Archives for category: Science

Those of us who live in the Northeast have to worry about the danger of Lyme disease, a very serious disease that occurs because of tick bites. If you live in a high-rise building, it’s not a problem. But if you garden or walk in the woods, you and your dog are at risk of getting a tick on your body. They burrow into your skin, and they carry diseases that can be very dangerous, even fatal. Our pets can be protected against ticks with tick collars or serums, but there’s nothing we can do to protect ourselves other than to cover up, use repellent sprays, and keep checking to see if there’s any ticks on our body or our scalp.

In the Northeast, ticks are abundant. On the island of Martha’s Vineyard, off the coastline of Massachusetts, there are 11 times as many ticks as in the rest of the state. Residents are eager to find ways to protect themselves.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently traveled to New Hampshire to talk about his plans to combat Lyme disease.

Rich DiPentima, public health specialist, explained that Kennedy’s ignorance and his contempt for vaccines were evident.

He wrote in InDepthNH:

On Friday, DHHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. visited New Hampshire to promote improved treatment, diagnostics and prevention strategies to reduce the burden of Lyme disease. I applaud Mr. Kennedy’s efforts to improve the much needed advancements in Lyme disease diagnosis and treatment, however, his approach to prevention reflects a poor understanding of the epidemiology of Lyme disease.

In his comments, Kennedy explained that the HHS is launching a “major, new multimillion dollar” program which will see the HHS and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) partner with researchers, to develop and deploy practical strategies to eliminate ticks on wildlife before they can breed on deer. This comment suggests that deer are the major reservoir for Lyme disease. In fact, most cases of Lyme disease result when individuals are bitten by infected ticks that have been on rodents and other small mammals, not deer.

Lyme disease is transmitted by infected black legged, aka deer ticks. The primary reservoir for Lyme disease in the northeastern U.S., which is caused by the bacteria Borrelia burgdorferi, is the white-footed mouse. When the black legged tick bites an infected mouse it becomes infected and then can transmit the disease to humans and other mammals like deer, dogs etc. As such, strategies to prevent deer from becoming infected would be very unproductive and have very limited value in reducing Lyme disease cases in humans. In order to do so, you would need to greatly reduce the number of mice and other small rodents that carry Lyme disease as well as reduce the tick population. Considering the huge population of mice and other small mammals as well as ticks, this would be impossible and a waste of resources.

What was conspicuously absent from Mr. Kennedy’s prevention strategy discussion was a vaccine. This is not surprising considering Mr. Kennedy’s history of anti-vaccine activity. We had a Lyme disease vaccine, LYMErix, which was voluntarily discontinued in 2002 due to low consumer demand, negative media coverage and unproven concerns regarding adverse side effects. However, Pfizer and Valneva pharmaceutical companies have developed a promising vaccine candidate known as PF-07307405 (VLA15) which is currently in phase 3 trials and could be released in 2027.

If Mr. Kennedy was truly serious about preventing Lyme disease on a large scale, the most effective and efficient means would be by developing a safe and effective vaccine. As was done during COVID under Mr. Trump’s Warped Speed project, the government, working with private pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Valneva, could greatly speed up the process and have a safe and effective vaccine available next year. That would be a game changer with regard to Lyme disease primary prevention. Currently, our pet dogs get vaccinated against Lyme disease. I look forward to the day when we can also enjoy real protection from this terrible disease.

Rich DiPentima, RN, MPH
Former Asst. Director NH Division of Public Health Services, Deputy Public Health Director Manchester Health Dept., Retired Air Force Public Health Officer and former State Representative.
Portsmouth, NH 03801

Categories Ethics, Extremism, Health, Medicine, New Hampshire, Science, Trump

Trump Administration Cancels System to Monitor Oceans for Climate Change

By dianeravitch

June 4, 2026 //

The Trump administration has made clear its hostility to science, most especially to any scientific research into climate change. Trump and his allies are certain that climate change is a hoax, and they have defunded all efforts to study or prepare for the consequences of climate change. Trump hates wind power, solar power, and any other alternatives to fossil fuels, which he seems to think are inexhaustible. The United States has ceded the leadership in alternative energy sources to China and European nations and other countries who accept the clear evidence of climate change.

Eric Niiler of The New York Times reported:

The Trump administration is dismantling a $368 million deep-ocean observation system that was put in place a decade ago to monitor coastal environments, marine ecosystems and powerful currents that affect the global climate.

The National Science Foundation said it would send ships in June to begin removing more than 900 deep-sea instruments anchored off Oregon, Washington State, Alaska, North Carolina, and an area between Greenland and Iceland known as the Irminger Sea.

Scientists have used data from the system to understand how the ocean is absorbing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, how changes in ocean temperature such as marine heat waves might affect fisheries or signal bigger shifts in the climate, and coastal flooding along the East Coast.

The station in the Irminger Sea has been key to understanding changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current, a global conveyor belt of water that some scientists are concerned may be weakening as a result of climate warming. A collapse of the current could have severe weather effects.

The Irminger Sea moorings are fixed to seafloor 9,200 feet below the surface and are part of an international collaboration among scientists who are studying the overturning current.

Michael England, a spokesman for the National Science Foundation, said the decision to dismantle the network, known as the Ocean Observatories Initiative, “aligns with N.S.F.’s wider strategy to have a nimbler approach to prioritizing support for evolving scientific priorities and emerging technologies as well as a deliberate approach to smart life cycle management within its portfolio of research infrastructure.”

Craig McLean, who was the acting chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration during the first Trump term, said the move was part of a pattern in the Trump administration.

“This reflects the further lack of understanding that the current administration has of scientific value and scientific merit,” Dr. McLean said. “By dismantling such a system, we push the United States back yet again into a rear seat in global scientific leadership.”

The ocean observation system began operating in 2016 and was expected to continue for 25 years. Jim Edson, a marine meteorologist who led the Ocean Observatories Initiative, called it “the world’s most advanced continuously operating ocean observing systems.” When it was first proposed, the science foundation said it was important to have a long-term presence at scientifically important sites in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Removing the instruments could take 15 months. Seismic instruments positioned around an active underwater volcano off Oregon will continue operating until 2028.

Each observation station consists of several moorings that secure long arrays of devices connected to wires. The devices measure ocean currents as well as chemical and biological conditions from the water’s surface down thousands of feet.

The instruments were hardened to resist the pressure of the deep ocean, corrosive seawater as well as marine plants and animals that can foul electronics. Remotely controlled robotic vehicles and gliders around the moorings collect and transmit data to research laboratories.

Funded by the National Science Foundation, the network was coordinated by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in collaboration with Rutgers University, the University of Washington and Oregon State University. A Woods Hole spokeswoman referred questions to the N.S.F.

It cost $48 million annually to operate the network. The Trump administration repeatedly tried to shutter it, proposing to cut its funding by 80 percent in both 2025 and again in 2026. Congress pushed back, restoring the money.

To try to reduce costs, managers turned off some of the instruments and collected less data, according to a December 2025 presentation about the observatories at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union, a nonprofit organization of scientists.

Still, the science foundation moved ahead to decommission the observatory network.

Hilary Palevsky, professor of earth and environmental sciences at Boston College, has been using data from the Irminger instruments for the past decade to better understand how the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Scientists have benefited from downloading data from remote ocean instruments, rather than making difficult, dangerous and expensive trips to sea each year. Pulling up the instruments without a plan to store them or to continue collecting data “is very hasty,” she said.

“One of the real tragedies here is that collecting data effectively at this site was a huge engineering challenge, and it’s not the kind of thing where you can just leave your notes for the next person who comes in,” Dr. Palevsky said. “There’s a lot of expertise that has the potential to be lost.”

The $48 million annual budget for the observation network was small compared with the value of the data it collected for understanding the oceans and the climate, Dr. McLean said.

In the huge federal budget, $48 million is inconsequential, like grounding error.

Categories Environment, Extremism, Science, Stupid, Trump

Timothy Snyder on “Superpower Suicide”

By dianeravitch

June 3, 2026 //

Timothy Snyder is an expert on European history. He taught for many years at Yale University and held a prestigious chair in European history. In 2025, he accepted a chair at the University of Toronto. His Substack blog is titled “Thinking About…” This important essay appeared in May 9. Nothing Snyder says here has changed.

He wrote:

The United States has just spent billions of dollars to lose a war that enriches its oligarchs, impoverishes the citizenry, sabotages its alliances, and strengthens its enemies. As justification for the self-destructive mindlessness, the White House gestures towards Jesus and genocide.

