Impact on Future Scientific Generations

WNYC Studios is supported by the New York Hall of Science, a hands on science center and learning lab in Queens focused on inspiring curiosity, problem solving, and encouraging creativity through science, engineering and math. More at nYsci dot org dot WNYC Studios is supported by Columbia University Press, publisher of What Science Says About Astrology by Carlos Orsi You may have heard the recent interview on Code Switch with Carlo Sorsi about why astrology appeals to so many people despite having no backing by scientific evidence What makes astrology so appealing and persuasive Is there any harm to believing in astrology anyway Carlos Orci explores the importance of astrology to the history of science and the reasons it's been categorized as a pseudoscience Both empathy and skepticism Orcy illuminates the psychological and emotional mechanisms that cause people to find astrological predictions convincing He also addresses the dangers of irrational beliefs and the risks of applying astrology to serious decisions Wide ranging and entertaining. What Science Says Ab astrology is the first book in the newew What Science says series. Available now wherever books are sold. WNYC Studios is supported by Con Edison. New York, if your AC is always turned up, Well, your energy bills are likely to go up too Luckily, Con Edison has ways to help Try their personalized energy saving tips or explore budget billing, which helps to spread out your biggest payments Visit coned. com slash Bill helpp to get started because taking control is New York Hi, I here, and you're listening to Sang Its Friday The federal grant making system that supports a lot of U. S. science research has a process Researchers submit grant proposals that are vetted and scored by a committee of experts in that field. top scoring proposals recommended for funding in that ever shrinking pool of dollars That's how things have normally worked for decades But a proposed rule change at OMB, the Office of Management and Budget bring a major shift inserting a political review process to ensure the funds that are released match the priorities of the president Those rules are now in a public comment period In a recent editorial, Dr. Holden Thorpe Editor in chief of the Science Family of Journals Pall to change another Rd alert for American science He's with me now. Welcome to Science Friday Thanks, I great to be here Let's talk about how big a change that is, please Well, normally, and for the last eighty years, I think this is what has made American science. dominant in the world We have had a system where the review of scientific projects by the peers of the scientists who proposeed them have always taken precedence over any political considerations about the science itself? And that is a vision that goes back eighty years to when someone named Vineiever Bush proposed to Harry Truman how this all should be set up And the idea was that the curiosity and scientific judgment of scientists was going to get us to science that would be better for the United States than if we allowed it to be drawn into the political process, which would have two problems. One is We could do science that isn't that meritorious just for a political agenda Or we'd have to deal with the fact that political administrations change back and forth all the time, and that would make it very hard to sustain projects long enough to have them pay off. and I think any analysis would say that promise of what was envisioned in nineteen forty five has been realized up until two years ago when the U.S was the dominant place for science in the world. But Now what is being proposed is that Politicians would have much more control over the science that gets done including being able to cancel any project without cause at any time that has been evaluated according to the normal processes using funds that were appropriated by Congress And those cancellations could be done by the executive branch. And that is something new And if you go down from there you know, there is a regular political review that would be required of every single project And then that feeds off into a lot of other problems where international collaborations would be extxtremely difficult, if not impossible and lots of things that get away from the idea that Science is a public good that serves everyone and is best when It's judged on the science itself and not the political ideas of the day You know, when you said nineteen forty five and how long ago this was And I heard about this OMB idea. my mind went to the famous L Senko case with the Soviet Union under Stalin going back to forty five chose to politicize science and putting reesearch under party control judging ideas by whether they conform to Party dogma. instead of evidence and they punished scientists challenge the official line And this sounds frighteningly familiar to this OMB directive politicizing science Yeah, a lot of people are drawing that connection. and I think it's a fair one You know, I tend to be an optimist. so I'm hoping that we haven't quite reached that point yet because we have a few more controls in place then were present in the case that you imagine, but it's certainly important for us to mobilize and make sure that people know that the scientific community objects to this. And I think the challenge with that is Something like OM B is really in the weeds. I mean, most scientists to the extent that they might follow this They might look and see whether the amounts appropriated for the agencies were the same or hopefully a little bit higher than they were the year before and then kind of forget about it because normally O and B just complies with the wishes of Congress and disperses the money. But because we've seen throughout this administration