March For Science, April 22, 2017

[ZapperZ]

It seems that the March for Science is getting more traction and endorsements. The APS just released a statement endorsing this event.

@Greg Bernhardt : Is PhysicsForums participating? :)

Zz.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

If it's good enough for the APS I will inquire about partnership. If there is a sister march in a city nearby I will be there with my PF shirt on! Who's with me!?

 

[ZapperZ]

If it's good enough for the APS I will inquire about partnership. If there is a sister march in a city nearby I will be there with my PF shirt on! Who's with me!?

There's one right where you live!

https://www.facebook.com/events/404002266600901/

Zz.

 

[OmCheeto]

If it's good enough for the APS I will inquire about partnership. If there is a sister march in a city nearby I will be there with my PF shirt on! Who's with me!?

I'm with you!

ps. Does this mean I have to know what my new PF t-shirt means before I go?

 

[BillTre]

Me too.
I should have my PF shirt by then.

 

[Vanadium 50]

A charming, earnest and sincere young woman asked me to help, and based on our conversation, I've decided not to go.

First, she identified this as part of "The Resistance". It's supposed to be non-political. I'm up for a protest rally, and I'm up for a non-political march, but I am not up for a protest rally that claims to be a non-political march. (And before some Mentor moves this, note that I am advocating for a politics-free March)

Second, I think the scientists have lost control of the message. Obviously we can't tell people who can and cannot come, but this has been reported in major newspapers as an anti-Trump rally, so it may attract people who have a very different agenda.

Related to that, I think the exact message is still fuzzy. The March seems to have a great deal of support in social sciences departments, many of whose members explicitly reject the scientific method in favor of postmodern speculation. Psychologist Clay Routledge makes the argument better than me.

Finally, the list of "allies" is concerning, (I could even argue that the use of the word ally is unnecessarily martial), particularly for some of the satellite marches. In particular, Greenpeace. If the point is to protest politicians who pick and choose which parts of science they believe based on how much they like the outcomes, why pair with an organization that does exactly the same thing (to pick one, anti-golden rice).

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Related to that, I think the exact message is still fuzzy. The March seems to have a great deal of support in social sciences departments, many of whose members explicitly reject the scientific method in favor of postmodern speculation. Psychologist Clay Routledge makes the argument better than me.

The March for Science champions robustly funded and publicly communicated science as a pillar of human freedom and prosperity. We unite as a diverse, nonpartisan group to call for science that upholds the common good and for political leaders and policymakers to enact evidence based policies in the public interest. (More on our https://www.marchforscience.com/mission-and-vision/)

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes, that's what they say. Middlebury said all the right things before their students rioted and sent a professor to the hospital. Sometimes one loses control of the situation or the message. I think that is already happening - Voice of America says it's an anti-Trump protest, The Guardian says it's an anti-Trump protest,Socialist Worker says it's an anti-Trump protest, and a whole pile of web sites (DailyKos and it's ilk) on both the left and the right say it's an anti-Trump protest. I think that's a sign that they've lost control - or they are trying a fig leaf ("We're apolitical...nudge nudge wink wink") that's not effective.

The January 28th tweet (since deleted) from March of Science said "ableism, queer-, trans-, intersex-phobia & econ justice are scientific issues". Sorry, but they are not. A racist, sexist, anti-gay plutocrat may not be someone I would be friends with, but that doesn't mean the additional sin of being anti-science should be added to the list. (Indeed, I can point out some Nobel prize winners who fall into that category) I think that's a sign that the professional societies: AAAS, APS etc. have lost control of the message.

I think it was a big mistake for the professional societies to sign onto this without representation on the organizing committee. They effectively said to the organizers "whatever you do is OK with us, and of course you can use our names". That was foolish.

 

[Evo]

I don't see how we can just hide our heads in the sand because people have made the connection between the policies and who is making the policies. It is probably unavoidable. It has never been unassociated in the past to my knowledge. And why should it be? Why should it suddenly be be shameful and hushed up?

Does anyone have an example where such policies have NOT been associated with the power making them?

It's a Pf policy not to name that person that will not be named. That doesn't apply to the country.

