As the United States prepared for a new presidential administration, Nautilus, and the Aspen Institute asked eminent scientists from across the country to offer recommendations for its science and technology agenda. Many members of the group called for additional investment in science, arguing that research is more essential than ever for navigating the complex challenges facing the nation, particularly in a society marked by deep political divisions.
In his introduction, Dr. Aaron F. Mertz, Executive Director for Science and Society at the Aspen Institute, singled out a particular issue that science faces today – rampant anti-science propaganda:
Our respondents see the rise of anti-science rhetoric as a dire threat to the future of the U.S. They raise alarm over growing irrationality and political manipulation of scientific facts in American society and around the world. This dangerous trend not only jeopardizes the country’s ability to advance knowledge but also undermines the capacity to confront global crises such as public health emergencies.
Note that those concerns about anti-science rhetoric were voiced before former President Trump promised this at a … campaign rally about unhinged Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who for decades has aggressively promoted unscientific ideas about nutrition, agriculture, and, especially, vaccines and medicines: “I’m going to let him go wild on health. I’m going to let him go wild on the food. I’m going to let him go wild on the medicines.”
And in his victory speech the morning after the election, Trump added: “He’s going to help make America healthy again. … He wants to do some things, and we’re going to let him get to it. Go have a good time, Bobby!”
General Recommendations for Strengthening American Science
The scientists offered a range of recommendations to bolster American science and ensure that it is used effectively to advance knowledge and address societal problems.
Key themes:
- Increased Investment in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, to which I would add Medicine) Education: The experts advocate a transformative shift in STEM education, emphasizing creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving over rote memorization. They also call for greater diversity and inclusion in the scientific workforce. (I wish, however, that they had emphasized excellence and merit over diversity and inclusion.)
- Enhanced Support for Scientific Research: The scientists urge increased funding for fundamental and applied research, arguing that both are essential for addressing complex challenges like climate change and disease.
- Prioritization of Evidence-Based Policymaking: The experts emphasize the importance of basing government policies on sound scientific evidence, rather than political ideology, vox populi, or personal beliefs. This is especially critical considering the exorbitant spending on futile solutions to problems like climate change and the nation’s burgeoning energy requirements; and the possible influence of Robert F. Kennedy’s crank science on federal policy
- Protection of Scientists and Scientific Institutions: The experts call for measures to protect scientists from harassment and intimidation, and to ensure the integrity of scientific institutions.
- My addition: Improved quality control of scientific publishing. We need to pay more attention to reducing irreproducible published research, flawed “peer review” of submissions to journals, and “paper mills” that churn out worthless articles.
Specific Recommendations from a Who’s Who of American Scientists
Share this article
- Frances Arnold, Professor of Chemistry, Caltech, 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, set the tone of the experts’ responses, citing science as “our one universal language”:
Science is an expression of our deepest curiosity and desire to understand where we came from, where we are, and where we are going. It is also a powerful tool for making difficult choices on where to invest and where to stand back. Without science, we lose the opportunity to guide the future.
Science does not take sides. Science provides understanding, and it provides the fuel for innovation and prosperity. Science can help unite the country and guide us into the future we want to see. Please move to support and replenish the science and technology workforce in the federal government, and make use of the voices outside the federal government that love our nation as much as you do. Here you can lead by example.
- Edward S. Boyden, Professor in Neurotechnology, M.I.T., 2016 Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences: Calls for increased investment in “ground truth” research to address complex 21st-century problems.
- Martin Chalfie, Professor of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry: Urges increased support for basic research and public health infrastructure.
- H. Robert Horvitz, Professor of Biology, M.I.T., 2002 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine: Emphasizes the importance of fundamental research and a robust pipeline of young scientists.
- A. James Hudspeth, Director of the F.M. Kirby Center for Sensory Neuroscience, Rockefeller University, 2018 Kavli Prize in Neuroscience: Warns against the dangers of irrationality and the need to combat anti-science rhetoric.
- Judith P. Klinman, Professor of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, 2014 National Medal of Science: Calls for increased investment in climate change mitigation and improved scientific literacy.
- Eve Marder, Professor of Neuroscience and Biology, Brandeis University, 2023 National Medal of Science: Highlights the importance of studying fundamental biological mechanisms and the need for more inclusive science education.
- John C. Mather, Senior Astrophysicist, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics: Emphasizes the role of science and technology in addressing societal challenges and ensuring a prosperous future.
- Emmanuel Mignot, Director of the Stanford Center for Narcolepsy, Stanford University, 2023 Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences: Advocates for increased investment in biomedical research and training, and warns against the dangers of political interference in science.
- Susan Solomon, Professor of Environmental Studies, M.I.T., 1999 National Medal of Science: Calls for increased funding for scientific research, greater emphasis on sustainability, and improved STEM education.
- Thomas C. Südhof, Professor of Molecular & Cellular Physiology and of Neurosurgery, Stanford Medical School, 2013 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine: Emphasizes the importance of science-based decision-making and the need to protect scientific institutions from political interference.
Conclusions
The recommendations from these science luminaries offer a compelling and single-minded vision for a future in which science plays a central role in addressing the nation’s and the world’s most pressing challenges. By investing in scientific research, education, and infrastructure, and with evidence-based policymaking, the United States can continue to be a global leader in critical innovation.
But, in the words of the Aspen Institute’s Aaron Mertz, “Science is the beating heart of progress, yet its critical role often gets drowned out by the clamor of political theater.” Stay tuned.
Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Glenn Swogger distinguished fellow at the American Council on Science and Health. He was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology. Find him on X @HenryIMiller
