Faithful reader Gordon Wilder left the following comment:
I just posted the following on facebook if anyone is interested.
I understand that scientists are not to be taken seriously, that to be among the elite is to be elitist, thus to be denigrated. But, if anyone should be interested this is part of what some scientists are saying.
Richard Dawkins and Other Prominent Scientists React to Trump’s Win
What the election results mean for science, in gut responses from Scientific American’s Board of Advisers
To get an idea of what top minds in science, health and research are thinking, we reached out to Scientific American’s Board of Advisers to get their quick-fire reactions to the election outcome.
The excerpts, some of them edited for length, appear below.
President-elect Trump’s upset election caught many by surprise. We have not heard very much from him or his colleagues on his views on science and basic research, so I can only say that I hope that he recognizes the long-term value of basic research investment and will support the agencies of the U.S. government that support and pursue it, including the National Science Foundation.
—Vint Cerf, chief internet evangelist, Google
Fundamental research, dealing with climate change and the environment, nuclear weapons treaties, international relations, women’s rights, health and welfare, and more generally, public policy based on empirical reality, all have been dealt a blow.
The president-elect has expressed disinterest or disdain for the results of scientific analyses relevant for public policy, and the vice president–elect has been an open enemy of science.
It remains to be seen how this will play out, but a Republican congress seems unlikely to put many checks on this.
—Lawrence Krauss, director, Origins Project, Arizona State University
America’s prominence and international influence is largely based on the prestige and trust the U.S. enjoys, in part a result of the last century’s contributions to advancing science, medicine, technology and the pursuit of social justice. Our position as trusted members of the global community must be maintained and improved if we are to positively impact global development for the benefit of our own citizens as well as those of the world.
—Robert E. Palazzo, dean, University of Alabama at Birmingham College of Arts and Sciences
At this moment, November 9, 2016, I am sick in heart and spirit, bereft of even a shred of optimism.
All the ideals of the enlightenment on which our country was founded, all the principles of reason and open-mindedness that undergird the practice of science that we so fervently cherish, and to which we can rightfully attribute our progress in improving the welfare of humankind, have been effectively and thoroughly repudiated. The significance of the result of the election—that those opposing these beliefs will now either control or greatly influence every branch of the U.S. government—cannot be overemphasized.
It’s a shutout.
In such a moment it’s natural to search the past for lessons. All successful civilizations throughout history have ultimately perished. Further, the evolution of our country’s democracy is following an ancient script: the seeds of Trump’s philosophical victory can be found in the very multicultural, multi-viewpoint, open-armed inclusiveness of the democratic ideal America has pursued since its beginnings.
In his article in New York Magazine, Andrew Sullivan finds in Plato’s Republic, written 2,400 years ago, the view that a “rainbow-flag polity” is the most inherently unstable, and that “tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy.” It does indeed make you wonder if last night wasn’t inevitable.
My deepest worry is that this transition really could signal the end of the American Republic and the light it tried for 240 years, at least on paper, to shine on all the world.
What it means for the practice of science in this country, the rights of women and minorities, the future of our planet’s health, the survival of all the creatures with whom we share the Earth and for our relationships with other nations, I have no stomach to predict. But it does very much seem right now that the winning faction of the U.S. populace has decided that the Earth really is flat, and that will be the guiding principle for governance from this moment on.
—Carolyn Porco, Cassini Imaging Team leader; visiting scholar, University of California, Berkeley; director, CICLOPS, Space Science Institute

Hey Diane. Someone actually reads my posts.
Made my day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gordon,
I read them all.
LikeLike
I keep hearing these comments from my neighbor, echoing over and over again in my mind: “Of course I know he’s a total dick! But I voted for him anyway.” She said this smiling.
I think I will be sick to my stomach for four years.
LikeLike
Same. Especially when I think of the Hillary-haters on the left who kept up the meme of Trump being elected is no worse than Hillary.
It legitimized Trump – made it okay to vote for him. Because voters didn’t like Hillary but didn’t think she was particularly dangerous. And if Trump is no worse, no problem voting for him instead. As your neighbors no doubt believed. He’s a jerk, but no more dangerous to have him win than Hillary, and we all know she’s bad but not dangerous.
LikeLike
I’ve been trying to write about how this election will affect medical research funding as well as other issues that affect cancer patients. I have to be non-partisan, but just stating the facts will likely raise the ire of Republicans who will read it. I have previously argued, if we are serious about increasing funding significantly for the National Institutes of Health (most of which is passed through to fund academic institutional research throughout the nation), we will have to do more than just contact Congress to push for more funding. Because the various appropriations categories are limited, more funding for research would likely be taken out of education and labor programs or even other health programs. So we have get out of our comfort zones and lobby for a reduction of military funding (which is 53-55% of all annual federal discretionary funding!) and oppose Bush-like tax cuts, which have drained the federal coffers. Now that Trump has made INCREASING defense funding and more tax cuts for the rich two of his highest priorities, my arguments have become purely theoretical and moot.