BTW, I don't believe in marches, maybe they raise awareness, I don't know. I do believe in letter writing campaigns to the incumbents and let them know they won't be getting re-elected if they don't vote or influence wisely.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm OK with this being an anti-Trump march. (Although I might question the wisdom of the argument "We hate you - now give us more money!") I'm OK with this being an apolitical march. What I am not OK with is it being an anti-Trump march under the guise of being apolitical. That's the worst of both worlds, and it's not fooling anyone.

 

[Evo]

I'm OK with this being an anti-Trump march. (Although I might question the wisdom of the argument "We hate you - now give us more money!") I'm OK with this being an apolitical march. What I am not OK with is it being an anti-Trump march under the guise of being apolitical. That's the worst of both worlds, and it's not fooling anyone.

I don't think it should be a political march pretending not to be political either. Obviously if it's about cuts to the budget it's political, no way to get around that. I mean who's cutting the budgets? But it shouldn't be a march to bash he who shall not be named, but to raise awareness that people should let he who shall not be named and his fellows know that we do not want cuts to affect science funding.

He who shall not be named is not the type of person that is going to see millions of people marching and think "I must be doing something wrong". No, he's going to be angry and want to do more harm, IMO. That's why this cannot be directed at him. This must be positive, directed at the populace, to motivate THEM to get involved to put pressure on the people in office below him. If they realize that their careers are at stake, they WILL speak out. Congressional elections are next year. Perfect timing.

 

[BillTre]

Well, to me its a protest of a significant part of the population:
1) avoiding rationality and logic
2) denying obvious facts
to the detriment of us all.

Political or not.

 

[Evo]

1) avoiding rationality and logic
2) denying obvious facts
to the detriment of us all.

Please expand on these.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

What if one believes science would benefit more from less funding and greater accountability?

I was writing yesterday on the idea that in a capitalist system every industry benefits from unfettered action of market forces that include up and down cycles. The down cycles are needed to trim the fat, streamline operations, and increase accountability between the producers and those paying for it.

I see no reason why the science (and science education) industries would be exempt from the same benefits. If science funding is too low, then scientists need to own the failure of science education that they are responsible for in large measure. Compartmentalization and blame shifting are unwarranted. We (scientists and science educators) had thousands of hours of student attention, and many thousands of dollars to educate each and every voter. We blew it, and now (through funding cuts) will deservedly pay the price.

 

[BillTre]

Please expand on these.

I am not focused in funding the funding issues with respect to this march. Any funding effects should be a secondary effect based on making people more aware of the positive effects of science and rationality on decision making that affect us all.

I am much more concerned about people cherry picking or making up "facts" retrospectively to suit their preconceived notions that are based on emotion, religion, profit motive, and/or goals of political power and about this becoming an accepted mode of operation. This would include individuals, as well as groups like political parties, media companies, oil companies, some religious groups.

Such an approach is disingenuous and, in my mind, will inevitably lead to trouble for the country, and the world.

 

[BillTre]

I don't believe in marches, maybe they raise awareness, I don't know. I do believe in letter writing campaigns to the incumbents and let them know they won't be getting re-elected if they don't vote or influence wisely.

Where I live, letter writing to the local incumbents would not have much affect. They seem to almost entirely agree with the positions I hold.
Instead, I am more interested in writing letter to the newspaper (not as productive as it might have been in the past when newspapers were a more successful enterprise) or trying to come up with catchy memes that would get and stick in people's minds.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What I am not OK with is it being an anti-Trump march under the guise of being apolitical. That's the worst of both worlds, and it's not fooling anyone.

I can't find a claim of it being apolitical anywhere in the literature posted by zz or Greg. That's a straw man.

The claim made is that it's non-partisan. That is quite a bit different than being apolitical. What it means is that the organizers aren't setting it up to be Democrat vs Republican. Republicans aren't being cast as anti-science. Any science-oriented Republican who finds the Trump administration, specifically (as opposed to the Republican party generally), to be a threat to science in the US should participate along with everyone else. It is absolutely political in that it is science vs the anti-science policies of the Trump administration. It is non-partisan in that the political orientation of any participant is immaterial.

