0:19

By the time this episode airs,

0:21

Donald Trump will have been inaugurated

0:24

as the 47th president of the

0:26

United States. Just like during the

0:28

first Trump administration, grave threats

0:30

to science and the use

0:32

of science in public policy

0:35

making will be under attack.

0:37

The voices of scientists and

0:39

science supporters are more critical

0:41

now than ever. Science is nonpartisan.

0:43

and it's an essential

0:45

tool for our democracy

0:48

and the health and

0:50

well-being of our entire

0:52

planet and all of its citizens.

0:54

I'm your host, Jess

0:56

Phoenix, and this is

0:58

science. Joining

1:07

me is Dr. Jen Jones, Director

1:10

for the Center for Science and

1:12

Democracy, here at the Union of

1:14

Concerned Scientists. Her work focuses on

1:16

the effective use of science in

1:18

public policy, which I know our

1:20

audience really appreciates. Jen, I wish

1:22

we were talking under different circumstances,

1:24

because if we learned anything

1:27

from the first Trump presidency,

1:29

it's that science will be

1:31

under near constant attack. UCS

1:34

documented 207 attacks on science

1:36

during the last Trump administration.

1:38

So I would like to ask you, what are

1:40

some of the agencies whose

1:43

work or whose scientists will

1:45

be most at risk from

1:47

Trump's efforts to stifle science?

1:49

Well, I can talk about the

1:51

ways I'm expecting or will

1:53

be watching for the Trump

1:55

administration to possibly sideline science.

1:58

And I'm thinking about three.

2:00

different sort of areas if you

2:02

will. There will be an effort

2:04

to actually silence scientists and the

2:07

science that they do.

2:09

There will be an

2:11

effort to destroy the

2:13

specific rules and regulations

2:15

that are science-backed, evidence-informed,

2:17

that again that give us

2:19

that clean water, clean air,

2:22

safe transportation. And then there

2:24

will be efforts to really

2:26

have politically appointed judges and

2:28

courts become arbiters of science

2:30

as opposed to agencies,

2:32

right? So we're going, so we're going

2:34

after the scientists going after the

2:37

rules and then using courts

2:39

to decide scientific matters as

2:41

opposed to subject matter experts.

2:44

So. No, I think it's fair

2:46

to say, you know, based

2:48

on on messaging, you know,

2:51

what we've heard directly from

2:53

incoming President Trump and his

2:56

cabinet nominees, that every agency

2:58

that does science is under

3:01

threat. And so I really

3:03

believe that this is truly

3:05

a science emergency, that every

3:08

agency, all aspects of

3:10

the federal government are

3:12

threatened. You know, in terms of

3:14

UCS or in terms of the

3:17

Center for Science and Democracy, you

3:19

know, some of the agencies

3:21

that we're especially watching

3:23

and concerned about would be

3:25

the EPA, you know, for

3:27

instance, because we've already heard

3:30

so much disinformation

3:32

about the EPA, about the work

3:34

that they do. And, you know, again,

3:36

a good reminders to understand

3:39

what is the basic

3:41

function. protection agency

3:43

right to keep the environment clean

3:45

to keep it healthy and so

3:47

that it's there to support us

3:49

and it always does it

3:51

come back down to that

3:54

clean air and water environmental

3:56

protection agency is there to

3:58

help develop and enforce Again,

4:00

those regulations and policies that,

4:02

by the way, the public

4:04

supports, there was even a new

4:07

report that came out last year

4:09

that the vast majority was like

4:11

over 88% support or support

4:13

existing funding for the EPA

4:16

or increasing funding for the

4:18

EPA. And so these are agencies

4:20

that the public may not

4:22

understand the nuanced work that's

4:25

done, but they appreciate the work

4:27

that's done to keep us safe.

4:29

And so. You know, EPA helps

4:31

create and enforce

4:34

those policies that

4:36

keep chemicals out of

4:39

your food system. That

4:41

works to, again,

4:43

regulate emissions out

4:45

of a tailpipe

4:47

that certainly cause

4:49

climate change, but

4:51

also might cause asthma,

4:54

lead in drinking water.

4:56

you know all those basic things that keep

4:59

us safe. Now for those of us

5:01

who want clean air and clean

5:03

drinking water we need to remember

5:05

that there's a group of people

5:07

who want to profit through the

5:09

chemical industry and so you know

5:11

when I think about the science emergency

5:14

it's it's understanding that

5:16

you know president Trump based

5:18

on his first administration and

5:20

again what he's signaling for

5:23

a second in administration is

5:25

that You know, they want

5:27

to get rid of

5:29

the policies and regulations

5:31

that keep us safe because

5:33

by doing so, it will allow

5:36

corporate greed. It will

5:38

allow those industries to

5:40

increase their profit. So

5:42

I think we'll see

5:44

certainly a lot

5:46

of rules and regulations

5:48

at the EPA attack. I think

5:50

at health and human services,

5:52

HHS. the same thing we

5:55

will see already we have

5:57

seen vaccine skepticism.

