Researchers at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal) were amongst the promoters and first signatories of the “Declaration of the Global Scientific Community: Defending Science, Knowledge and Public Interest in the Face of Political Suppression”, which has so far been endorsed by more than 600 researchers.
The declaration was launched on April 2nd by the SPHERA consortium (Single Planet Health and Environmental Research Agenda), a European network that brings together leading research institutions in environmental science, climate change, economics, social sciences, and global health. It was a response to the grave concerns raised by the “policy shifts in the United States on scientific independence, environmental protections, and public health initiatives”, as the promoters of the declaration say.
Manolis Kogevinas and many other ISGlobal researchers chose to take a stand, recognizing the urgent need for a unified and proactive response. Researchers at other centres at the Barcelona Biomedical Research Park (PRBB) have also signed the declaration, which is still open for signatures on the SPHERA website.
Kogevinas and colleagues also published a Correspondence letter in the journal Nature in defence of scientific integrity and academic freedom. And last May 22nd, they organized a webinar to address these attacks on science, discuss their roots, and suggest a line of action to take a firm stand to protect scientific freedom and advocate for evidence-based policies.
Political attacks on science
Over 170 people participated in the online discussion, moderated by Roel Vermeulen (Utrecht University).
The webinar started with Francesco Barone Adesi (University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara-Italy). He gave an overview of the first 4 months of the Trump’s administration, starting, from the first day in office, by the executive orders regarding the existence of only 2 biological sexes and the subsequent removal to all reference to gender from federal agencies and banning of all activities that promote DEI (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion). In response, websites were taken down to eliminate references to DEI or gender, and even after a court ordered website restoration, many data are still missing. Barone Adesi highlighted how the uncertainty towards what was legally required led to ‘anticipatory obedience’ by employees, due to fear of losing funding or employment.
Beyond gender issues, the mass layoffs of federal workers also affected science, with over 280,000 scientists fired. To that, one must add the cut in the overhead costs – the money of research grants not directly used for research, but for everything that supports it – from about 50 to 15%; another of the orders of the new US administration.
In only one week, many federal agencies lost up to 10% of their employees, with some having to close.
Francesco Barone Adesi (University of Eastern Piedmont)
Universities – including Harvard University, which in turn has sued the US administration in their ongoing battle – have also received cuts to their funding under different pretexts.
Not least worrying is the setting of a new research agenda by filling key roles – from climate change to vaccines – with administration allies.
As a result of all of this, more and more scientists from the US are looking for jobs in Europe, and there has been a decrease on international students and researchers going to the US. Indeed, US policies affect the rest of the world, too, and “despair is useless – we need to act. To protest more loudly, to document all the attacks, to help save the data”, said Barone Adesi. That was one of the aims of this webinar.
A first-hand account
The webinar included also Beate Ritz from UCLA School of Public Health, who spoke in the first person of her university and her own experiences – from the responses to the Gaza protests on campus to the ‘stop work’ order she got for one of her grants. “These ‘stop work’ orders are coming for any grants that mention DEI or climate change – including very big ones, one from NASA, one that had been supported for 45 years… They’ re gone now”, she lamented. She gave a real picture of the effects of the US administration actions mentioned above. She spoke of the fear of these stop work orders, of the vocabulary they must revise or can’t use if they want to get a grant, of how this is making them miss deadlines for other funds. And of how, even if they get new funds, they don’t have the necessary people to manage them, because hiring is also restricted and controlled.
Researchers in the US fear – and are suffering – loss of funding, but we are also sticking together and demonstrating
Beate Ritz (UCLA School of Public Health)
Researchers and universities in the US, she said, are organising demonstrations and meetings in town halls, giving information and advice to students and postdocs (specially foreigners, who are most vulnerable for risk of visa revoking). “Be safe, know your rights, plan ahead”, is the new motto. “You don’t know who to trust… but we researchers are colleagues, we must stick together, and so do students. And I hope we see the sun raising again”, Ritz finished.
Effects that go beyond the US
Next was Michelle Turner, an ISGlobal researcher, who shared examples of recent experiences in her field, environmental epidemiology. The fact that three US experts officially withdrew from a WHO meeting in February, due to constrictions from their government. Or that one of her papers was rejected from the US-led journal Environmental Health Perspectives – the only reason given being ‘based on recent developments’. A few months later, this journal is no longer accepting new submissions, due to “changes in operational resources”.
Journals are also receiving requests of changes of authors names of papers already published, as US researchers fear they will lose their job if a paper on a ‘now banned’ topic is published with their name… What should editors do in these cases? The answers are not obvious, although the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) official position is that they should say no to these petitions that are politically oriented.
The influence of political decisions is seen also in conferences, or the publishing system
Michelle Turner (ISGlobal)
She launched some other open questions to the audience; Is it safe to travel to conferences that have certain words in their title? Should one self-censor one’s abstract to be accepted? Should the location of the conference be changed to a non-US location to avoid problems in attending and presenting?
The roots of it all… and the future we must create
Last, Paolo Vineis from Imperial College in London, talked about the ideological roots of what is happening, and Kogevinas led a discussion on what can be done about the attacks on research for climate change and health.
“Talk about it, let people know”, was the consensus. “But the general public and policy makers don’t read specialised journals like Nature, so we need to communicate better to get to young people, too, using their language, going to Tik Tok and the like, even – because others out there do it, and they send the wrong messages”, noted Barone Adesi.
Participants identified the need to reach out to the public and policy makers and make them see the negative effects of these attacks and the importance of science.
Although some thought science is “too complex for Tik Tok”, others agreed that we need to do what it takes to ensure the public becomes aware and acts to move policy, to push the governments. And Ritz urged the research community to talk to everyone (patient associations, reporters, funders…) to explain why we need to defend science. “We need trust – we need people to believe us”, she claimed.
Kogevinas closed the event cautioning also about the future of EU research funding and the need for lobbying to secure future funding for climate environmental health research here. Whether in the US, in Europe or elsewhere, “we need to stick together and have each other’s back”, he concluded.
