The Age of Unreason

By the time this episode airs, Donald Trump will have been inaugurated as the 47th president of the United States. Just like during the first Trump administration, grave threats to science and the use of science in public policy-making will be under attack. The voices of scientists and science supporters are more critical now than ever. Science is non-partisan, and it is an essential tool for our democracy and the health and wellbeing of our entire planet and all of its citizens. I’m your host Jess Phoenix, and this is science.

Jess: Joining me is Dr. Jen Jones, Director for the Center for Science and Democracy, here at the Union of Concerned Scientists. Her work focuses on the effective use of science in public policy, which I know our audience really appreciates. Jen, I wish we were talking under different circumstances, because if we learned anything from the first Trump presidency, it's that science will be under near constant attack. UCS documented 207 attacks on science during the last Trump administration. So, I would like to ask you, what are some of the agencies whose work or whose scientists will be most at risk from Trump's effort to stifle science?

Dr. Jones: Well, I can talk about the ways I'm expecting or will be watching for the Trump administration to possibly sideline science. And I'm thinking about three different sort of areas, if you will. There will be an effort to actually silence scientists and the science that they do. There will be an effort to destroy the specific rules and regulations that are science-backed, evidence-informed, that again, that give us that clean water, clean air, safe transportation. And then there will be efforts to really have politically-appointed judges and courts become arbiters of science, as opposed to agencies. Right? So, we're going... so we're conceivably going after the scientists, going after the rules, and then using courts to decide scientific matters, as opposed to subject matter experts. So, you know, I think it's fair to say, you know, based on messaging, you know, what we've heard directly from incoming President Trump and his cabinet nominees, that every agency that does science is under threat. And so, I really believe that this is truly a science emergency, that every agency, all aspects of the federal government, are threatened.

So, you know, in terms of UCS, or in terms of the Center for Science and Democracy, some of the agencies that we're especially watching and concerned about would be the EPA, you know, for instance, because we've already heard so much disinformation about the EPA, about the work that they do. And, you know, again, a good reminder is to understand what is the basic function of the Environmental Protection Agency, right? To keep the environment clean, to keep it healthy, and so that it's there to support us. And it always does. It comes back down to that clean air and water. So, the Environmental Protection Agency is there to help develop and enforce, again, those regulations and policies that, by the way, the public supports. There was even a new report that came out last year that the vast majority, it was, like, over 88%, support existing funding for the EPA or increasing funding for the EPA. And so, these are agencies that the public may not understand the nuanced work that's done. But they appreciate the work that's done to keep us safe.

And so, you know, EPA helps create and enforce those policies that keep chemicals, you know, out of your food system, that works to, again, regulate emissions out of a tailpipe, that certainly cause climate change, but also might cause asthma, lead in drinking water, you know, all those basic things that keep us safe. Now, for those of us who want clean air and clean drinking water, we need to remember that there's a group of people who want to profit through the chemical industry. And so, you know, when I think about the science emergency, it's understanding that, you know, President Trump, based on his first administration, and again what he's signaling for his second administration is that, you know, they wanna get rid of the policies and regulations that keep us safe, because by doing so, it will allow corporate greed. It will allow those industries to increase their profit.

So, I think we'll see, certainly, a lot of rules and regulations at the EPA attacked. I think at Health and Human Services, HHS, the same thing. We will see, already, we have seen vaccine skepticism, you know, by the nominated head, RFK Jr., at HHS. And so, so forth and so on with every agency. And, you know, I would also remind folks that those are sort of the obvious agencies, that are very sort of science-forward. But, you know, when you think about the Department of Justice, when you think about, there are other agencies that also collect data, the Census Bureau. You know, in the first Trump administration, they tried to change categories of the census, that would have really fundamentally changed the way we count people in this country, which matters greatly for how our democracy is run, how money gets distributed, and so forth.