On April 20th I was asked to speak in New York about ethics and power. My thinking, which I expressed in a conversation at the Council on Foreign Relations, on this little video, and in the media, was that our utterly unethical war was also utterly self-destructive. The war, a catastrophe in itself, suggests the guiding principle of Trump foreign policy: superpower suicide. The term was since come into more general use, and readers have been asking me to spell it out.

Empires have risen and failed before, but to my knowledge no state has ever chosen to kill its own power, and succeeded with such rapidity.

It is hard to see this clearly. Even as we oppose individual Trump adventures, we hope that in some way they are based on some understanding of the national interest. They are not. To get the perspective we need to see the nature of this anti-strategic self-slaughter, it will help to consider thirteen traditional bases of state power.

1. Statehood. A superpower must, at a minimum, be a modern state. This means that it must be an arrangement that includes, via law and other institutions, a larger body of citizens within a common endeavor. There is no sign that the Trump administration regards the United States of America as a state. It treats the existence of the United States as a commercial opportunity for a select few people, American and otherwise.

2. National interest. Another minimal requirement of superpower would be a sense of why that power must be used. The Trump administration exhibits no interest in the good of the people. Theorists of international relations have differed as to how leaders understand national interests; we are intellectually unprepared, however, for a situation in which the leader simply does not care about either the state or the nation.

3. Succession. Again, for a state to maintain itself as a superpower, it must maintain itself over time. The basic requirement of such continuity is a succession principle, a means by which authority is transferred from some people to other people while institutions continue to function. In the United States, democracy enables succession. Historically, there are means of succession, for example by dynasty (or dynastic adoption, as in second-century Rome) or by the decision of a politburo, as in China or the USSR (in the US this would be a capitalist politburo, the sort of oligarchical coven that got us JD Vance). Getting from democracy to such different arrangements would end the American republic. Trump aspires to stay in power indefinitely, and says so. By putting the vote in question, he puts America in question, and thus American power.

4. Elites. For states to thrive and to accumulate and maintain power, the right people have to be in charge. There is no perfect means to achieve this, and there is the inevitable tension, as the Roman Stoics and others have noted, between the skills needed to rise to the top and those suited to serving some general interest. And those who rise to a position of authority will try to pass it on to their children; the Roman Catholic Church went to the extreme of insisting on priestly celibacy to block this tendency. Historically, powerful states seek ways to enable qualified people to serve in positions of authority, regardless of birth. Ancient China had an examination system. Napoleon established the principle of merit in both civilian and military life. The United States had a civil service that was the envy of the world as well as a military that was its most meritocratic institution. The Trump administration has chosen to disable the civil service and to purge the military command of people of quality. This process has been carried out by people who are themselves wildly unqualified to hold any sort of office, let along cabinet positions. To see where we are, we must understand that people such as Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, and Pete Hegseth, about whom one might raise other objections, had no business accepting their nominations, since they lack any qualifications. The fact that such people could be considered, let alone appointed, is a marker of superpower suicide.

5. Education. In a deeper sense, a superpower must have a mechanism to refresh its society, and thus its politics and administration, by preparing its population to understand the challenges of the world. This administration has done the contrary. University students are forbidden to gather and to speak their minds; university administrations are threatened with retaliation if they allow their faculty to teach freely; libraries around the country, including in military academies, are purged of useful books; public education generally is replaced with scams whereby tax money is transferred from the poorer to the richer while schools themselves are starved; an unregulated internet is allowed and indeed encouraged to transform the public sphere into a realm of emotions and recriminations.

6. Science. The rise of great powers often involves an alliance between politics and science. The ancient Mesopotamians were astronomers whose systems of describing the heavens still mark our ways of thought; so were the Mayans. The Romans managed to operationalize Greek science to build, defend, and cure. The Renaissance was, by no coincidence, also the age of exploration. Modern imperial powers built state institutions to fund science and attract scientists; the United States from the 1940s was the outstanding example of this trend, and science (often as practiced by immigrants) was the most important basis of American superpower. Current American policy is to fund science on the basis of primitive ideological taboos, and to discourage young scientists from immigrating to the United States. Senior scientists are also leaving; a colleague in a central position in US science just told me that he is leaving the country in part because the overall environment is better in other places. It is also US policy to cast doubt on basic scientific observations, such as that of human-caused climate change.

7. Energy. Human groups that pioneer new forms of energy technology rise; those that do not fall. This might be the most profound truth of our history; a magnificent forthcoming bookdemonstrates the significance of energy transitions at the most profound level, that of the history of life on earth itself. Humans who mastered fire could consume more energy themselves. Humans who domesticated dogs could use their energy to hunt mammoths. Humans who domesticated plants could turn solar energy to their own purposes. Humans who understood weather and climate could turn wind energy to the purpose of exploration and conquest, as did the Vikings. The United States was established on the cusp of a transition to hydrocarbon energy: coal, oil, natural gas. These forms of energy are now becoming obsolete, not only in ecological but also in economic terms. And yet this administration has chosen to cancel America’s energy transition and subsidize technologies that have no future. This is superpower suicide in perhaps the most basic form. And nothing could benefit America’s chief rival, China, more than this choice.

8. Technology. It requires little effort to associate technology with the rise of great powers. Military achievement is associated intimately with innovation; from the spur to the machine gun, the causal relationship is not really contestable. While the United States spends gigantic amounts of money on weaponry, the Trump administration has chosen to focus on weapons from the past rather than of the future. Trump’s idea is battleships named after himself based on what he remembers of a movie. The plans for “Trump-class” battleships are a mixture of the fictional and the vulnerable, which does reflect the man. The notion is to invest untold amounts of money into a kind of weapon has been understood to be obsolete since 1943, and which if somehow built would be highly vulnerable to weapons other countries now have. This strategic atavism draws the United States away from national security in its most basic sense. The shape of modern warfare is revealed by the high-tech war between Russia and Ukraine, especially in Ukraine’s successful self-defense. The Trump administration chose to ignore the lessons of that war and to demean and defund America’s Ukrainian ally, to the detriment of American interests and American warfighting.

9. Diplomacy. This art, celebrated by great powers, has been trashed by the United States. It cannot be practiced without understanding other countries, as the most focused American diplomats have stressed (for example, Henry Kissinger, who can hardly be excused of softheartedness). It has rested, in the American and other cases, on the deliberate construction of a diplomatic corps where people train in languages and trade in knowledge. Under the Trump administration, the foreign service has been trashed. The principle of diplomacy, such as it is, is that other countries will do what we want because we are big and bad. This has not worked. The bizarre notion that the president can himself “make deals” is the sign of a religious cult; like most cults, its activity is the generation of ever more creative excuses for the lack of performance. There is no evidence that Trump knows how to negotiate, and abundant evidence that he does not: for example, defeat in trade wars with China; personal vulnerability to the preferences of Russian leaders, and the disaster of Iranian nuclear enrichment, of which Trump himself is the chief sponsor. In practice, critical negotiations, with Iran and elsewhere, have been put in the hands of two people, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, with close personal relationships with the president and obvious economic stakes in the relevant conflicts. The diplomacy of the Huns was far more sophisticated than this. It is hard to overstate how primitive the current American approach is, and how much joy it brings to America’s enemies.

10. Alliances. Great powers have allies. To be sure, they might change these alliances rapidly for reasons of interest, as the East Roman (Byzantine) Empire famously did. The whole history of the Roman Empire, for that matter, was one of active diplomacy with neighboring barbarians (as the Romans saw matters); archaeology bears witness to the arrangements that were made. The history of modern European empires was also one considered alliances, as the architects of American superpower understood. Under the Trump administration, useful allies are mocked and marginalized for no reason other than personal whimsy and a sense of grievance. Because there is no sense of state or national interest, there can be no understanding that alliances are of service. Trump feels annoyed because he is losing a war and removes US troops from Germany; those troops are there to enable the United States to win wars. I personally cannot think of any other example in which the leaders of a great power behaved in this way, presumably because these kinds of choices are inconsistent with the maintenance of power. The United States now seems to be treating as “allies” middle eastern countries that have nothing to offer except their own interests in the use of American armed forces in their own region, permanent engagement in the disastrous politics of oil, and financial opportunities for people personally close to Trump.

11. The international system. Postwar America did something far more impressive than build a system of alliances; it essentially created a set of laws, rules, and norms that allowed American power to maintain itself and to expand. The European Union and NATO, so abused by the Trump people today, were indirect and direct results of American policies intelligently designed to maximize American trade and security interests. But the achievement was far broader than that, and indeed historically unprecedented: the construction of laws and conventions that kept one country in the center of the world. Today, the Trump people make themselves at the World Economic Forum, the Munich Security Conference and similar gatherings and complaining that the rules are against them — the exact opposite was the case, because America made the rules. In deliberately destroying its own international system, this American government is improving the position of its rivals China and Russia, who have been calling for exactly this to happen, but who lacked the ability to make it happen.

