AI-Summary – News For Tomorrow
American science, once a bipartisan success story fueled by government funding since World War II, faces a “generational catastrophe” due to waning political and public support, particularly under the Trump administration. Funding is decreasing, independent review panels are closing, and research centers are threatened. The era of consistent, unwavering support is over, requiring adaptation for survival. Scientists must now engage with conservative values and figures to demonstrate the worth of their work, as blind support can no longer be assumed. Scientists need to build bridges and show conservatives how science connects with their beliefs.
News summary provided by Gemini AI.
It’s not quite burning-scientists-at-the-stake bad, but it’s close — or at least feels that way. President Donald Trump’s administration is openly waging war against universities, closing independent science review panels, funding fewer grants, and shutting down or raising concerns about the closure of important centers of government research (even though in some cases, they’re probably not supposed to). The evidence is now clear that the modern American structure of science can no longer survive as an apolitical entity that enjoys consistent, bipartisan support. Science is now suffering a generational catastrophe, not just in terms of funding, but in terms of political and public support.
Ever since World War II and the stunning success of the Manhattan Project, the United States government has poured money into universities through numerous competitive federal grant programs for the purposes of advancing basic research science. This had led to the American scientific system becoming the envy of the world, and the creation of innumerable technological marvels — not to mention significant boosts to our present-day wealth. Only large government agencies have the stomach for the kind of persistent, long-term thinking that it takes to turn fundamental research into enablers of economic prosperity.
That era is over — and the only chance for survival is to adapt. What does that mean?
As such, the odds that the sort of consistent, decade-over-decade support once enjoyed by American institutional science might soon be restored are vanishingly small, at least in the near term. We will see fewer big-science achievements, like the launch of fancy new telescopes, or the development of new climate-friendly technologies. And with fewer new grants being awarded, even the smaller, less splashy but crucially important incremental advances unfolding across the academic landscape will wither, as scientists everywhere scrounge for fewer available opportunities.
Science is now suffering a generational catastrophe, not just in terms of funding, but in terms of political and public support.
That should be deeply comforting, even in these troubled times, given that it’s difficult to get three-quarters of Americans to agree on a salad dressing.
Understanding the language, values, and trusted figures within conservative circles will be key for scientists going forward.
All of this suggests that understanding the language, values, and trusted figures within conservative circles will be key for scientists going forward. Otherwise, the value of their work risks both public and political indifference. We can no longer assume that conservatives will blindly support science, or that they’ll come to our lectures and museums.
Instead, we have to redouble our efforts. We have to meet them where they are with a message that connects to their deeply held beliefs and values, to convince them that what we’re doing as scientists is worth it.
Paul Sutter is a cosmologist at Johns Hopkins University and author of “Rescuing Science: Restoring Trust in an Age of Doubt.”
This article was originally published on Undark. Read the original article.
