering distance.

_________________________________________________

IMPORTANT UPDATE (1/5/2017)

Cited from US Congress just made it easier to ditch science for politics / New Scientist, January 5, 2017

"The US Congress is back in session, and it seems they have had enough of experts, too. The new Republican-led House of Representatives votes this week on two bills that would effectively toss out evidence-based reasoning from the process of deciding which regulations to enforce. If passed, the bills could undermine everything from rules about clean water to the Endangered Species Act."

"The House has already passed the first bill, on 4 January, although it must still clear the Senate to become law. Called the Midnight Rules Relief Act of 2017, it would let Congress overturn all regulations finalised in the last 60 legislative days of the Obama administration with a single vote..."

"The second bill forms a perfect complement to Midnight Rules. The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, or REINS Act, says that all regulations that will cost more than $100 million will have to go through a vote in both chambers of Congress within days of being proposed before they can be enacted."

_________________________________________________

Please share your thoughts and comments below. We want to learn more about how you plan to influence the anti-science government strategy already in play.

ND

#science #scicomm #research

_________________________________________________

Finally. There's a creative agency for Science.

We believe science communication needs to take a giant leap to strengthen support for research in these challenging times. We need to do more than communicate. We need to share science experiences.

SpacetimeLabs helps research institutions and scientists connect with a 21st-century audience, promoting engagement through compelling content and encouraging support by sharing stories of imagination, curiosity, and discovery. Brand marketing, content strategy, experience design, and creative direction – all working together to promote research to the public for greater support.

Connect with us at SpacetimeLabs.co

SpacetimeLabs is also on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.