Inspired by the Million Woman March on Washington, D.C., scientists are planning their own march to urge policymakers to base their rules on sound research.
“There’s been a lot of concern about the fate of science under President Trump. His appointees include climate change skeptics; he’s met with an anti-vaccination campaigner. He regularly cites false numbers on things like voter fraud and crime rates, while his surrogates defend the use of “alternative facts,” says NPR.
But not all scientists agree that the March for Science, set for April 22, is the right approach.
“I’m not saying that we don’t have a problem with ensuring that science has a seat at the table when we’re making decisions at all levels of government,” says Rob Young, a coastal geologist at Western Carolina University says, “but this march is not going to make that job any easier.” Young penned an op-ed for The New York Times against the march.
Of the opposite mind, Michael Eisen, a biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, thinks it’s unrealistic to ask scientist to keep their opinions to the lab. “I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a group of scientists to get together and not have some of what they talk about be, ‘Hey, this administration is ignoring evidence in a really important area — that being changing climate.’ It’s going to happen.”