12. The idea of victory. A superpower wins in confrontations, at least some of the time. This administration loses again and again, and is seen to lose by others. Trump announced that his main weapon of influence would be tariffs, but then lost his trade war with China, leaving Beijing more powerful and more emboldened. The Russo-Ukrainian war is a curious case. It would serve the interests of the United States in prosperity and stability for Ukraine to win; but under Trump the United States has switched its policy to one of support for Ukraine to support for Russia. So it has lost in that way. But since the United States has made that pivot, Ukraine has performed ever better in the war, and Russia has performed worse. And so the United States, amazingly, has managed to be the loser in the same war a double sense: by failing to see its own interests, and then by failing to fail. The Iranian war is an obvious strategic defeat in every traditional sense; insofar as there were any American objectives, they were not achieved. Trump’s policies have left Iran with more enriched uranium in the hands of a more radical regime which holds new sources of economic power in the world. In the current situation, in which military options have been self-humiliatingly exhausted, the useful instruments would be those that involved communicating with the Iranian people or influencing Iranian society. Those institutions existed until very recently; they were willfully demolished, to great fanfare, in early 2026.

The United States is now governed by people who celebrate defeat in symbolic terms characteristic of states in disastrous decline. Consider Defense Secretary Hegseth’s description of the rescue of a US pilot as the resurrection of Jesus. The screaming blasphemy of this might distract us from its strategic helplessness. Christological images of this sort are used as propaganda to transform defeat in the real world into victory in some imaginary one. The US lost the war in Iran. Among other things it was not able to sustain an air campaign. The downing of a US fighter meant than an individual mission failed. It is happy news, of course, that the pilot survived. But the notion that this was a “literal miracle,” as Hegseth claimed, brings the United States, sadly, into the tradition of losers who use Jesus to claim to be winners. An historical example of this was Polish Romanticism, with its idea that the collapse of a republic (chiefly due to wealth inequality) made of Poland the “Christ of Nations.” Donald Trump’s own self-deification has to be seen in similar terms: a president who could assert power in this world would not have to claim that his real authority comes from another one. His fantasies of the total destruction of Iranian civilization are part of an apocalyptic panorama that is inconsistent with decent politics.

13. Finances. Though not the most interesting historical subject, budget disaster stands behind many of the most notable collapses of state power, ancient and modern. Under Trump our national debt now approaches $40 trillion. National debt is higher than GDP of the country for the first time since the end of the Second World War. That is a notable point of comparison: it is normal to run big deficits when facing the challenge of the scale of a world war. We are running huge deficits for an entirely different reason: because we decline to tax wealthy individuals and corporations. That is not an approach that is consistent with fighting and winning wars, nor with maintaining the social services that allow a modern society to function. More profoundly: it reflects an approach to politics — government as customer service to the very wealthy — that leads us from power to ethics.

The war can lead us to a diagnosis of superpower suicide. Wars cannot be won by people who have no idea what they are doing, because they have no frame of reference (such as the nation or the state) beyond their own feelings. They cannot be fought well when the wrong people are making the daily decisions and the wrong weapons are being deployed. They cannot be reasonably brought to an end when there is no practice of diplomacy and no notion of the value of alliances and no concern about corruption.

But even a strict focus on power will lead us back to justice. But just as the war is only a symptom of superpower suicide, so superpower suicide is only a symptom of a still deeper condition, the one that must be addressed.

Even if all we cared about were American power, we would have to ask ourselves how to undo the distortions of democracy and the drastic inequalities of that enabled world-historical levels of strategic buffoonery. After a year of Trump, we face a situation where reform and repair are not the relevant categories. And, in a certain sense, this is useful. The fact that we reached this point, the fact that just a year of Trump could bring superpower suicide, shows us that the prior status quo was unsustainable.

The systems that made the United States a superpower cannot be rebuilt as they were, nor should they be: they involved structural injustices that made the present attempt at self-annihilation possible. From where we stand now there are two ways forward: one is the self-induced downfall of the American republic; the other is to reconsider American ideals and to restructure American politics so as to bring the people greater power over a more just future.

*****

PS. If you would like to help Ukrainians defend themselves from Russia’s criminal war of aggression, please consider contributing to the Sky Defense campaign. For worse but also for better, as the Ukrainians have shown us, this is a time when civil society campaigns can contribute to general security.

Categories Accountability, Censorship, Corruption, Cruelty, Democracy, Elections, Environment, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Failure, Fraud, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, International, Lies, Science, Stupid, Technology, Trump, Tyranny

Scientists Protest Trump’s Firing of Every Member of the National Science Board

By dianeravitch

May 15, 2026 //

Thousands of NASEM members have signed and this morning submitted an Open Letter to Congress urging them to demand Trump restore the 22 National Science Board members he illegally fired on April 24th.

OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESS DEMANDING THE RESTORATION OF THE NSB

The following is an Open Letter to Congress concerning the Trump Administration’s recent firing of all 22 seated members of the National Science Board, the entity which, by law, oversees the National Science Foundation and performs other functions. We invite the public to join us by signing below as a supporting endorser of this letter.

Dear Honorable Members of Congress:

We write to express our deep dismay at the abrupt dismissal by the White House of all 22 members of the National Science Board. This body was created by Congress 76 years ago at the inception of the US National Science Foundation to oversee it, recommend national strategic policy for scientific research, and provide apolitical scientific advice to Congress and the President. This dismissal comes at a time when the National Science Foundation has been moved from its dedicated facility to a different building, is operating with no Director and a drastically-reduced staff, and a proposed budget cut of more than 50% from FY 26 levels. In short, the dismissal of the National Science Board members ramps up an alarming attack on the ability of the US to engage in basic and applied research, and to be competitive globally, particularly given that China is now investing more in R&D than the US. This dismantling of a critical national advisory body is but one of many such actions taken by the current administration that deprives our government of independent, apolitical, oversight and expert advice, not only in the sciences but also in healthcare and technology.

We stand with the staff of the National Science Foundation, many of whom have lost job protections, and whose alerts to Congress in July 2025 about the threats to the NSF mission have gone unaddressed. We stand with the National Science Board, and call on Congress, as an equal branch of government, to rapidly and firmly support science by calling for the reinstatement of terminated National Science Board members and appointment of new ones to fill vacant slots, and that as required by law (NSF Act) the Board members are “eminent in the fields of the basic, medical, or social sciences, engineering, agriculture, education, research management, or public affairs” and chosen “solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service.” Congress has in the past been a responsible and wise steward of our nation’s scientific infrastructure, and we ask that it once again meets the moment to protect our nation’s scientific competitiveness, economic well-being, and national security.

Respectfully signed by,

Elected members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, in their personal capacities, along with our supporters and allies in the science, technology, medical, healthcare and business communities.

[After endorsing below, please view the NASEM signatories and endorsers here.]

Categories Ethics, Funding, Resistance, Science, Trump

Dan Rather: Trump’s War on Science Is Outrageous!

By dianeravitch

April 28, 2026 //

Dan Rather, the esteemed journalist, wrote on his blog Steady about the dreadful consequences of Trump’s defunding of science, medicine, and public health.

But on Friday night, when we weren’t looking for a controversial announcement, Trump fired every single member of the 24-person National Science Board. Why? The simplest answer is that the members of the board were not his sycophants. They allegiance is to science, not to the person of Donald J. Trump. He couldn’t control them. They had to go.

Dan Rather wrote:

We toss around terms like “American exceptionalism” far too easily. But there is little debate that, in areas of science and medicine, this country has long been the world leader. We have more top scientists, elite doctors, and preeminent researchers than anywhere else. Their work has meant people live longer, healthier lives.

It is also a cornerstone of American influence around the world.

Scientific and medical research requires significant funding. It has thrived because our elected officials have had the political will to provide a financial pipeline to the public and private sectors.

President Donald Trump is severing that lifeline.

As the mainstream media was renting tuxedos and getting manicures ahead of the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Trump was busy pounding nails into the coffin of the American scientific research community.

Tucked away on Friday evening, in a terse, two-line email, the White House personnel office fired the entire National Science Board. “On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I’m writing to inform you that your position as a member of the National Science Board is terminated, effective immediately,” the email read.

No reason was given in the email, and the White House has had no additional comment on the firings.