We have an activist OMB that has its own agenda Mm. let's talk about the actual text of the O and B rule And it says that changes are related to, quote, transparency, accountability and proper oversight. federal grant making process That's a big word salad meaning what. Well, I think two things. One is The administration has made a lot of statements about what it views as meritorious science, particularly in the realm of whether it has been reproduced or not and whether it can be reproduced and there The scientific community bears a little bit of the burden for allowing this to happen because there have been some high profile incidents of papers that went wrong and that's made it easy. to cast doubt on a lot more science than just the few incidents where this happens. but I think the other part they're talking about is the president priorities. as it relates to, for example, social science and studying things like climate change and vaccines that are politically charged and the idea that the administration ought to have influence over whether those things are done or not And I think one of the things people aren't looking at with this if you're a fan of President Trump doing that right now is that these regulations would be in place And if history's any guide, one day the administration will switch hands. And when it does, I can't imagine that a Democratic administration would overturn these regulations because who wouldn't want this kind of power And so this is going to cause At the very least, a whiplash effect And much more than that if you're a fan in one direction or the other of how this is implemented You know, that's going to be frequently undone Do you think this is going to prevent younger scientists from entering the field? If As you say, this whiplash goes back and forth and back and forth wondering about their careers Yeah, I think that's the biggest worry that all of us have. I mean, you have several things going on here. One is The administration has made it much harder for people from outside the United States to come here to study And the thing that has probably more than anything else made the U S. a scientific power is that we've always welcomed the best talent from anywhere in the world, whether it's here in the U. S. or elsewhere to drive our scientific effort forward. And that I think beyond that is if you're a young person in the U. S and you're thinking about what you might do with your scientific training is staying in the world where you're going to be supported by scientific grants with all these uncertainties. the best way to do that U I mean, I think thats it's understandable if young people concluded that it wasn't You know, I'm constantly out on the road, encouraging them to stay the course. tellell them about all the swings we've had back and forth over history and hoping that they'll hang in there with us. U But, you know, that's a worry we all have. And if we lose a generation It'll be highly ironic because One of the main points in nineteen forty five of starting the science agencies And doing the work in the universities was that it would allow us to bring back people who had fought in World War IwI who are very talented. who are going to need more training and not lose that generation And now we're talking about losing a generation of scientists eighty years later for a completely different reason Is there any kind of pushback that you see might be effective in mitigating what the OMB wants to do Well, the regulations are open for comments and It's true that the administration doesn't have to follow those comments, but there are tens of thousands of comments now. And I think peopleeople should go on and make their comments, not because necessarily it's going to stop this in the immediate term. but as time goes on as People lobby Congress and perhaps file lawsuits to try to do things about this the more obvious public outcry is documented. I think the more effective that can be And then I think the next thing is to if you want to do something about this right to your members of Congress and tell them that you're concerned about this And that you respect the idea that Congress appropriated this Bunny and that OM B's job is not to in put its own agenda on that, but to honor the power of the purse that the Constitution gives the Congress and disperverse the money according to the law You know, that's the irony of this whole thing is that when the White House took all this money out of funding of science and NSF, Congress rightfully said, you know, this is important stuff. We should put that money back in, which they did. And then OMB said, Ohh, yeah, well we've got another method we can keep this money from going out Yeah, that that's a that's a fair analysis And so now here we are again at looking for this pushback in the other direction. I know you've been following science policy for years. So how likely do you think this proposed change is actually going to take effect You know, I try to be optimistic about it all. I think that it's possible it could take effect for some time that could be undone by stronger language in the next budget bill, for example But that might mean that it could take effect for for a time. you know, if you're more optimistic, maybe you hope that Congress can persuade O and B not to go down this road if we get to the right people, But I'd say at this point it's certainly possible that these regulations could go in effect at least temporarily. while the next budget bill, for example, gets done, which could have language in it that makes it more difficult to do this. And then laawsuits could get filed and they could go to the courts. And we've seen this over and over again in the last eighteen months withinirect costs and various grants that got cancellled and universities that were