Just a few months into the Trump era, the White House and Congress have well and truly shown their disdain for science and science-based policy. The president’s proposed budget is the latest example showing that the role of research is being sidelined in decision-making.
Perhaps most disturbing is the emerging philosophy behind all this: Don’t measure, so you don’t have to manage.
The administration’s proposed funding cuts for science agencies offer an alarming window on this philosophy. For example, the cuts would kill funding of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Air Resources Laboratory, which tracks and forecasts the release of radioactive material, volcanic ash, wildfire smoke and hazardous chemicals.
Advertisement
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s public health preparedness programmes are also targeted, as is the entire research and development arm of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is responsible for collecting, analysing and disseminating air and water quality data.
And there’s more: the cuts would terminate four planned – projects expected to yield huge amounts of invaluable data on our planet. PACE, CLARREO Pathfinder, OCO-3 and DSCOVR would make measurements that improve greenhouse gas emission estimates; detect harmful algal blooms, volcanic ash events and oil spills; and improve air pollution measurements.
All of these programmes ensure that the government collects the information we need to keep US citizens safe and healthy. Without this data, we are less prepared to deal with the big problems as a society.
This appears to be the strategy. If we cannot track our greenhouse gas emissions, we can avoid commitments to reducing them. And if we can’t see the extent of pollution, then we don’t have to enact policies to protect the public, which usually means holding businesses accountable for what they cause. Does that save businesses money? Sure, but to what end?
Familiar tactics
Hints of this strategy emerged earlier. In February, the US Department of Agriculture removed inspection reports and other data related to the welfare of animals in zoos, research laboratories and other facilities. Since Trump’s inauguration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration hasn’t publicly released a single citation for companies violating standards. Such citations were previously released twice a week.
In March, the EPA withdrew its request for information on oil and gas company methane emissions and emission control devices.
It is a familiar tactic. The National Rifle Association used it when it successfully lobbied to restrict funding for gun violence research at the CDC in 1996. That funding restriction stands today, preventing the nation from developing evidence-based solutions to its gun violence epidemic.
The George W. Bush administration was at it too. It relaxed the rules requiring industry to submit data to the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory and, as a result, the network for . By the end of that presidency, there were no monitors near most of the worst lead sources.
Today, such cuts to data collection and monitoring programmes are being made in the name of state flexibility. The Trump administration argues that states should manage these public health and environmental challenges. But how could a state be expected to compensate for a lack of federal leadership and resources? Will they launch their own satellites? Will they be able to track and prepare for infectious disease outbreaks?
Such a strategy is likely to fall short of adequately protecting public health and safety from emerging threats. Â The research community must not allow this. The scientific enterprise depends on it.
But it is much more than that. We must also articulate the great benefits to society that such monitoring provides. We must make clear that this goes beyond scientists’ livelihoods. It is about the vitality of our nation and its ability to make the evidence-based decisions that keep us all safe and healthy.