The independent, 24-person board is made up of top scientists and engineers who serve staggered, six-year terms, to ensure overlap between presidential administrations. They are chosen “solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service.”

The board advises the National Science Foundation (NSF), which supports a wide range of research, from Antarctic exploration to quantum computing. NSF-funded research helped develop the MRI machine, LASIK eye surgery, and Wi-Fi, among many other innovations. It distributes $9 billion in research grants annually.

“[I]t is not enough simply to keep abreast of the rest of the world in scientific matters. We must maintain our leadership,” President Harry Truman said in 1950, when he established the board.

Keivan Stassun, a physicist and astronomer at Vanderbilt University who was appointed to the board in 2022, called the Trump purge “a wholesale evisceration of American leadership in science and technology globally,” to the Los Angeles Times.

Although the president is often reluctant to explain why he does imprudent and detrimental things, if one looks hard enough, a reason can usually be found. In this case, there may be two.

Reason one: to save face. The board was set to meet in early May to work on the release of a new report. The report outlines how the U.S., once the world leader in scientific research, is losing ground to China. If there is no board, the report can’t be released.

Reason two: money. In its 2026 budget, the Trump administration recommended a 55% cut to the NSF. After lobbying by the National Science Board, Congress rejected the White House’s proposal and funded the NSF at 2025 levels.

To avoid the same fate for this year’s budget, which again recommends slashing the foundation’s funding, Trump did away with the board before its members could convince members of Congress.

Friday’s firings are just the latest in Trump’s long list of objectionable actions to cast doubt on scientific findings and thwart research.

The United States has been on the cutting edge of scientific and medical research since the end of World War II. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been the world leader in funding biomedical research. A 2020 study found that NIH-funded research was associated with every new drug approved between 2010 and 2019.

But all of that is now changing. And Trump is to blame.

Science is “explicitly designed to counter human self-deception,” psychologist Steven Pinker told Chris Mooney in his book “The Republican War on Science.”

When deception is your modus operandi, you will naturally try to squash, discount, and demonize the truth. Being anti-science helps protect established special interests. Think climate change denialism and fossil fuel companies.

Trump called the climate crisis “the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world” at last year’s United Nations General Assembly. He said this even as the globe is in the midst of the warmest 10-year span on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The NSF’s board is not the first the Trump administration has hamstrung. In June of last year Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services, fired the 17-person vaccine advisory board and replaced many with vaccine skeptics. Trump himself replaced leading scientists with tech billionaires on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

The administration significantly cut funding to the National Cancer Institute, once the gold standard for rigorous, evidence-based research. It no longer funds mRNA research, a revolutionary technology that has the potential to radically improve cancer care.

It canceled 22 separate mRNA contracts, including one working on a vaccine for brain cancer in children. Kennedy is an mRNA skeptic, claiming the vaccines aren’t safe while providing no evidence.

Pancreatic cancer is an incurable disease with a dismal survival rate. Fortunately for pancreatic cancer patients, research into an mRNA vaccine was far enough along that the cuts didn’t affect the very promising treatment.

BioNTech, a German biomedical research company, partnered with Moderna, an American company, to develop pancreatic cancer vaccines using mRNA technology.

The technology, already in development when the pandemic hit, was used to create the Covid vaccine. The Lancet estimated that mRNA vaccines prevented 14.4 to 19.8 million deaths just in the first year of use.

MRNA vaccine technology was in the pipeline thanks to billions of dollars in federal grants over decades. This allowed researchers to get Covid vaccines to market incredibly quickly. This technology is now helping people with pancreatic cancer live years longer than ever before.

Moderna is also using mRNA therapy in combination with other drugs to cut melanoma death rates by 49%. Applications for a variety of cancers are in the works.

Paul Darren Bieniasz, a British-American virologist, wrote in The Guardian, “If we continue the destructive course plotted by this administration, medicines that would otherwise have saved lives in future generations, will not be invented. Technologies that would have ensured future employment and prosperity in the U.S. will not be devised. Solutions that allow the generation of power while causing less damage to the environment, will never be developed. Clearly, if we decline to nurture science, the lives of future Americans will be shorter, sicker and poorer.”

While Donald Trump won’t be around to see that, millions of Americans will. Trump doesn’t like inconvenient truths. Science is a kaleidoscope of inconvenient truths. Rather than deal with them like the world leader he should be, he gaslights, he rages, he denies all.

And as with so much else in this administration, we the people pay the price.

Categories Academic Freedom, Corruption, Democracy, Disruption, Ethics, Extremism, Funding, Health, Injustice, Medicine, Science, Stupid, Trump

Trump’s Insane War on Science

By dianeravitch

March 6, 2026 //

The New York Times published this excellent article by Jeneen Interlandi about the Trump administration’s mad effort to defund and distort science. Our nation’s leadership in science has been extraordinary. Our scientists have led the world in discovering cures for diseases, extending the human life span, exploring space and the oceans, and extending the bounds of knowledge. This is a gift article, meaning you can open it without a subscription. You should open it to see the many photographs and illustrations.

Interlandi writes:

Thirteen months into the second Trump administration, science, medicine and public health have been hijacked by a cadre of grifters and ideologues and by the politicians in obvious thrall to both. Federal institutions have been all but dismantled. Researchers have been defunded en masse and the universities that support them deliberately destabilized. Discourse on crucial scientific questions and key public health challenges has been stifled. And along the way, trust has been broken between scientists and the nation’s leaders — and the people that both are supposed to serve.

It’s tempting to view this undoing as temporary. Americans love science and revere innovation, almost as a rule, and politicians of every stripe have spent the better part of a century promoting and protecting both. However imperfect the resulting system was, hardly a modern convenience exists that can’t be traced back to it — central air-conditioning, the internet and ChatGPT; polio vaccines, statins and weight-loss drugs; the human genome sequence and CRISPR gene editing. The National Institutes of Health alone generates about $2.50 in economic returns for every dollar of investment. It’s also the largest government-funded biomedical research agency in the world and until recently was the envy of scientists across the globe.

The president’s attacks on this legacy have been relentless and all encompassing. He has turned the federal health department over to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation’s most prominent anti-vaxxer. For months, President Trump’s Office of Management and Budget all but froze operations at the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. His newly established so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, fired thousands of civil servants from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in a process that was wildly disorganized, frequently unlawful and needlessly cruel. Global health initiatives were also eviscerated.

Stacked against these measures, the administration’s explanations — which focus on cutting waste and eliminating so-called woke politics from science — have been inadequate and disingenuous.

It can be difficult to imagine a future in which American science does not prevail. But, as the president’s many critics have warned, institutions like the C.D.C., F.D.A. and N.I.H. will be far more difficult to rebuild than they have been to destroy — especially if their intended beneficiaries lose all faith in them or forget why they existed in the first place.

The current administration seems to understand as much. Top officials have taken pains to describe the nation’s scientific bodies as corrupt and ineffective and the nation’s scientists as elitist and excessively woke. “Science and public health have achieved much more than current leaders seem to recognize,” said Tom Frieden, the author of “The Formula for Better Health” and president of the public health nonprofit Resolve to Save Lives. “We actually know a lot about how to make America healthier. But very little of that knowledge is in line with what the current administration has done so far.”

Nowhere is this disconnect on fuller display than in the long war against H.I.V. Forty years ago, the infection was a mystery and a death sentence. Today, thanks to a combination of biomedical breakthroughs and diligent, boots-on-the-ground public health (testing, education, robust social safety nets), it is a chronic but manageable condition that really flourishes only among society’s most marginalized groups.

The first Trump administration vowed to finally end the American H.I.V. epidemic no later than 2030 by doubling down on prevention efforts in the hardest-hit communities. The resulting initiative has clearly paid off: Transmission rates are down in the targeted ZIP codes, according to the National Minority AIDS Council, a nonprofit devoted to stopping the virus’s spread. Racial health gaps are narrowing as a result, and because prevention is cheaper than treatment, money is being saved.

The second Trump administration seems determined to reverse course anyway.

On March 20 of last year, Kathryn Macapagal, a clinical psychologist and a faculty researcher at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine, was sitting at her in-laws’ dining room table when her phone and laptop began pinging and ringing furiously.

Ping. The Adolescent Trials Network, a huge research apparatus focused on treating and preventing H.I.V. infection in teenagers and young adults, was abruptly closed. The network was responsible for several studies that Macapagal and her colleagues were collaborating on.

Ping. A close colleague’s 10-year study on H.I.V. and substance use in L.G.B.T.Q. teenagers and young adults was suspended. So was another project on reducing H.I.V. risk in relationship.