But as a cancer advocate, I also have to educate my constituents about the dangers of mindless reduction of regulations, the possible elimination of the EPA, opening public lands to fossil fuel exploration and fracking, and threats to food and drug safety. I have to do so because the science is obvious that external, environmental influences change our genetics to cause various cancers and other diseases like those of the respiratory and nervous systems. The decreases of overall cancer incidence and death over the past years can be mostly attributed to anti-smoking policies. For many types of cancers today, people are living longer with better qualities of life, but the death rates are relatively stable. Very few significant advances have been made any, for example, pancreatic, esophageal or late stage melanoma cancers, the latter of which is closer linked to climate change.
Like virtually every other issue, there are no indications what a Trump administration will do with respect to disease policy. All we can be somewhat sure about is that the few priorities that have been expressed are combined with a restriction of access (eliminating the Affordable Care Act, privatizing and voucherizing Medicare and Medicaid, placing more emphasis on a “free-market” health care system), will necessarily lead, in the long-term, to more disease and death.
Anyone who can help me to make these arguments without sounding like a liberal shill to conservative Republicans? Ironically, the health effects of these policies are not partisan.
And I didn’t even get to the fact that a reduction in medical research funding opportunities means less talented people will enter the field despite our emphasis on STEM education. Just wanted to throw that out there to show one connection of the issues I discussed above with the educational issues those of us in this blog community care about. I’ll save that for another day. But as people who care about education, it is hard not to mourn prematurely about what might happen to science in the next four or more years.
LikeLike
GregB,
Maybe you should use Biblical language and call upon longstanding traditions of protecting the least of us. What would Jesus do? He was not a scientist but what would he say about ignoring those who suffer?
LikeLike
That is a wonderful suggestion! You just broke helped me break through my writers block.
LikeLike
GregB and Diane: Here is a link to the National Catholic Register’s article today on the Vatican’s response to the Trump presidency. Some paragraphs below. Some were “jumping for joy,” while others . . .
ALL QUOTE Below
Corriere della Sera reported Nov. 10 that, according to its research, most in the Vatican were backing Hillary Clinton as the “lesser evil.” Trump, on the other hand, was considered “unelectable” due to his “aggressive chauvinism,” in addition to his threats to deport 11 million illegal Mexican immigrants and ban Muslims from immigrating to the United States.
Now that the “greater evil” has won, the Vatican is viewing the United States as “angry and radicalized,” Corriere della Sera wrote. “For the Holy See, it is a bitter defeat, cultural rather than political. Among other things, it indicates that the Catholic Church hadn’t registered the very deep upheavals taking place in the greatest Western country.”
A “lot of incomprehension” and “bitter shock” were generally prevalent for many in the Vatican, agreed one U.S. official who spoke with the Register. Based on “failings of reporting,” he said, Clinton was represented as far preferable to Trump, who was portrayed as a “buffoon,” and reporting about Clinton’s shortcomings “never sunk in.” Due to a general lack of understanding of the U.S. “culture wars” in Italy, Clinton’s radical pro-abortion-rights position also hardly figured at all in media commentary. END QUOTE (much more in the article)
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/how-the-vatican-views-trumps-presidential-victory
LikeLike
Yes, GregB: Trump and the GOP are the anti science party: climate change is a hoax, Intelligent Design is taken seriously, Evolution is just a “theory.” Trump wants to lower taxes on the rich which will create huge deficits. Then the deficit hawks (vampires) will scream for cuts in the NIH and the social programs but not the military. The GOP is lobbying hard for deregulation and the repeal of Dodd-Frank which will set us up for another depression. When Reagan deregulated the savings and loan industry it lead to all kinds of fraud and a financial catastrophe of monumental proportions. Trump is appointing an army of corporate insiders to man many of the key programs and agencies that regulate and that aid or assist the poor, the disabled and the elderly. In other words, he’s appointing the wolves to guard the hen house.
LikeLike
From C. Porco’s part of the post: “In his article in New York Magazine, Andrew Sullivan finds in Plato’s Republic, written 2,400 years ago, the view that a ‘rainbow-flag polity’ is the most inherently unstable, and that ‘tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy.’ It does indeed make you wonder if last night wasn’t inevitable. . . . My deepest worry is that this transition really could signal the end of the American Republic and the light it tried for 240 years, at least on paper, to shine on all the world.”
