Twenty-nine scientists came together in 1928. Albert Einstein is sitting in the middle.

Dear Commons community,

In a letter to the editor of Science written by Anita Simha∗ and Gaurav Kandlikar, a plea is made that scientists during this period of erosion for research must unite and come together.  Here is the entire letter.

US federal support for science is eroding (¹), and the future of US scientific agencies and institutions is uncertain. Simultaneously, the Trump administration is scapegoating minority groups, including immigrants, trans people, people of color, and disabled people (^2-4). In the face of this federal onslaught, scientists may feel uncertain about how to respond. Speaking up may feel risky or even futile, but the risk of backlash grows with each day that silence becomes the norm (^{5, 6}). Now is the time for scientists to ask more of each other and demand more from our institutions.

Scientists have a responsibility to care for each other as members of labs, departments, unions, and professional societies. We must collectively demand that our institutions safeguard our personal and professional well-being. Institutional actions should include protecting those targeted by the Trump administration (^{4, 7}) and pushing back against unjustified funding cuts (^{8, 9}).

Even in the absence of strong institutional response, labs and departments can model leadership by making space for open discussion of federal decisions. Conversations about the material consequences of the Trump administration’s actions (^{10, 11}) can serve as valuable guides for collectively identifying suitable responses. Sharing accurate information about the limits of federal policies is also crucial. Overestimating the power and scope of federal decisions could inadvertently lead to scientists ceding unnecessary ground (⁵). For example, preemptively removing content related to diversity, equity, and inclusion from lab materials may be a freely given concession at many institutions. Frank and frequent conversation can help assess the risks and benefits of potential action.

Scientific institutions face immense federal scrutiny, but this pressure cannot serve as an excuse for silence or inaction. In the face of unreliable federal support, scientists must raise, not lower, expectations of each other and of our leaders (¹²).

Department of Biological Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA.

∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. J. Travis, K. Langin, J. Kaiser, M. Wadman “Mass firings decimate U.S. science agencies,” Science, 18 February 2025.
2. A. J. Connelly, “Federal government’s growing banned words list is chilling act of censorship,” PEN America, 21 March 2015.
3. M. Casey, R. Ngowi, “Transgender Americans aim to block Trump’s passport policy change,” AP News, 25 March 2025.
4. “Trump administration arrests Turkish student Rumeysa Ozturk at Tufts,” Al Jazeera, 26 March 2025.
5. C. Robin, Fear: The History of a Political Idea(Oxford Univ. Press, 2005).
6. J. McAlevey, No Shortcuts: Organizing for Power in the New Gilded Age(Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).
7. V. B. Chaudhary et al., Science387, 937 (2025).
8. B. Pierson, J. Allen, “Columbia faculty groups sue Trump administration over funding cuts, academic demands,” Reuters, 25 March 2025.
9. W. F. Tate IV, Science387, 1333 (2025).
10. A. Simha, G. Kandlikar, “Caring for our colleagues amidst backlash: A conversation guide,” Zenodo (2025); https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15101435.
11. A. Aguilar et al., “How should staff and mentors discuss the recent U.S. election with youth: Leading experts have answers,” The Chronicle of Evidence-Based Mentoring; https://www.evidencebasedmentoring.org/lets-chat-politics-tips-for-staff-and-mentors-ondiscussing-the-u-s-election-with-youth/
12. J. McAlevey, B. Ostertag, Raising Expectations (and Raising Hell): My Decade Fighting for the Labor Movement(Verso Books, 2012).

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.