Ring. Another of her projects, on how to improve the measurement of sexual orientation and gender identity in federal surveys, was also done for. So were at least two fellowship programs for early-career scientists who wanted to specialize, as she did, in L.G.B.T.Q. health and dozens of other projects affecting just about everyone she worked with or knew professionally.

Her husband, Dan Fridberg (also a scientist, also reliant on N.I.H. funding), paced frantically behind her as she announced each new bit of carnage. “At this rate, you’ll be out of a job by dinnertime,” he said. “Oh, my God. What are we going to do?”

“I cannot go there right now,” she replied. She was determined to remain calm. She was also too stunned to panic, although in truth, she was not surprised. Her research sat in just about every one of the administration’s cross hairs: All of her projects included the new red-flag terms, and most of the researchers on her staff fell into at least one disfavored category. All of their salaries (including hers) were reliant on N.I.H. funding, and all of their jobs were now gravely imperiled.

And not just theirs: Federal grants were the lifeblood of academic research. They supported scientists and students, institutes and administrators. They covered overhead costs. It was not uncommon for one person to be funded by several grants, nor was it rare for professors like Macapagal, working at elite universities like Northwestern, to be wholly dependent on grants that had to be renewed every few years. It was a deeply precarious arrangement, sustained for decades by the certainty that, come what may, the federal government would honor its commitments.

When the dust finally settled, four of Macapagal’s grants had been terminated, nearly a quarter of her salary was gone, and a project she had spent many months developing was on seemingly permanent hold. As they struggled to make sense of what was happening, she and her colleagues found themselves drawing grim battlefield analogies: It was as if a bomb had gone off and some of them were dead on the field and others, like her, were maimed. “One colleague who lost everything told me that he thought I actually had it worse,” she said. “Because, you know, if you’re going to die, it’s probably better to do it quickly.”

Of the 1.2 million people living with H.I.V. in the United States, more than 60 percent are Black or Latino. Transgender women, gay and bisexual men and teenagers and young adults of color face the greatest overall risk of contracting the virus in any given year.

Those inequities are no mystery: less access to health care, more social stigma and a negative feedback loop, wherein a higher prevalence of the virus in certain communities begets a higher prevalence of the virus in certain communities. But resolving them is no small feat.

In the years leading up to 2025, as she tried to do exactly that, Macapagal was consumed by several thorny challenges. A troubling dichotomy had emerged since the medication that prevents H.I.V. transmission (known as pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP) first became widely available. Within the gay community, middle-aged white professionals had embraced the treatment as an ordinary component of overall health and wellness. But younger adults, immigrants and racial and ethnic minorities still had not.

“It’s not unlike birth control when it was first introduced,” said Jim Pickett, a board member of TaskForce, an L.G.B.T.Q. youth center on Chicago’s West Side and a collaborator of Macapagal’s. “It’s pretty straightforward as a treatment, but it’s attached to all of this cultural baggage that makes it challenging to get across.”

In 2018, when PrEP was approved for adolescent use, Pickett and Macapagal began searching for ways to overcome these challenges. They knew teens would be an especially tough sell. Health care systems intimidated the boldest of them, sexual identities were still developing at that age, and this particular form of protection could easily become a source of embarrassment or even shame.

They enlisted, among others, Skai Underwood, TaskForce’s dance instructor and youth engagement specialist, in their quest.

Underwood, who was assigned male at birth, knew by the age of 5 that she was a girl but did not medically transition until her early 20s. She was intimately familiar with the shame and isolation that gay and transgender people often faced — how even friends and family would signal their rejection when you declared yourself, how that rejection could lead you to retreat inward. Her goal was to help TaskForce teens resist that impulse, so that instead of hiding, they might thrive.

To her, the solution to Macapagal’s public health conundrum was clear: If you wanted to teach teenagers — or anyone else — to take safe sex seriously, you had to convince them that there was something to protect in the first place. “What it really comes down to is self-love,” she told me when I visited TaskForce in November.

With that in mind, she, Macapagal and Pickett created a two-pronged public health initiative called PrEP-4-Teens. The first prong involved a media campaign linking safe sex to empowerment and joy. The second wove an L.G.B.T.Q. sexual education curriculum into a suite of community-building activities. “They basically come together to dance and make art,” Underwood said. “We celebrate queer identity, and then in between all of the fun, we teach them how to protect themselves.”

The program’s early results were promising: Among other things, participants came away with an understanding of PrEP and a sense that it was no more shameful to use than condoms or birth control. But before they could scale it up or study it in greater depth, a new administration began.

On his first days in office, the president issued a flurry of executive orders rolling back transgender rights and bringing federal diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives to an abrupt end. By many accounts, the DOGE officials tasked with carrying out those orders had little to no understanding of the projects they were supposed to evaluate. “They seem to have confused D.E.I., which is about diversifying the work force, with health equity, which is about reducing health disparities in marginalized communities,” Amy Knopf, a professor at Indiana University’s School of Nursing, told me. “They’re making it so that you can’t study certain groups without violating these edicts. But you can’t really tackle H.I.V., or any number of other conditions, without looking at those exact groups.”

In the weeks after the March 20 Massacre (as some of them had taken to calling it), Macapagal and her colleagues began working furiously to cover as much and as many of their salaries as they could. The main conference space morphed into a war room of sorts, as her boss, Brian Mustanski, tried to match any open position or bit of unused grant money he heard of with whichever recently defunded staff member who was qualified.

Macapagal’s job was saved by one colleague who stepped up without even being asked. “We have some money that we’re not using yet and some work that you could definitely do,” the woman explained. “Let me add you to that project.” Macapagal accepted and for many months afterward would tear up just recalling the kindness.

In April the federal government froze some $790 million in funding for Northwestern, without notice or explanation. The university was apparently being accused of antisemitism and racism over its diversity initiatives, but it was unclear whether the freeze was related to those charges, and no one seemed to know when or whether or how the funds would be restored. Researchers would have to tighten their belts as much as possible, university officials explained, while they tried to sort out the situation.

Among other things, the new strictures meant that Macapagal would not be able to pay Pickett for all the work he had done on her projects. He had presided for decades over a community center that prided itself on perseverance, and he took the news in stride. “Don’t worry,” he said. “We’ll make do.” But she felt awful.

Nobody outside the scientific community seemed to realize what was happening. Friends and family had all tried to reassure her that everything would be fine in the long run, that she just needed to hang in there until the midterms or the next presidential election. She found it exhausting to explain how irreversible the damage was. They had lost years of research in a matter of weeks. Whole labs had been closed, and successful, decades-long careers ended — and none of it appeared to have anything to do with the quality or import of the research itself. The decisions were political and ideological. They were also arbitrary and needlessly cruel.

Trust had been broken as a result, at just about every level of the scientific enterprise (between study participants and scientists, between scientists and universities and between universities and the federal government). Whatever came next, it seemed extremely unlikely to her that any of them, let alone all of them together, would be able to just pick up where they had left off.

In the meantime, those who were left — the maimed but still breathing — leaned on one another. When they were advised to pre-emptively change the language in their public-facing documents, Macapagal and her colleagues did the edits together, grousing in unison over the aggravation of revising terms like “inclusion criteria” and the moral grossness of erasing the word “transgender” from their work.

It was not the first time their field had been forced to make such compromises; the eldest among them remembered culling words like “gay” and “sex” back in the early 1990s. But this was different. In the past, even if they had to change a word or two, they still got to do their research. Now Macapagal found herself contorting a study on H.I.V. vaccine misinformation (her attempt to get ahead of the hesitancy that had plagued Covid vaccines) into something else entirely.

She found herself making other changes, too, including dyeing her pink hair back to a soft brown. “It might be safer for me to not be so out there with how I look,” she said. Some of her friends and colleagues were taking similar precautions. They were losing facial piercings and gay pride stickers. They were also changing slide deck images to include more white people, even when the conditions they studied did not, for the most part, affect white people. It felt gross because it was gross, but what else could they do? They had families and mortgages and work that they still wanted to complete. They knew people who had been doxxed and threatened — and worse — just for studying gender-affirming care. And they were anxious and, in some cases, afraid.

As spring bled into summer and the university explained that it could no longer provide offices with free coffee or free tissues, Macapagal turned a worried eye to her lab and began doing what she could to help people secure other jobs. It was a risky gamble: If they left and her funding was then restored, she’d be hamstrung. But she thought of the group as a kind of family, and she wanted to protect whomever she could.