Jess: So, you really segued nicely into what I was gonna ask you next, which is it's about people's short-term memories. They can remember attacks on science in the short term, but if things don't significantly change your day-to-day life, the average person may not remember that, you know, Trump's 1.0 administration sidelined science on the northern spotted owl and the threats facing its habitat, or that the EPA under Donald Trump's first presidency refused to regulate perchlorate in drinking water, which is in rocket fuel and explosives, if you, case you didn't have that one at the tip of your tongue, as most of our listeners probably didn't. But so, if the average person doesn't notice these, all of these attacks, why should your average person be worried about future attacks on science?

Dr. Jones: Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Well, you know, last year, our climate and energy team here at UCS published a report that showed that every person in this country had lived in an area that was impacted by a natural disaster. If I recall, you know, that included... I live in a hurricane area. I have gone through now multiple major hurricanes in the last few years. Wildfires that happened recently in Southern California, that were devastating, and driven by a winter drought there. So, all of us are experiencing, certainly, the climate change impacts and dire threats on a routine basis. We're all impacted by it. And so, I think that shows up, or we should be reminded of that on a routine basis. When you're dealing with extreme weather, it's often a good reminder to go and see if and how that weather might be attributed to climate change, so, and I would also give a shout out to the folks here at UCS that work on climate attribution science, which is able to make that link between a climate change impact and attributing it to climate change itself.

But I tell you what, it does not take long to be reminded about unsafe drinking water, when, within hours or days, you could conceivably have chemicals and toxins ending up in that water, through a change of policy. I wanna go back, again, to I think about sort of how does federal science show up in my life on a daily basis? I count on federal, good federal science at the FDA, to make sure that the medicines that me and my family take are safe. Right? And if somebody's not there, if that science is not happening through those rigorous checks and protocols that give us that medicine, it's conceivable that I could wake up in a very short amount of time, and that medicine would not be safe. I think about, again, all the issues around safe transportation. Think about the FAA, and all the work that they do, to operate public transportation, federal aviation. You know, just simple practices that make it... You know, flying these days is extremely safe. Right? I mean, I'm old enough to remember, even a few decades ago, when it was so much less safe. And that is also due to good science, good regulation, good policy. You start with that, you start putting [inaudible 00:13:05] The importance of this federal science, and the lack of it, could show up in your life in a very dramatic way, very quickly.

Jess: This ties into something you mentioned earlier, but one thing people may have heard over and over in the media is that President Trump's policies will have a chilling effect on science. And that's a little bit less concrete than if he outright fires a bunch of scientists or dissolves government agencies. So, can you explain in a little more detail what a chilling effect on science is, and why that's dangerous?

Dr. Jones: Remember, one of the main reasons that it's likely, you know, President Trump will sideline scientists, and sideline science. And, you know, ultimately, I really believe this comes down to profit and power. The goal, again, is to sideline the good science, that keeps the public safe, in favor of empowering corporate greed. And so, the goal, therefore, becomes how do you sideline those scientists? And already, some of the ways we've seen the past Trump administration, and what we've already seen them signaling for the next administration, is a couple ways. Number one, out-and-out firing scientists. Right? Using some policy tools, perhaps folks have heard of Schedule F, that would allow the president to reclassify, conceivably, tens of thousands of scientists' positions, which have historically been merit-based. What you think of as a regular civil service position, people that have, you know, credentials and experience, and have gone through a merit-based system to demonstrate they know how to do that scientific work. One of the goals that Trump has talked about has been to reclassify those, and either, number one, reclassify them, number one, so he can fire them, or, equally or perhaps more dangerous, reclassify those positions so they can become politically appointed.

So, there's the threat of Schedule F. There will be a lot of legal maneuvers that will have to happen before, you know, it might actually take place. That alone, though, is a threat that has that chilling effect. So, let's then go on to that harassment element. Scientists should be able to do that work free of harassment and influence. And so, currently, all scientific agencies have adopted what are called scientific integrity policies, that provide scientists those protections to do their work free of that political harassment and influence. I'm expecting that, whether it's in week one or shortly thereafter, we will see Trump roll back those scientific integrity policies that exist. It'll require him rolling back an executive order that was created under the last administration, but...

But already even signaling the roll back of those, i.e. telling scientists within agencies that "we're taking away one of the safeguards you have" also creates that chilling effect. It both can stop scientists from doing the work that they're currently doing, pausing it, altering it, and/or just get them to leave an agency.

