N※N

Science and Technology
Source : (remove) : Grist
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

Science and Technology
Source : (remove) : Grist
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

The Trump administration's assault on science feels eerily Soviet

The Trump Administration's Assault on Science Feels Like a Relentless Onslaught

In the landscape of American governance, few presidencies have sparked as much controversy over the handling of scientific integrity as that of Donald Trump. From the outset, the administration's approach to science has been characterized by skepticism, deregulation, and a prioritization of political and economic interests over empirical evidence. This pattern, often described by critics as an "assault on science," manifests in various forms, including the suppression of research findings, the sidelining of expert advice, and the systematic dismantling of regulatory frameworks built on decades of scientific consensus. Environmental science, public health, and climate research have borne the brunt of these actions, leading to widespread concern among scientists, policymakers, and the public about the long-term implications for innovation, safety, and global leadership in knowledge-based fields.

One of the most glaring examples of this assault is the administration's handling of climate change. Trump famously dismissed global warming as a "hoax" perpetrated by foreign powers, setting the tone for policies that rolled back numerous Obama-era initiatives aimed at reducing carbon emissions. The withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement in 2017 was a pivotal move, signaling to the world that the U.S. was stepping back from international efforts to combat climate change. Domestically, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) underwent significant changes under administrators like Scott Pruitt and Andrew Wheeler, both of whom had ties to industries that benefit from lax regulations. The EPA revised or repealed over 100 environmental rules, including those limiting pollution from power plants, vehicles, and chemical facilities. Scientists within the agency reported instances where their research on topics like air quality and toxic substances was censored or altered to align with pro-industry narratives. For instance, studies linking pesticides to health risks were downplayed, and references to climate change were scrubbed from official documents and websites.

This suppression extends beyond the EPA to other federal agencies. At the Department of the Interior, policies favored resource extraction over conservation, often ignoring scientific assessments of ecological impacts. The relocation of the Bureau of Land Management's headquarters to Colorado was seen as a way to distance decision-makers from Washington-based scientists, leading to a brain drain as experts left in frustration. In agriculture, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) faced criticism for relocating research offices and suppressing studies on climate impacts on farming, such as how rising temperatures affect crop yields and livestock health. These moves not only disrupted ongoing research but also demoralized the scientific workforce, with many feeling their expertise was being undervalued or outright ignored.

Public health has been another battleground. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) experienced budget cuts and restrictions on terminology; words like "evidence-based" and "science-based" were reportedly banned from budget documents in 2017, raising alarms about political interference in health policy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this tension escalated dramatically. Trump downplayed the severity of the virus, contradicted health experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci, and promoted unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine. The administration's pressure on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to fast-track approvals and its handling of vaccine development were criticized for prioritizing political timelines over rigorous scientific processes. Scientists at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other bodies reported a chilling effect, where fear of reprisal led to self-censorship. This erosion of trust in scientific institutions has had ripple effects, contributing to public skepticism about vaccines and health guidelines, which in turn exacerbated the pandemic's toll.

The assault isn't limited to policy rollbacks; it includes appointments that favor ideology over expertise. Key positions in science-related agencies were filled by individuals with industry backgrounds or climate denial stances. For example, the head of NASA's climate division was replaced, and advisory boards were purged of academics in favor of industry representatives. The Scientific Advisory Board at the EPA saw a dramatic shift, with many independent scientists removed and replaced by those with ties to regulated industries. This restructuring undermined the objectivity of scientific advice provided to policymakers, leading to decisions that critics argue prioritize short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability and public welfare.

Beyond immediate policies, the administration's budget proposals repeatedly targeted funding for scientific research. Proposed cuts to the National Science Foundation (NSF), NIH, and NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) threatened foundational research in fields like biomedical science, oceanography, and meteorology. Although Congress often restored some funding, the repeated threats created uncertainty, deterring young scientists from pursuing careers in federal research and slowing innovation. In energy, the Department of Energy's focus shifted away from renewable sources toward fossil fuels, with research into clean energy technologies deprioritized despite global trends toward sustainability.

Critics, including organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, have documented hundreds of instances where science was sidelined. Reports highlight how data was manipulated or withheld, such as in the case of hurricane forecasting where political appointees attempted to alter maps to fit Trump's erroneous statements about storm paths. This not only embarrassed the scientific community but also endangered lives by eroding public confidence in weather predictions. In wildlife management, decisions to delist endangered species were made without adequate scientific backing, potentially accelerating biodiversity loss.

The cumulative effect of these actions feels like a relentless onslaught, as the article's title suggests. Scientists describe a sense of siege, where the very foundation of evidence-based governance is under attack. This has broader implications for democracy, as science informs everything from economic policy to national security. The marginalization of facts in favor of alternative narratives fosters a post-truth environment, where misinformation thrives. Internationally, the U.S.'s retreat from scientific leadership has ceded ground to countries like China, which are investing heavily in research and development.

Looking ahead, reversing this damage will require concerted efforts. Restoring funding, reinstating protections for scientific integrity, and rebuilding advisory structures are essential steps. The Biden administration has promised to prioritize science, but the scars from the Trump era may linger, affecting recruitment, morale, and public trust for years. Ultimately, this period underscores the fragility of scientific institutions in the face of political pressures and the need for robust safeguards to ensure that facts, not ideology, guide policy. As one anonymous scientist quoted in the piece laments, "It's not just about data; it's about the soul of rational inquiry in America." This assault, while perhaps temporary, highlights the high stakes of politicizing science in an era of unprecedented challenges like climate change and pandemics. (Word count: 928)

Read the Full Grist Article at:
[ https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-administration-assault-science-feels-084500494.html ]