Her lab manager, Andrés Alvarado Avila, was here on an H-1B visa, and if his funding was cut, he would have just 60 days to find another job, secure an exception or return to Mexico. Her project coordinator, Zach Buehler, was only a few years out of college. She found herself wondering if it was fair or right to encourage him down a career path whose future looked so bleak. Like many of her lab members, Alvarado Avila and Buehler were gay men. As anachronistic as it sounded, she could not help but worry about what that might mean for their futures, in an America that was less recognizable by the day and that seemed to be coming for them all.

In the past year or so, scientists funded through the National Institutes of Health have developed potential treatments for pancreatic cancer, broken the logjam on Huntington’s disease, shepherded a male birth control pill through clinical trials and saved a baby’s life with the first personalized gene editing procedure. In a different time and place, any one of those breakthroughs would have been hailed as the triumph of an epoch and might have lured a new generation of talent to the cause of scientific research.

Instead, six years after the pandemic began and one year into the second Trump administration, we have the opposite: seasoned scientists fleeing the profession (or the country) and younger prospects deciding not to pursue it at all. It’s impossible to say what new medicines those minds might have developed or what wicked problems their efforts might have solved.

What seems clear is that Americans have entered a grim new era, one in which science itself is a political weapon, rather than a tool for the collective good. It would be simplistic to argue that the two — science and politics — should be wholly disentangled. (As a human endeavor that involves trade-offs and requires public support, science is inherently political.) But real data and hard, neutral facts still drive the work that most scientists do, and the best of that work should still frame public discourse and, ideally, inform public policy. And right now, it does not.

Last June the F.D.A. approved the latest version of PrEP: an injection that patients would need to receive only twice a year and that appeared to work even better than its predecessors at preventing infection. In July the N.I.H. director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, laid out yet another strategy for eliminating H.I.V. in the United States. Rather than pour limited resources into more basic research, his agency would simply deploy existing PrEP medications. “Why is there any reason to wait?” he asked on his podcast. “Why don’t we just really commit to ending the H.I.V. epidemic, actually doing it with the tool kit we have now?”

The director’s epiphany frustrated H.I.V. specialists. He was right about the import of using existing tools more effectively. But many of them, including Macapagal, had been working on exactly that challenge when Bhattacharya’s agency cut their funding back in March. What’s more, almost all of the current administration’s stances — not only on science but also on health care and public health, immigration and social safety nets — were anathema to his stated goals.

If health officials really wanted to extirpate H.I.V. from the United States, they would increase access to health care, ramp up testing and education and fortify the social safety net.

At every turn, Trump and his deputies did the exact opposite. They tried to eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for H.I.V. testing, treatment and prevention services. They cut Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars and played chicken with Democrats over Affordable Care Act subsidies. They also weakened the social safety net, sowed terror in immigrant communities and upended public health programs just about everywhere.

If those policies persisted, even as the newest PrEP medication was made commercially available, H.I.V. would continue to linger. “Most of what we’ve done to beat back AIDS comes down to this extremely fragile safety net that is right now being destroyed,” Dr. Jon Mannheim, a pediatric H.I.V. specialist who sometimes collaborates with Macapagal, told me when I visited Chicago in November. Illinois was facing one of the largest Medicaid cuts in the nation, and his clinic was already bracing for impact. Among other things, he worried that fewer social workers would be hired for even less pay than before.

Without them, he said, the whole system might collapse. Patients who lost health insurance would have a harder time getting into the fail-safe programs meant to keep them on PrEP (and to keep AIDS at bay). The pregnant women he treated would lose their main point of contact for a whole suite of stabilizing services. “I don’t know how many babies would have to be born with H.I.V. for the federal government to care,” he said. “But I guess we’ll find out.”

In the meantime, his Latin American patients were still avoiding the clinic altogether, months after ICE had descended on the city. He had lost several of them to follow-up care over the summer. The one that troubled him most was a 10-year-old girl from Venezuela who lived in a car with her mother and whose H.I.V. infection might have already progressed to AIDS. “I have not seen her in months,” he said. “She could be dead by now.”

A few miles away in Chicago, the TaskForce community center was facing similar challenges. It had lost some $500,000 in anticipated funding, thanks not only to state and federal budget cuts but also to a new reluctance among donors. “We heard a lot of, ‘Hey, these dollars that we thought that we could give you we actually can’t now, because you’re L.G.B.T.Q., which is a no, and BIPOC, which is also a big no,’” said the center’s director, Chris Balthazar, using an acronym for “Black, Indigenous and people of color.”

It was getting by, but the strain of moving through the world with so many targets on its back was starting to show. One of its regulars, a 15-year-old Haitian boy, had nearly taken his own life after his parents were abruptly deported. And Underwood had detected a new reluctance in some of her L.G.B.T.Q. students. They were not expressing themselves as freely as they did before, she thought. Some mentioned creeping anxieties, when she asked. Others talked about fear.

She wanted to prevent those feelings from dimming the light she saw in each of them, but it was complicated. Self-expression and personal safety could cut brutally against each other for a gay or transgender teen, and a lot of her TaskForce students had bigger worries, in any case. They did not always have enough food to eat or safe places to stay; winter was coming, and they needed warm coats. “It’s OK,” was sometimes all she could think to tell them. “This is nothing new. We’re just going to keep on jumping these hurdles, one at a time, until we’re free and clear.”

By the start of 2026, Macapagal and her colleagues had settled into an uncertain quiet. The university’s funding was unfrozen in December, and thanks to a couple of lawsuits, most of the grants that her group had lost were in the process of being restored. But confusion still reigned: When would that money be disbursed? Would researchers be given additional time to complete their work? What would happen when those grants came up for renewal in the coming year?

No one seemed to know, but the N.I.H. was still expecting annual progress reports from all its grantees in the meantime. “We are supposed to tell them what we did with the money they gave us and what progress we’ve made in our research,” Alvarado Avila explained. “But they did not really give us the money, and our biggest barrier to progress has been them. How do you say that in a way that’s diplomatic?” The institute where Macapagal worked had 30 fewer staff members now and lots of empty offices and cubicles. One conference room had become a storage facility for the H.I.V. and sexually transmitted infection test kits that they had planned to send to study participants.

“These are supplies that your tax dollars paid for, to get people tested for H.I.V. and S.T.I.s in the context of a research study,” Macapagal said. “And now they’re just sitting there, and like any medical kit, they will eventually expire.” She was torn about the future. On the one hand, she could not help but hope. State officials had expressed interest in partnering with her and TaskForce to expand the Prep-4-Teens program, and she had just applied for yet another N.I.H. grant based on the agency’s stated interest in using implementation science to conquer H.I.V.

On the other hand, hope seemed a delusional response to the events of the past year. Word was that new grant applications would ultimately be decided on not by fellow scientists, as had always been the case, but by political appointees who had apparently effectively taken over the N.I.H. Macapagal had spent nearly all of her adult life cultivating expertise in behavioral health and disease prevention and then training the next generation to do the same. She could not help but wonder now what the point of any of that had been.

She still wanted to show up for her team. She believed that the work was important, and she knew that Alvarado Avila, Buehler and their peers were its future. But truth be told, she was also thinking about going into private practice.

Alvarado Avila was holding off on applying to graduate programs for now, in part because prospects were skimpy for noncitizen scientists who wanted to stay in the United States and also because he had watched ICE agents descend on Chicago and raid the communities around him. He had also watched them kill an unarmed woman in Minnesota — who was a mother and a poet and a white U.S. citizen and who happened to be a lesbian — and his heart was sick and he was angry.

“They say that by focusing on marginalized groups, we are discriminating against everyone else,” he said. “But those are the communities most impacted by these issues. They say visa holders like me are stealing jobs from Americans. I don’t think they understand that, one, for a specialty visa, you have to prove to the government that you can do the work and, two, we contribute to a tax system that we have no assurance that we will get back from.”

More and more, he wondered what fighting back looked like and whether it was incompatible with a career that forced you to erase whole categories of people from your work or treat words like “diversity,” “equity” and “inclusion” as toxins instead of virtues. More and more he wondered if America, where he had lived, studied and worked for most of his life, was still the place for him.

Buehler, for his part, had applied to more than a dozen Ph.D. programs, almost all of them focused on exactly the kind of research he was doing in Macapagal’s lab. “I love this work,” he told me. “I really want to create the kind of programs that I wish I’d had when I was coming up.” He knew the risks, knew that he was probably consigning himself to a path marked by deep uncertainty and that he would find neither glory nor gratitude on the other side of that struggle. But he also knew that perseverance was the key to progress. And the way he saw it, resilience could be an identity, too.