And so, that's another way that that chilling will happen. You know, I think, in some ways, the chilling has already begun. You know, really unprecedented to see, I guess it was in maybe November or December, when we saw Elon Musk using Twitter to essentially publicly dox federal scientists. Again, unheard of. Calling scientists out by name and position. They ran specific offices. He called them out in tweets by name, by office, and essentially threatened them, ridiculed them. And that also has a chilling effect.

A lot of these tactics come down to really scaring, harassing, and intimidating scientists, to stop doing that work, to leave those positions. So, whether the position's gonna be shuttered, whether it's gonna be filled with somebody who passes a political litmus test, but it's done to basically get rid of good science that keeps us safe, so that they can politicize science in the name of corporate greed.

Jess: The last time around, when Trump was elected, we saw big movements, like the March for Science, which made headlines and raised public awareness around the globe. But what do you think the scientific community, and our supporters, both the UCS supporters and the supporters of science in general, what do we need to focus on to make sure the public is aware of the threats facing science?

Dr. Jones: First off, I think that last point is, number one, just continue to make folks aware of these threats to science. This is a science emergency. We don't have to understand the inner workings of the government to know that it keeps us safe. Again, there's so many great reports that have come out in the past few years that have shown, by and large, the public really trusts scientists, and supports federal scientists, and supports, again, agencies like the EPA, who do that work. So, all of us can use our voice to help champion science.

You know, in that line, too, when I think about education, I would say something all of us can do right now and today is to make sure we are up to date on the UCS Disinformation Playbook. Disinformation has played such a role in getting us to where we are in the past few years, and the amount of anti-science disinformation that we're already seeing just absolutely being, you know, spewed. All of us are subject to disinformation, so we need to know how to recognize it and to counter it. And so, go see the UCS Playbook for how to do that.

Now, some other ways that folks can join us here at UCS, and some of the efforts that we're doing. Become a supporter if you're not. Check out becoming a member of our science network, if you happen to be a scientist, and eligible to do that. So, let's go back to that supporter network. You know, I'm so excited to share that, just in the past week or so, UCS delivered a letter to, I think, every member of Congress, championing the need for science. And so, we had more than 25,000 members, supporters, scientists, science advocates, sign on to this letter that we deliver to Congress. And folks can go and see that letter on our website.

Keep an eye out, as we do trainings, for other ways that people can get involved, such as writing public comments on proposed pieces of policy rules, and...well, writing comments to help inform federal rules and policies. And so, what that looks like is each of us is allowed to weigh in when the federal government proposes a new rule on, again, whether it's something around transportation, or climate, or the census, or whatever it might be. Those can go out for public comment. And what that looks like is you going on to the federal website and writing a letter, and saying who you are and why you support it or object to it. And so, we work with groups around the country to help train them up, and individuals as well, through webinars and trainings.

And then, also, again, just using that voice to remind your community about the power of science. And so, that can look like some of the toolkits, in terms of writing a letter to the editor in your local community. When we talk about this work at the federal level, you know, yes, there is the D.C. Beltway, where a lot of this, the nitty-gritty and a lot of the politicking happens, but really, we have to remember that's being done in our name and for us in all the communities that we live at across the country. And ultimately, you know, good rules, good policies, good science, the goal is that it's done so that it plays out in our community. And so, that's just a powerful reminder that we need that voice inside D.C., but we also need that voice in your own community.

Jess: Okay, Jen. You mentioned some things around scientific integrity before, but there is something called the Scientific Integrity Act. So, I was hoping you could talk a little bit about what that specific act is, and why it matters.

Dr. Jones: Great. Love it. So, scientific integrity. Again, you know, a set of practices that would help protect scientists and keep them free of that political interference and harassment. And so, you know, right now, agencies, federal agencies that we've talked about, they have a scientific integrity policy in place, because, under the Biden administration, there was an executive order that was issued requiring agencies to adopt a final scientific integrity policy. So, this work, the idea of scientific integrity, has been decades in the making. UCS has pushed all administration over the past decades around scientific integrity. And over the years, we've seen it get taken up by agencies more and more and more, to the point where we now had an executive order requiring agencies. And so, at the end of 2024, we saw, I think, nearly every agency issue a final scientific integrity policy.

