The 2024 presidential election will mark Donald Trump's historic return to the Oval Office. In the wake of this news, scientists and policy experts alike find themselves pondering the impact his second term will have on the future of science.
There are challenges facing society and the world at large, from current global economic changes to the effects of a resurgence of ethnic nationalism at home and abroad, the fragility of democratic political institutions, and the proliferation of misinformation and polarization. In today's increasingly complex world, the direction and role of news and science are perhaps more important than ever.
Scientific funding, science and technology policy, and public communication are sure to be scrutinized and questioned. For science to continue to thrive and address these urgent challenges, we must remain firm and clear in our commitment to defending science in the public interest. Achieving this under the polarized second Trump administration is likely to present unique challenges.
Throughout his first term, Trump's stance on scientific issues raised questions about the politicization of science, particularly climate change, public health, and the role of regulators. Science does not work in a vacuum. Science is a key element for informed policy and public decision-making. Scientists must therefore strive to ensure that the values of objectivity, transparency and integrity remain central to science and that their expertise remains relevant to the national debate.
One of the more pressing challenges going forward is to advocate for the protection of agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health. Over the past several decades, these institutions have played an important role in promoting public health and environmental protection.
But if the past is any indication, it could once again face skepticism and possible budget cuts under the second Trump administration. Scientists and research advocates must be prepared to engage in dialogue and highlight the social, economic, and public health benefits of maintaining strong, independent scientific institutions.
This discussion also requires consideration of the Kennedy effect. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is expected to play a key role in Trump's Cabinet. Kennedy, known for his controversial positions on vaccines, has built a public profile that appeals to a segment of the American public that is increasingly skeptical of traditional public health discourse. His position on science reveals the truth of Alexander Pope's famous quote, “A little knowledge is dangerous.” His views could have a significant impact on U.S. health policy, especially if he gains influence over vaccine policy, regulatory standards and federal health agencies.
Growing distrust of scientific institutions requires scientists to redouble their efforts in public engagement, especially on public health issues. Rebuilding public trust and reducing polarization on topics such as vaccination requires open, clear and consistent communication. At the same time, scientific institutions must be prepared to protect and defend the credibility of data-driven, peer-reviewed research in an environment where misinformation can spread through channels with few verifiable fact checks. One such channel is Elon Musk's support for President Trump from X. Science advocacy groups, universities, and researchers must actively work to shape public understanding, especially regarding health and environmental issues where misinformation can have serious consequences.
President Trump's past stance on climate change has also raised concerns, with the administration Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and prioritize fossil fuel interests. As the effects of climate change become more pronounced, including extreme weather events like those seen in recent hurricanes Helen and Milton, there is a moral and practical imperative for U.S. leaders on this issue. . Unfortunately, if the new administration's policies follow past approaches, the path to meaningful climate action will be set back at a time of increasing urgency.
This is where state governments, private industry, and non-governmental organizations must step up to take a leadership role in tackling climate change. The U.S. scientific community has an important role to play in working with these stakeholders and maintaining international relationships with scientists around the world who also recognize climate change as a threat to us all. Masu. We need to reiterate that tackling climate change is not just an environmental issue, but also an economic, health and security issue.
The potential impact on innovation and science funding also needs to be scrutinized. In areas such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology and clean energy, science-based innovation is key to the country's economic prosperity.
But we also need to make a convincing case for the value of curiosity-driven research, especially at world-class universities. Fundamental scientific inquiry not only advances our understanding of the scientific world, but also fosters innovation that ultimately sustains economic growth and social progress. Nations cannot afford to undermine their ability to generate new knowledge by underfunding basic science. For example, CRISPR gene editing technology was born out of curiosity-driven research into bacterial immune systems.
This basic research will ultimately lead to innovative techniques for precise DNA editing, with profound implications across medicine, agriculture, and biotechnology, from treating genetic diseases to developing disease-resistant crops. I did. This is a powerful reminder of how basic research can unlock technologies that transform entire fields and spawn entirely new startups that can attract huge private investment.
Although the political turmoil surrounding this 2024 election has not yet settled, scientists and science advocates have an obligation to engage early, as do policymakers in the incoming Trump administration and the public. Science is not just an ivory tower business. It is a service to society that transcends political affiliation and can also generate economic benefits, one of the top priorities shared by voters.
There is room for optimism if scientists remain active in public engagement, insist on sustained funding, and continue to emphasize the importance of independent institutions. By reaffirming our commitment to evidence- and expertise-based science, we can continue to move science forward during these difficult times, while contributing to the broader interests of the global public.
In these difficult times, our resolve as scientists and science advocates is critical. We have a responsibility to society to maintain a steady focus on the principles of exploration and integrity that define our work and ultimately our common future.
Above all, the scientific community emphasizes the interconnectedness of scientific progress and the public welfare, and that science, at its core, is an essential ally for a prosperous, healthy, and sustainable society, and that no matter how we vote, we We need to make sure it's something everyone can rally around. .
Nicholas Dirks is President and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences.