If Republicans who dislike Trump's science policies refuse to participate on the grounds so many groups with liberal agendas are participating that it can't be called "non-partisan" then, they are the ones making it partisan by default.

 

[1oldman2]

AAAS is having a contest of sorts that just may be relevant as well as useful in raising awareness of the "problem".
https://www.forceforscience.org/share-your-story

 

[Evo]

AAAS is having a contest of sorts that just may be relevant as well as useful in raising awareness of the "problem".
https://www.forceforscience.org/share-your-story

Thanks for posting that!

 

[russ_watters]

The claim made is that it's non-partisan. That is quite a bit different than being apolitical. What it means is that the organizers aren't setting it up to be Democrat vs Republican. Republicans aren't being cast as anti-science. Any science-oriented Republican who finds the Trump administration, specifically (as opposed to the Republican party generally), to be a threat to science in the US should participate along with everyone else. It is absolutely political in that it is science vs the anti-science policies of the Trump administration. It is non-partisan in that the political orientation of any participant is immaterial.

What about a Republican who supports GMO crops, nuclear power and privately funded research instead of government funded research - would they be welcome?

If Republicans who dislike Trump's science policies refuse to participate on the grounds so many groups with liberal agendas are participating that it can't be called "non-partisan" then, they are the ones making it partisan by default.

Republicans would be making it partisan to claim that only left-leaning groups are participating? That's quite a hair to split! To me, what makes a movement partisan or non-partisan is choosing issues that speak predominantly to one party vs both parties. By choosing left-leaning science issues* instead of right-leaning science issues, they make it partisan.

*And non-science issues. Bowing to pressure from their constituents (democrats), they added "diversity" as a major platform issue. It is probably the second most coherent issue (next to money) they are advocating.

 

[russ_watters]

It seems that the March for Science is getting more traction and endorsements. The APS just released a statement endorsing this event.

@Greg Bernhardt : Is PhysicsForums participating? :)

I'm not. I'm a supporter of science (which is why I am active on PF), but this protest movement appears to me to be primarily about money first, liberal politics second and science third. I think I would support a movement that was primarily about non-partisan science.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

I was curious about who is behind the website. The domain is registered to Nicholas Sofroniew.

I'm trying to verify that this is him.

https://www.janelia.org/people/nicholas-sofroniew

and

https://twitter.com/sofroniewn?lang=en

Is he on PF? It would be interesting, as he seems to be involved in some very cool science.

In any case, "follow the money" is always a good idea.

When I was just an innocent young college peace demonstrator, I learned from bitter experience to find out who is behind mass movements before I participate. Things are not always as they seem.

I'm not necessarily saying I would not participate if I had time -- which I do not. But I have learned to be careful about what I get involved in.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

p.s. here's another Twittter account.

https://twitter.com/ScienceMarchDC

Very political indeed!

"Here's what the #ScienceMarch is. We are political. We value diversity. We won’t put up with harassment."

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Very political indeed!

When you are organizing an activist event around science policy it is inherently political.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What about a Republican who supports GMO crops, nuclear power and privately funded research instead of government funded research - would they be welcome?

Is Trump opposed to GMO crops, nuclear power, and privately funded research? I haven't happened to come across any indication he's trying to squelch these things. If he isn't, what's for you to protest on those fronts?

Republicans would be making it partisan to claim that only left-leaning groups are participating?

What I said was that if Republicans don't participate, it will end up being partisan by default. For example, if Republicans don't protest climate denial because they're afraid of being mistaken for someone who also stands for "diversity," or government funded research, then the only people who show up will end up being liberals. If you're concerned make a sign that says: "Republican against climate denial (but not in favor of any of that other liberal tomfoolery)! or something.

 

[zoobyshoe]

When you are organizing an activist event around science policy it is inherently political.

Yes, it says plainly on the march site:

The application of science to society is not divorced from politics.

https://www.marchforscience.com/

Don't know where anyone got the idea it was supposed to be non-political.

 

[russ_watters]

Is Trump opposed to GMO crops, nuclear power, and privately funded research? I haven't happened to come across any indication he's trying to squelch these things. If he isn't, what's for you to protest on those fronts?