Categories Creativity, Environment, Ethics, Extremism, Funding, Health, Science, Trump

John Thompson: Saving Science from Disinformation, Propaganda, and Lies

By dianeravitch

March 4, 2026 //

John Thompson, historian and retired teacher in Oklahoma, explains how distrust of science has colored every important issue and is deployed by big money donors. Every important debate these days is undermined by propaganda and suspicion of science.

He writes:

Science Under Siege: How to Fight the Five Most Powerful Forces that Threaten Our World, by Michael Mann and Peter Hotez, starts with two of the three biggest threats to humanity – the climate crisis and pandemics. Then they describe the “third leg to that tripod,” a network of anti-science institutions which is on the way to bringing “the collapse of civilization as we know it.”

That may sound extreme but both have a sterling record in the fields, despite being attacked by rightwingers; Mann is an environmental scientist and Hotez is an expert in pandemics.

Mann and Hotez describe the five “P’s” that are undermining our future. The first two Ps, plutocrats and petrostates, were the original founders, funded by fossil fuel elites, like the Koch brothers, to protect their profits from government regulations.

I should have known better, but it wasn’t until I read Science Under Siege that I realized how and why the plutocrats also “had a huge financial stake in fighting medical science during the pandemic.” I had long known about their attacks on clean air and drinking water, in addition to fending off the victims of the pollution. But, I was unaware about how these were interconnected.

Mann and Hotez then document the roles of international petrostates, as well as the Texas petrostate. They estimate that around 40,000 Texans died because they believed the petrostates’ propaganda and refused Covid vaccines.

Mann and Hotez then explained how elites promoted the “pros,” now known as rightwing media “influencers;” the propagandists, the think tanks that make up falsehoods that they present in papers that look like scientific research; and the fake news press.

They also criticize a number of mainstream journalists and commentators in newspapers like Washington Post and New York Times, explaining that they “often fall victim to [a] sort of false framing, what we call performative neutrality, where anti-science will be placed on an equal footing with the consensus of the world scientists.”

They conclude with the history of why 75% of Americans cannot name a living scientist.

Science Under Siege follows the same dynamics I’ve seen since the 1990s when social and cognitive science came under siege. At first, I assumed that we could bring data-driven researchers, funded by the “Billionaires Boys Club,” and traditional education scholars together.

I repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to explain to smart data-driven researchers, who didn’t know what they didn’t know about public education, why their methodologies for real world policy issues was inappropriate. The issue wasn’t what data-driven approaches “can” do, but what they likely “will” do. The most common reply was that isn’t what I was hired to do.

Worse, the big money donors also hired skilled propaganda providers, who demonized teachers. Having previously been a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood, I saw them borrow the “pro-Life” approach of slandering the supposed type of women who would seek an abortion. They applied it to teachers who supposedly didn’t care enough to hold students to “High Expectations” and “No Excuses.”

Even worse, “astro-turf” think tanks, funded by foundations like the Koch brothers, spread this PR campaign in order to push privatization.

To take a recent example, advocates for the “Mississippi Miracle” push the Big Lie that Proficient NAEP test scores are “grade level.” Actually “Basic” is closest to grade level. But privatizers send the false message that up to 90% of urban school students score below grade level, meaning those schools were irreparable broken.

That led to the claim that reward-and-punish accountability is the only path to literacy, even though so many social and cognitive scientists had long predicted that that learning culture would more likely to undermine reading for comprehension.

Worse still, you can’t improve the highest-challenge schools, like those I taught in, without building a team effort.

And guess what?

Similar attacks are being launched against our team players, such as medical and mental health providers, housing advocates, and higher education, etc. They are being targeted by Trumpists, the Koch brothers, Project 2025, etc. in the same way public and higher education is being assaulted by privatizers.

Similarly, I love the NYTimes, but I was especially upset by commentaries during the COVID pandemic, often written by people who I highly respect but who didn’t know squat about school cultures and who, for instance, would proclaim: When Trump was Right and Many Democrats were Wrong. with the subtitle, “Children have suffered because many mayors and governors were too willing to close public schools.”

As Mann and Hotez explain, “It took centuries to build the leading scientific infrastructure in the world here in the United States. And it’ll only take years to destroy it. And once you destroy it, you’re not going to rebuild it.’

They call for “urgency” and “agency.” Today, Science under Siege makes an urgent call for a fight against disinformation that is “infecting” our public schools. They call for investments in media training for young people so they do not succumb to fake news.

And, if we cannot protect the culture of agency that protects higher education, scholars will be driven out of science for generations to come.

In other words, if we cannot come together to defeat the tripod of disinformation by those seeking an “anti-science empire,” humanity will undergo extreme suffering which could be extremely long-lasting.

Categories Environment, Evil, Extremism, Science

New Hampshire: The Legislative Push to Eliminate ALL Vaccine Requirements

By dianeravitch

February 20, 2026 //

New Hampshire is an unusual state. It is a magnet for libertarians. A significant number of them have been elected to the legislature, where they use their clout to “free” people from government.

Their current goal is to eliminate all vaccine requirements. Diseases that were long ago eliminated will come roaring back. People will die of diseases that could have been avoided. But they won’t be subject to government mandates.

At the same time, with no sense of irony, Some New Hampshire legislstors are demanding greater state control over what is taught in the classroom.

Garry Rayno of InDepthNH reports:

Two bills coming before the House this week are indicative of the New Hampshire Legislature: where it is heading and where it has been for the last three terms.

It is not a pretty picture unless you want to end government as we know it, or you want to use the sledgehammer of government to force everyone to believe what you do.

HB 1811 would repeal the immunization requirements for children in state statutes. All of them.

They include, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), polio, measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, and Hepatitis B.

Last week the House passed a bill to remove the Hepatitis b vaccine from the list.

The “compromise” position, said the prime sponsor of the bill, Rep. Matt Drew, R-Manchester, is to retain the polio vaccine requirements.

House Bill 1792 or the “Charlie Kirk Act,” which would fittingly prohibit public schools from teaching critical race theory, LGBTQ+ ideologies and other alleged Marxist derived educational theories.

The bill also gives those who believe the law was breached, the right to bring a civil suit against the school and educators as well as code of conduct allegations against the teacher which could result in loss of license.

Over the last several years, the US District Court has struck down laws passed by this legislature on critical race theory or divisive concepts, and outlawing diversity, equality and inclusion programs calling them overly vague putting educators in harm’s way.

It is hard to imagine this law would pass muster either.

In the broader picture, most of the childhood diseases that plagued school children 60 or 70 years ago have been, if not eliminated, made negligible.

But measles is making a comeback in the last few years as is whooping cough because the vaccination rates in children have been trending down as parents seek to opt them out for religious or medical reasons.

In the past, immunizations were not an issue. People had their children vaccinated to protect them from the ravages of the diseases and ultimately to protect the population in general from the newborns to the elderly.

It was the responsible thing to do.

People like Health and Human Services secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. have long disparaged vaccines, as he and others gaslighted many into believing they cause autism.

The vaccination question found a red hot burner with the new COVID 19 shots when the decade began.…

It didn’t matter that the protesters were never going to get the COVID vaccine, they wanted to block the state’s most vulnerable to the disease from having a jab.

Two years ago, lawmakers passed a bill that would have taken away the Department of Health and Human Services’ authority to determine what vaccines children need, and would have had the legislature set the list, but it failed to become law.

These same folks also wanted to eliminate the state’s free vaccination program in conjunction with insurance companies, but had to settle for a study committee instead.

The prime sponsor of House Bill 1792, Rep. Mike Belcher, at the public hearing on the bill alleged a straight-line connection between Karl Marx’s theories and ideologies to the education system that fosters concepts like critical race theory, the oppressor and the oppressed models, LGBTQ+ ideologies, identity based ideologies and systemic inequity based on identity groups, or anti-constitutional narratives.

He claimed these ideologies undermine learning and unity, and the right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing.

He claimed these worldviews are responsible for the divisions in this country and have fostered the view that white Americans are inherently racists.

Belcher claimed his bill does not infringe on a teacher’s free speech, noting a teacher has no right to say anything he wants to children who are captive.

Legislation reaching down into classroom curriculum, which always has been the responsibility of local school boards and administrations, has been a recent trend with book and material bans, anti-abortion requirements and just plain interference and requirements meant to disrupt the system while many public schools struggle to provide a quality education under the burden of high property taxes, while the state fails to meets its constitutional obligation to fund an adequate education.

Before these attempts, bills targeting public education had always been quickly dismissed, but that was before there was an organized effort to end public education.

The chair of the Education Policy and Administration Committee Kristin Noble, R-Bedford, is a co-sponsor, as is Majority Leader Jason Osborne, R-Auburn.

