Making science great again. Or not

In the USA, the freshly installed administration of President Donald Trump is attempting to drastically reshape science. Our editorial will focus on those interventions that are particularly relevant to epidemiology and public health. They include: (i) restricting or eliminating access to data; (ii) dictating what kinds of research can be conducted; (iii) cutting ties with international health bodies; and (iv) preferentially firing early-career researchers and limiting training opportunities.

Publication of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report has been interrupted and there have been reports of articles being withdrawn, before being republished online. Vital health information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website has been removed, including pages on the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System and references to the mpox vaccine. Restrictions have been placed on access to US federal datasets, including weather forecasts [1]. For 40 years, the Famine Early Warning Network (FEWS NET) has provided real-time data on food security and hunger, worldwide. Its website now carries the message ‘currently unavailable’.

The administration has nominated research topics, such as climate change and DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), that will no longer receive its support. Staff at the National Science Foundation and US National Institutes of Health (NIH) are reportedly combing through grant applications for keywords that are indicative of research in prohibited areas, including terms that are familiar to IJE readers, such as socioeconomic, ethnicity, and bias [2, 3]. The Associate Director for Science at the CDC has ordered that papers that are authored by its researchers and currently under consideration by journals or accepted for publication should be withdrawn to check for, and eliminate, language pertaining to gender [4].

US funding to the World Health Organization has been abruptly halted and the US Agency for International Development (USAID)—which has historically funded many global health initiatives—is now shut. The administration has severed US ties with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The future of the NIH appears uncertain and it is expected that two-thirds of staff at the Environmental Protection Agency face termination. Officials have announced that half of the staff at the National Ocean and Atmospheric Agency will be fired and the budget of the Agency will be gutted.

Early-career researchers are the future of the scientific endeavour. So it is particularly troubling that staff who are at the beginning of their careers have been targeted. Probationary employees appeared to be easy pickings in early rounds of downsizing the workforce. Legal challenges have been partially successful in restoring some jobs, but the environment remains chaotic and exceptionally testing for large numbers of young researchers [5].

Many of the IJE’s readers and contributors are directly affected by these changes, as they reside and work in the USA. The repercussions, however, extend beyond national borders. Given America’s global reach, its policies reverberate worldwide. For example, USAID’s sudden closure is felt extensively in Africa. Dozens of clinical trials have been stopped and researchers laid off [6]. Interventions have been abrupt and capricious. Elon Musk has acknowledged that efforts to prevent the spread of the Ebola virus were ‘accidentally canceled’. Additionally, when the USA adopts policies of this kind, other nations may be tempted to follow suit, compounding the losses.

American public health science is recognized globally for its quality and we are all the poorer if it is downgraded. At a time at which avian flu is spreading [7] and the fingerprint of climate change is evident in the extraordinary recent fires in Los Angeles [8], the Trump administration is undermining the foundations of public health progress, both in America and in the rest of the world.

The attempts made by the president and his administration to restrict the scope of research strike at the heart of good science. Ted Cruz, Chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, claims that ∼10% of recent National Science Foundation grants are unacceptably ‘woke’ [9]. On 20 January, the White House issued an executive order ‘defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government’. These attacks are unfounded and self-damaging. Withdrawing grants and support for research that uses the words ‘climate change’ or ‘global heating’ will not slow rising temperatures and sea levels. Cutting overheads from the NIH (to 15%), as Trump proposes, will put a spoke in the wheel of ‘woke’ investigations; it may also cause many research-intensive universities to fold.

In this time of anxiety and adversity, we would do well to reflect on our social responsibilities as health professionals and epidemiologists, and to heed lessons from occasions in the past when political leaders sought to manipulate science to serve nationalist agendas. What should we do to elevate ethical principles enshrined in, say, the Declaration of Human Rights? We should look for opportunities to explain why demonizing marginalized groups is a dreadful idea [10]; show how seeking safety by moving in advance of repressive directions—so-called anticipatory compliance—may cause more harm than good [11]; and underline the dangers of loose language, such as ‘biological truth’ [12].

Furthermore, we should lend support to professional organizations that are committed to the promotion and preservation of science and scientific integrity.

We must remain steadfast in our commitment to the principles that govern our best practices in epidemiology. The editor of the BMJ writes that ‘we will not retract articles on requests by an author on the basis they contain so-called banned words. Retractions must not be used as a method of censorship’ [13]. The IJE takes a similar position: in this respect, and more generally, we follow the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics [14]. Our Journal is committed to upholding its values, including informed consent and integrity in all research; honesty in the collection, use, and dissemination of data; and prioritizing research that meets community needs.

It is unclear how many of the threats issued by the Trump administration will be carried out. Resistance through the courts and other avenues is mounting. Meantime, the IJE stands in solidarity with all of you, our readers and colleagues, who faithfully contribute to and sustain the Journal and whose employment and careers are now threatened. Please stay in touch and let us know if there is anything we can do to help.

Conflict of interest: None declared.

Funding

None declared.

References

Author notes