The current US administration is under scrutiny for its recent actions that seem to undermine scientific research, particularly studies related to climate change. This shift in policy has affected both domestic and international research efforts, leaving many in the scientific community concerned about the future of climate-related studies.
In a move that has sparked considerable debate, support for scientific research mentioning “climate” has been reduced significantly, according to scientists. This comes as part of a broader effort by the administration to roll back environmental regulations and halt clean-energy development initiatives. These changes have been described by some as a “blitzkrieg” against climate science.
Donald Trump, a vocal skeptic of climate change, has previously directed the removal of references to climate issues from government websites and halted programs that promote diversity and inclusion. The administration’s actions have led to a widespread freeze on federal funding for scientific work, resulting in confusion and disruption within the scientific community.
Researchers have reported that projects mentioning climate are being targeted specifically. An environmental scientist from the western US shared that their grant for climate-adaption research was rescinded until the project title was altered to exclude the word “climate.” “I still have the grant because I changed the title,” the scientist explained, highlighting the political influence over scientific research.
In another example, the National Disaster Preparedness Training Center at the University of Hawaii has been instructed to remove “climate change” from course materials. An administrator noted that changes were made to align with new governmental priorities, advising caution when referencing certain topics during instruction.
The administration’s influence extends overseas as well, impacting the Fulbright exchange program. Kaarle Hämeri, chancellor of the University of Helsinki, revealed that Fulbright grant descriptions have been altered to remove terms like “climate change” and “inclusive societies.” Hämeri expressed concern over these changes, noting their potential to harm research in critical fields.
The National Science Foundation (NSF), a key agency supporting science and engineering research, is actively reviewing existing projects for words like “women,” “biased,” and “equality” that may contravene the administration’s directives. The NSF recently dismissed about 10% of its workforce and has faced challenges in responding to inquiries about banned terms, including “climate.”
This halt in funding has disrupted scientific endeavors across numerous institutions, putting hundreds of millions of dollars of research at risk. Jennifer Jones, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, criticized the administration’s approach, suggesting it prioritizes the interests of the oil and gas industry over scientific advancement.
Joanne Carney, chief government affairs officer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, voiced concerns that these policies could discourage a new generation of scientists. She warned that reducing investment in science might slow progress in understanding the natural world and crafting protective policies.
Original Story at www.theguardian.com