@Vanadium 50 was incorrect about the organizer's claim to be "apolitical" (they didn't), probably because he doesn't differentiate between "apolitical" and "non-partisan" -- or believes the organizers haven't. In practice, he's correct that the organizers haven't differentiated, but in theory it is possible to be political but non-partisan, particularly on the issue of science. All you have to do is apply the scientific principles faithfully, regardless of which direction they take you. If the march/organizers are focused on opposing one side, they can't be considered non-partisan.

The march isn't supposed to be all about Trump (indeed, I can't find Trump's name anywhere on the website), unless the organizers are being dishonest about their intent. So do you think those right-leaning policies would be acceptable to protest for? If it really is all about Trump, then isn't "non-partisan" a lie and the omission of Trump from the website a lie of omission?

Indeed, not all partisan protests are necessarily anti. Some are more "don't forget about me!" protests to make sure certain issues are on your politicians' radar.

What I said was that if Republicans don't participate, it will end up being partisan by default.

Yes, I know. You are putting it on Republicans for choosing not to support liberal policies/ideals instead of on the organizers for choosing predominantly liberal positions to protest. You have the cart leading the horse.

You can say it is about "science" and about Trump, but the overlap is not exact, so one or the other must be lacking. Which one do you think they short-change in favor of protesting about the other?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Is Trump opposed to GMO crops, nuclear power, and privately funded research? I haven't happened to come across any indication he's trying to squelch these things. If he isn't, what's for you to protest on those fronts?

There is still lots of room to protest against all the science-denying policy makers who oppose GMO crops, nuclear power, and allowing private funding to make up a bigger share of the US research pie. Or is Trump the only legitimate target for protests?

When you are organizing an activist event around science policy it is inherently political.

"Science policy" is a very broad and ambiguous term. It is more productive to differentiate between:

1. Federal funding of science research
2. Federal regulation of science research
3. Federal funding of science education
4. Federal regulation of science education
5. Federal regulation of industry that is purportedly based in science
6. Other things also.

What is the goal of the "March for Science" besides divorcing policy from the representative process by handing over more power and money to elitists? Are we only fans of representative government when it yields the policies we favor?

My view has always been that the power of government should always remain in the hands of elected representatives. The job of scientists and science is to inform the elected representatives in their policy making, not to wrestle governmental power away from them and make policy. If science can dictate government policy, it becomes too easy to wield too much power simply by faking the science.

 

[russ_watters]

Following from what @Dr. Courtney said; what I don't like about this movement/march (it looks like an anti-Trump protest masquerading as a pro-science movement), but let me be more specific about what I would like to see:

In terms of the mission statement, there is actually very little I would change -- I would mostly just want it to be true. But I would de-emphasize the funding issue because a) it is self-serving and b) it isn't inherrently a scientific issue. More on that later.

The most important change (addition) I would make is that I would structure the movement as a sort of clearinghouse for scientific issues/positions. It's nice to say they are "pro-science", but what I think the public needs most is guidance on where the scientific community stands on the specific issues. So I would have it list the specific issues and what the current scientific consensus is. Where there is a consensus (AGW, GMOs), say so. Where there isn't a consensus or an issue isn't one for science (abortion), say so. The science of the issues should be the primary focus of a pro-science movement. That's what the mission statement says!

Next - and this is critical as well - they need to separate scientific positions from scientific policies and in particular the funding. You can say that the consensus is that AGW is true, but that does not specifically imply what you should do about it. Perhaps they can help frame the policy issues, but the policy issues themselves are mostly not scientific. And that brings us back to the money. Money, for the most part, exists to support policy initiatives and in most cases is not strictly an issue of science. So you agree that AGW is true, but what does that mean for funding the EPA? The funding level of the EPA is not an issue of science, it is an issue of regulation and enforcement. Similarly, funding for pure research is kind of an issue of science, but it is non-specific and self-serving. How much "pure research" funding do we need? The answer can't always be "more". And if we were to keep to the mission focused on making policy decisions based on scientific consensus, the movement really should take no position at all on funding. The position "the US should be a world leader in [insert one: scientific research, the arts, football]" has very little directly to do with having policy be scientifically based and if they want to advocate it, they should clearly differentiate that from their prime directive.