As a general notion, nothing in human history is inevitable where human intelligence and action are concerned. Also, though Plato in his Republic was right about the weaknesses of democracy, it was because of those weaknesses insofar as the people involved are ignorant and resistant to their own good development (like being sophistic and greedy rather than living in and through the tenets of the four virtues (excellences) and not because of “the system” as such. So that “democracy is inevitably weak” is no more written-in-stone than saying you and I or anyone else is “inevitably weak” and will necessarily act accordingly. There’s plenty of evidence to counter that claim in history and especially in the history of the United States–sans Trump and, yes, those who voted for him. (I’m so disappointed in the abortion-blindness of my own Catholic brothers and sisters I could cry.)
More specifically, it was ignorance and fear of diversity, and not diversity as such, that was a significant factor in the “whitelash” that smiled across the fence while saying she voted for Trump anyway. The ignorance is palpable precisely because, if the writers in that post are correct, and I think they are and more, the Trump voters have helped to tear the national fabric that, ironically, they take for granted in everything they do. It won’t take long for their folly will leave their TV and come knocking on their door. But their constant comparison with Hillary reveals a gross misunderstanding of their own political ground and what it takes to not only keep it healthy, but to “keep it” at all. It IS the worst, except for all the rest.
But again, I have to say that our present situation, in great part, points to the failure of education itself over the last century or so–for many reasons, some of them deeply philosophical. That’s the thing about democracy–it always goes back to “the people.” I do wish I could afford to buy a gold bracelet from the company owned by the First Lady of the United States of America.
LikeLike
Thank you for this excellent distillation of many issues.
LikeLike
NYCPSParent: You’re welcome. But gag. It’s even in my dreams.
LikeLike
I am not shocked. I am from the Midwest and always predicted that a right wing take over was much more likely than a left wing one. (My bias: my father may have been in the America First camp and a great uncle was in the KKK.) Trump is probably part of this long-term plan. Most of us have been arguing over incremental changes and powerful outlier organizations. But these organizations have had long term plans, utilizing talk media while Republicans turned a blind eye and cultivated the listeners.
Hilary was aware of this and warned of it many years ago. She chose the wrong way to go against it. From what I have seen and read and heard, it is about the economy. People expect two bathrooms, two or more vehicles, four bedrooms, and giant tvs and when they got cut off from these in their imagination (since many voters have all of the above anyway) they look for solutions, not to systemic problems within capitalism. When they think they might actually have to die for their so-called beliefs, rather than some volunteer, they run to the person who will make the bogeyman go away. And do not forget that many evangelicals want their reward NOW, not in heaven.
And though the right concentrates our attention on fraudulent voting, we all ignore the vote counting. Maybe the pollsters were correct. The state level people in charge of voting can control getting out the vote, particularly among those who think voting is rigged, or the system does not want them to succeed, or who do not want to wait on line more than a few minutes or hours. You really do not have to do much to limit the vote. One political worker encountered by my husband was sure Bush had a chance to carry Ohio because rain was predicted which would suppress minority voting. In that case, you just locate insufficient polling booths.
Good luck to us all. Perhaps the school issue will be the tip of the iceberg in a turn around in the next twenty years. I probably will not be alive to see it but who knows. Not many empires last long in the modern age, and maybe this is the middle of the end for the U. S.
LikeLike
May I add another comment:
Homo sapiens, the only animal with sufficient intellect to destroy the very means of his existence but seemingly without the intellect not to do so.
LikeLike
To Gordon who says: “Homo sapiens, the only animal with sufficient intellect to destroy the very means of his existence but seemingly without the intellect not to do so.”
. . . but also to recognize the good and to transcend ourselves according to it.
LikeLike
I have been reasearching for hours trying to find sources for the claims made by these scientists. Can anyone provide a source or link that is not anecdotal?
LikeLike
Climate research is largely based on mathematical models which are inaccurate. This is due to the non-linear and chaotic behavior of climate. You can’t control climate…the best you can do is try to manage the situation.
Research money is better spent on medical research to cure diseases, etc. In last 10 years cures for hep c with better than 95% cure rate have been developed. Cures for more infectious diseases will occur in the near future.
Besides any attempt to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is largely a waste of time if emissions are not curbed in China and India. The growth of these countries will continue unabated, so it is better to spend the money elsewhere. Money is a finite resource, please use it wisely.
LikeLike
ach_ach_bill_the_cat:
Since you doubt the value of climate research, I contacted a Nobel Prize-winning scientist at Princeton and he gave me these citations:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=D118D66B36E15E80B7754485A8CA87F4.c2.iopscience.cld.iop.org
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14042016/climate-change-consensus-affirmed-global-warming-manmade-scientists
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/
There is also the evidence before our eyes of melting ice caps, rising oceans.
LikeLike