Numerous actions by the Trump administration over the past month have caused confusion and fear throughout the U.S. scientific community. In response, a group called Stand Up for Science, which says it opposes attacks on science and on efforts to improve diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in research, has planned rallies on 7 March in Washington, D.C., and across the United States.
“The biggest thing for us is that science is for everyone, in that it benefits every person,” says rally co-organizer Colette Delawalla, a graduate student in clinical psychology at Emory University. “It doesn’t matter who you voted for. It doesn’t even matter if you voted or not.”
The event is reminiscent of the 2017 March for Science, which drew more than 1 million attendees in 600 cites around the world to show support for scientific research and protest proposed budget cuts to the U.S. National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies during Donald Trump’s first term as president. Scientists were divided in their views about that march, with some criticizing it for a lack of concrete goals and others saying it engaged more people with science and policy than ever before. This year is no different. Some scientists say protests do little to change minds, whereas others say it can raise awareness.
The effectiveness of a protest depends on several factors, including the clarity of its goals, the scope of the target audience, the tactics used and whether the movement continues after the initial event, says Susan Olzak, professor emerita of sociology at Stanford University.
“Temporary, fleeting protests are not likely to have much of an effect on anything, but if you have a sustained campaign, then you’re more likely to have some kind of impact, even if it’s just on public opinion,” Olzak says.
Eight neuroscientists at different career stages spoke with The Transmitter about whether they plan to participate or not, and why.
These interviews have been edited for length and clarity.
