H. Holden Thorp writes:

Federal grant cancellations, restrictions on immigration for foreign scientists, and attempts to cut the budgets of science funding agencies by 60%—the past 18 months have been tumultuous for American science. Even after Congress restored the budgets, following the successful lobbying by leaders of the scientific community, universities are still hampered by the slow dispersal of the appropriated funds. Meanwhile, the continual attacks on science and the uncertainty brought on by the Trump administration have put many scientists in a state of fear and anxiety about the future of the American scientific enterprise, or at the very least, whiplash over the dizzying pace of defeats and victories. Equally nerve-wracking are the differing perspectives across the scientific community on the best course of action.

Across the United States, graduate students, postdocs, and principal investigators are unsure what to do in this environment. Their universities might be sending signals to stay out of the fray—perhaps by restricting protest areas or emphasizing a neutral campus climate lest they or the institution get singled out for a federal investigation or the loss of funding. At the same time, colleagues might be pressuring them to join the latest protest, suggesting a duty to defend science.

To help the scientific community sort through these contrary signals, I’ve started talking to experts for advice and context. I had the opportunity to speak with Timothy Snyder, a professor at the University of Toronto who studies authoritarian movements in history. His 2017 best-selling book On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century is a guide for resisting and fighting back in times like this. The first lesson, arguably the most famous, is “do not obey in advance,” often invoked by those advocating for more resistance as universities and associations grapple with demands from the Trump administration. But Snyder has 19 other lessons and I talked with him about how to balance them all, especially “protect institutions” and “remember professional ethics.” I was curious to know how he would apply these lessons—usually discussed in the context of topics like immigration or the rule of law—to the scientific process and community. [Continue reading…]