Noble recently posted on social media that schools should be segregated to separate Republicans from Democrats and called public schools Marxist indoctrination centers, while Osborne called them black boxes where children go in, but you don’t know what comes out.

Not that long ago, people followed the concept of the public good, or the long established “Social Contract” espoused by philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

The concept is that people surrender some of their freedoms in exchange for protection of their remaining rights, security and social stability, with the sovereign power residing in the people as a whole.

Under that concept, the industrialized world has been able to eliminate polio and other deadly diseases to benefit society as a whole.

But that concept has been eroding along with what was once considered the moral responsibility to look after your neighbors and the most vulnerable as well as yourself. Now it’s just yourself.

The idea of individual rights overriding the greater good is not new, but the founding fathers sought to protect against the tyranny of the majority overriding the rights of the minority.

What we have today is a tyranny of the majority in the legislature driven by Free Staters and Libertarians who want to impose their will on the people of New Hampshire in education, medicine, local planning and zoning, religion and social services. It is tyranny of the minority of New Hampshire residents.

One Republican representative, Travis Corcoran of Weare said in a social media post: “The point of Republican legislation is not just to change the laws, it’s to demoralize the left . . . and encourage them to leave.”

He is a co-sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Act.

If you are passing laws for reasons like that you do not belong in New Hampshire which has always been a welcoming state with a live and let live attitude.

Maybe we should have been more discerning about people moving here who claim to be for freedom, while they trample the freedoms of those who disagree with them.

That is the definition of hypocrisy.

And voters need to be more discerning about who they send to Concord.

Yesterday, the New Hampshire legislature voted on the bill to ban all vaccine mandates: it was defeated, 192-155.

However, the bill to prohibit “woke” curriculum passed by 184-164 and now goes to the State Senate. The bill is called the Charlie Kirk Act, after the founder of the rightwing Turning Points America, who was assassinated last year.

The bill prohibits the teaching of critical race theory, LGBT ideology, or other allegedly Marxist materials. Citizens can file civil suits against teachers found teaching prohibited ideas, and teachers might ultimately lose their license.

A similar law was previously struck down by the federal district court on grounds of vagueness.

Categories Extremism, Health, Medicine, New Hampshire, Science

Trump Regime Will Close Down Weather & Climate Supercomputer in CO

By dianeravitch

February 19, 2026 //

Just when you thought that you had heard “the worst decision” by the Trump regime, the one that will hurt people the most, along comes another. Trump is well known for denying climate change. Just days ago, his Environmental Protection Agency announced that it would no longer regulate the discharge of deadly gases. Perhaps it should change its name to the Environmental Pollution Agency.

But here comes another scientific reverse, possibly tied not to ideology, but to politics.

CNN reported:

A leading American research lab is slated to lose its critical supercomputing facility, according to a letter released Thursday by the National Science Foundation.

The move is part of the Trump administration’s effort to disassemble the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, one of the world’s top weather and climate research centers, which the admin views as a source of climate change alarmism.

The computing center, which is slated to be turned over to an unspecified third party, runs weather and climate research models and is used by about 1,500 researchers from over 500 universities around the country. The work done on this supercomputer benefits the American people by leading to more accurate forecasts of extreme weather and climate events, aircraft turbulence and more.

The problem with spinning off the computing center away from the research center is that it could disrupt access to high performance computing. Much as with AI, high power computing is essential for simulating weather and climate and for evaluating the accuracy of new forecast models, which eventually end up contributing to what Americans see in the weather apps each day…

Some Colorado officials view the move as part of a retribution campaign being waged by the White House that is designed to pressure Colorado Governor Jared Polis, a Democrat, into granting clemency to Tina Peters, a former county election clerk who was convicted in a 2020 election-related data breach scheme. Peters is a prominent 2020 election denier.

Categories Environment, Ignorance, Science, Trump

Annie Andrews: There Is Only One Way to Stop the Spread of Measles

By dianeravitch

February 18, 2026 //

Annie Andrews is a pediatrician in South Carolina. She is running against Senator Lindsey Graham in the November election.

She wrote:

I’ve been a pediatrician for 20 years. When I learned how to take a pediatric patient’s history, I was taught to ask parents: “Are your child’s immunizations up to date?” At the beginning of my career I’d already be writing down the answer “yes,” without hesitation or uncertainty. Now when I ask that question, I brace myself.

Right now, a measles outbreak is surging in my home state of South Carolina, where there are already more than 900 confirmed cases, most of them unvaccinated children, with hundreds in quarantine and more exposures being reported daily.

That’s hundreds of parents missing work. Kids missing weeks of school. Newborns, seniors and the immunocompromised being forced to gamble their health on their neighbors’ choices. Hospitals and health centers bracing for what comes next.

This was all preventable, and we need to be honest about how we got here.

We have an incredibly safe and effective vaccine for measles. One of the reasons scientists worked with urgency to develop the measles vaccine was because of how contagious the virus is, far more contagious than the flu or Covid-19. Every person with measles infects 20 other people, on average. Someone with measles can walk into a room, cough and leave, and the virus can still be alive in that room for hours. This is why measles doesn’t “fade out” on its own. It spreads like wildfire when community immunity drops.

So no, measles doesn’t spread like this just because a virus is good at its job. It spreads when the systems meant to protect families get replaced with noise, doubt, lies and deliberate confusion.

At the highest levels of our federal government, we have watched medical expertise get shoved aside while conspiracy theories get promoted. The message Americans keep getting is that expertise is suspect, that doubt is bravery and that your Facebook feed is just as good as your doctor’s advice. When the people at the top signal that science is subjective, confusion becomes contagious.

That message has consequences. It becomes the air people breathe. It shapes what a parent believes about vaccinations as they scroll their social media feed in the preschool pickup line. It erodes trust in medicine and threatens the fabric of our nation’s public health system.

The outbreak isn’t the fault of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. alone, but we’re kidding ourselves if we pretend leadership doesn’t matter.

Kennedy has been a leading voice in the anti-vaccine movement for decades, which has led communities across the country to slip below the herd immunity threshold for the prevention of outbreaks of infections like measles. Even if you replaced the name on the door at HHS tomorrow (which a responsible Congress would do), trust doesn’t snap back like a rubber band. It takes years to build and minutes to burn.

And the burn is not theoretical. Just this month, the United States withdrew from the World Health Organization, stepping away from the very kind of coordination that helps countries spot outbreaks early and stop them before they spread. Meanwhile, the world is looking back at us: a nation on the brink of losing elimination status for measles, a disease we fully eliminated in 2000.

We are flirting with the return of an old killer, not because the science changed, not because the virus itself changed, but because our politics did.

I didn’t set out to become a politician. I’m a pediatrician and mom of three, which means I understand deeply what it feels like to be responsible for a tiny human you’d do anything to protect. I know how heavy it is to make decisions in a world that feels more chaotic and less trustworthy by the day. And I understand that when politics is injected into public health, parents’ jobs get harder and children suffer. That is why I stepped up to fight on behalf of America’s children and the families who love them.

So here’s my plea, doctor to country, mother to community.

Stop letting politicians play games with public health. Put scientific expertise back where it belongs: in government, in policy and in the language we use when the stakes are life and death.

If you want to stop measles, you should get vaccinated.

If you want to stop the next iteration of this, you stop rewarding people who profit from confusion. You stop letting unserious leaders turn public health into a culture war. You put serious, qualified people back in the rooms where decisions are made.

Measles doesn’t care who you voted for. It cares whether we protect each other. And we still can.

Annie Andrews

Categories Ethics, Health, Science, South Carolina

RFK Jr. Is Blocking the Most Effective Treatment to Curb Lyme Disease

Trump Administration Cancels System to Monitor Oceans for Climate Change

Timothy Snyder on “Superpower Suicide”

Scientists Protest Trump’s Firing of Every Member of the National Science Board

OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESS DEMANDING THE RESTORATION OF THE NSB

Dan Rather: Trump’s War on Science Is Outrageous!

Trump’s Insane War on Science

John Thompson: Saving Science from Disinformation, Propaganda, and Lies

New Hampshire: The Legislative Push to Eliminate ALL Vaccine Requirements

Trump Regime Will Close Down Weather & Climate Supercomputer in CO

Annie Andrews: There Is Only One Way to Stop the Spread of Measles

Search All Posts

Previous posts

Recent posts

Top posts

Follow blog via email

Follow blog via RSS reader

Blog Stats

OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESS DEMANDING THE RESTORATION OF THE NSB

Search All Posts

Previous posts

Recent posts

Blog Topics

Top posts

Follow blog via email

Follow blog via RSS reader

Blog Stats