Now, here's the thing. On day one of a new Trump administration, those can be rolled back. Because those policies were created by an executive order, and not a law through Congress, they can be simply rolled back at the stroke of a pen. Hence the need for a piece of legislation, passed by Congress, that would enshrine scientific integrity in law. And so, that is the Scientific Integrity Act that we have worked with, or advocated with Congress, for many years, to push this forward. We will continue to do so. Representative Paul Tonko out of New York has been the lead champion of scientific integrity over years, and has continued to push for scientific integrity. I hope and I expect in the new Congress, we will see the bill reintroduced. And we will continue to push for it and advocate for it, and scientific integrity in law, period, for those protections that could then protect that federal scientist regardless of political administration.

Jess, let me raise one other thing, and talk a little bit about how scientific integrity is possibly under threat in the next administration as well. So, I've just mentioned that the President could essentially roll back an executive order that requires agencies to have scientific integrity policies. In November and December of 2024, we saw the House Oversight Committee signal that they are coming after scientific integrity in the new Congress. What happened is House Oversight, which really does have far-reaching abilities to hold hearings, call witnesses, subpoena evidence on just about anything. House Oversight sent a letter, or letters, pardon me, to three federal agencies, the EPA, HHS, and Department of Interior, requiring those agencies to submit a lot of documents, correspondence, and other materials on scientific integrity policies, scientific integrity officers, and essentially anything related to scientific integrity in those agencies. That's really scary and worrisome. The way the letters have been written signal that we should expect the new Congress, and this is James Comer, who's the head of House Oversight Committee, to likely hold what I have been told could look like McCarthy-style hearings, coming after science and scientific integrity. So, I can't report any more at this time, as we wait for the new Congress to really kick into gear, but I think it is a very worrisome sign that the new Congress is expecting to politicize scientists, and science, even more for political gain.

Jess:. We are wrapping up, and I like to end by asking my guests a two-part question. So, Jen, we are the Union of Concerned Scientists. Why are you concerned?

Dr. Jones: I'm really concerned because, in my career, I have lived and worked in, gosh, more than 40 countries around the world. I have spent a lot of my career focused on issues of environmental justice and equity. I, as an educator and a former professor, have worked for that next generation of scientists. I have been the recipient of the good science that keeps us safe. I am concerned because so many of those things that do provide the basic protections for us are at risk. And, whether the species perpetuates for millennia to come or not, there are those of us and our neighbors who will suffer today, and in the short term, if all of us are not concerned and do our part. So I'm concerned because the evidence in front of me tells me I should be.

Jess: That's a great answer. Very scientist-forward. I love it. And so, then, the second part of the question, it's more positive, more motivational, but what are you doing about that concern?

Dr. Jones: Yeah. It comes back, I mean, aside from all the work here at UCS, I tell you, well, some of the things I'm doing are just constantly continuing to expand the way I think about equity. Thinking about who I can work with to find, ways to find joy, to increase how science benefits so many of us. I know, again, it sounds a little basic, but I think we have such an amazing opportunity and need to remind people the joy of the endeavor of science, of scientific inquiry. The basic joy of being curious, of asking questions about our world. Why does this look this way? How did we get here? So, helping pass on that mindset, helping people learn about science, the value of it, the joy of it. I wish I did more writing around that. Perhaps that should be a personal goal for the year, that would certainly be positive, in a way. Because I do think we've spent today, for an example, a lot of our time talking about the dire parts. But I am also working through UCS, but in these other arenas as well, to remind us everything that science has given us thus far. It has the potential to solve so many problems. And that should be empowering.

Many thanks to Dr. Jen Jones, and to Omari Spears for production help. This will be the last episode of This Is Science with Jess Phoenix. I will miss every single one of you. Keep looking at UCS for ways you can help the fight to save science. Stay strong, Science Stalwarts!