This, by the way, is keeping with my interpretation of the purpose of PF's new politics policy, which I strongly advocated for. Too many people misunderstand where the science ends and the policy begins and argue a pet policy they *think* is scientific, when it isn't. A science advocacy group that purposely blurs that line instead of acting to clearly draw it does a disservice to its own mission and the public perception of science. A clearly focused mission of advocating science based policy without straying into political ideology is something that is sorely needed and I would support.

 

[Evo]

The AAAS is a partner of the March and what they are pushing for is for Congress to take notice.

From their website.

AAAS Statement on President Trump's Budget Request
March 16, 2017

The Trump Administration’s proposed budget would cripple the science and technology enterprise through short-sighted cuts to discovery science programs and critical mission agencies alike. Investments in federal research and development (R&D) make significant contributions to economic growth and public well-being. The Administration’s cuts threaten our nation’s ability to advance cures for disease, maintain our technological leadership, ensure a more prosperous energy future, and train the next generation of scientists and innovators to address the complex challenges we face today and in the future. However, this is the President's proposal, and it’s up to Congress to respond and make decisions on budget and appropriations. Congress has a long bipartisan history of protecting research investments. We encourage Congress to act in the nation’s best interest and support sustainable funding for federal R&D – for both defense and non-defense programs – as it works to address the FY 2018 budget.

Read the AAAS budget request analysis: http://www.aaas.org/news/first-trump-budget-proposes-massive-cuts-several-science-agencies

https://www.forceforscience.org/march-for-science/

AAAS Stands with the March for Science
Press Release: AAAS and March for Science Partner to Uphold Science

AAAS, the world’s largest general scientific organization, announced Thursday that it will partner with the March for Science, a nonpartisan set of activities that aim to promote science education and the use of scientific evidence to inform policy.

The March for Science has released a list of more than 25 initial partner organizations, including AAAS, and suggestions for science engagement activities at hundreds of locations throughout the United States and around the world to coincide with the previously announced March for Science rally in Washington, DC, scheduled for 22 April. The activities may include “teach-ins,” science events, open houses and rallies.

AAAS CEO Rush Holt said, “AAAS will encourage and support its members and affiliate organizations to help make the March for Science a success. We see the activities collectively known as the March as a unique opportunity to communicate the importance, value and beauty of science. Participation in the March for Science is in keeping with AAAS’ long-standing mission to ‘advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people.’”

continued...

 

[russ_watters]

And who gets to decide which scientist has a valid opinion and which does not?

I already said it: that's what the scientific consensus is.

Are the regulations going to be based off of the idea that laypeople are incapable of comprehending the actual concepts?

To be blunt, yes. Becoming a true expert in a scientific field requires a decade of full time study. No one else is equipped to decide the validity of scientific research. That is, at least in theory, what the March for science is about: Scientists need tof give good guidance and politicians and voters should utilize that guidance in decision making.

How can it be ethical to pass a sweeping (potentially destructive) regulation based on votes from laypeople that you know do not understand the very basis for the policies that they're advocating for? Seems like a politician's golden opportunity for smoke and mirrors.

That is largely beyond the scope of the thread/movement. All scientists can do is provide good advice. It is up to the voters and leaders how it gets used. That said, my criticisms are based on wanting to ensure the advice given is actually good/scientific.

 

[Evo]

I think a lot of the posts in this thread are getting way off of the topic of what the March is about. It appears it will be a fun "learning" event

The activities may include “teach-ins,” science events, open houses and rallies.

 

[OmCheeto]

This might be interesting to watch:

JOIN AAAS FOR A LIVE CHAT ON WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET PROPOSAL MEANS FOR SCIENCE --
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22ND, 1PM EDT
ON THE AAAS FACEBOOK AND TWITTER ACCOUNTS.

Now more than ever, we must demonstrate the importance of science to policymakers and the public.​

 

[Evo]

Off topic/too political posts have been removed, let's please stay on the topic of what the organizers and partners have actually said about the march.

Thank you.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I think a lot of the posts in this thread are getting way off of the topic of what the March is about. It appears it will be a fun "learning" event

I submit that most can learn more from carefully reading most PF threads (including this one) that attending a "March for Science (welfare)."