5:59

you know, by the

6:01

nominated head RFK Jr. at

6:03

HHS, and so forth and

6:06

so on with every agency.

6:08

And you know, I would

6:10

also remind folks that those

6:12

are sort of the obvious

6:14

agencies that are very sort

6:16

of science forward. But when

6:19

you think about the Department

6:21

of Justice, when you think

6:23

about there are other agencies

6:25

that also collect data, the

6:27

Census Bureau, you know, in

6:29

the first Trump administration, they

6:32

tried to change categories of

6:34

the census that would have

6:36

really fundamentally changed the way

6:38

we count people in this

6:40

country, which matters greatly for

6:43

how our democracy is run,

6:45

how money gets distributed, and

6:47

so forth. So you really

6:49

segue nicely into what I

6:51

was going to ask you

6:53

next, which is It's about

6:56

people's short-term memories. They can

6:58

remember attacks on science in

7:00

the short term, but if

7:02

things don't significantly change your

7:04

day-to-day life, the average person

7:07

may not remember that Trump's

7:09

1.0 administration sidelined science on

7:11

the northern spotted owl and

7:13

the threats facing its habitat,

7:15

or that the EPA under

7:17

Donald Trump's first presidency refused

7:20

to regulate perchlorate in drinking

7:22

water, which is in rocket

7:24

fuel and explosives. If you

7:26

case you didn't have that

7:28

one at the tip of

7:31

your tongue, as most of

7:33

our listeners probably didn't. But

7:35

so if the average person

7:37

doesn't notice these all of

7:39

these attacks, why should your

7:41

average person be worried about

7:44

future attacks on science? You

7:46

know last year, our climate

7:48

and energy team here at

7:50

UCS published a report. that

7:52

showed that every person in

7:55

this country had lived in

7:57

an area that was impacted

7:59

by a natural disaster. call,

8:01

you know, that included, I

8:03

live in a hurricane area.

8:05

I have gone through now

8:08

multiple major hurricanes in the

8:10

last few years. Wildfires that

8:12

happened recently in Southern California

8:14

that were devastating and driven

8:16

by winter drought there. So

8:18

all of us are experiencing

8:21

certainly the Climate change impacts

8:23

and dire threats on a

8:25

routine basis. We're all impacted

8:27

by it And so I

8:29

think that shows up or

8:32

we should be reminded of

8:34

that on a routine basis

8:36

when you're dealing with extreme

8:38

weather It's often a good

8:40

reminder to go and see

8:42

if and how that weather

8:45

might be attributed to climate

8:47

change. So and I would

8:49

also give a shout out

8:51

to the folks here at

8:53

at UCS that work on

8:56

climate attribution science, which is

8:58

able to make that link

9:00

between a climate change impact

9:02

and attributing it to climate

9:04

change itself. But I tell

9:06

you what, it does not

9:09

take long to be reminded

9:11

about unsafe drinking water when

9:13

within hours or days you

9:15

could conceivably have chemicals and

9:17

toxins ending up. and that

9:20

water through a change of

9:22

policy. I want to go

9:24

back again to I think

9:26

about sort of how does

9:28

federal science show up in

9:30

my life on a daily

9:33

basis. I count on federal

9:35

good federal science at the

9:37

FDA to make sure that

9:39

the medicines that me and

9:41

my family take are safe.

9:44

Right, and if somebody's not

9:46

there, if that science is

9:48

not happening through those rigorous

9:50

checks and protocols that give

9:52

us that medicine, it's conceivable

9:54

that I could wake up

9:57

in a very short amount

9:59

of time. would not be

10:01

safe. I think about, again,

10:04

all the issues

10:06

around safe transportation.

10:08

Think about the FAA

10:10

and all the work that

10:13

they do to operate public

10:15

transportation, federal

10:18

aviation, you know,

10:21

to simple practices

10:23

that make it, you know,

10:25

flying these days

10:27

is extremely Right? I

10:30

mean, I'm old enough to remember

10:32

even a few decades ago when

10:34

it was so much less safe.

10:36

And that is also due to

10:38

good science, good regulation,

10:41

good policy. You separate

10:43

that. You start putting...

10:45

importance of this federal science

10:47

and the lack of it could

10:49

show up in your life in

10:52

a very dramatic way very quickly.

10:55

This ties into something you mentioned earlier,

10:57

but one thing people may have

10:59

heard over and over in the

11:01

media is that President Trump's policies

11:03

will have a chilling effect on

11:05

science, and that's a little bit

11:07

less concrete than if he outright

11:09

fires a bunch of scientists or

11:11

dissolves government agencies. So can you

11:13

explain in a little more detail

11:15

what a chilling effect on science

11:17

is and why that's dangerous? Remember

11:20

one of the main reasons

11:22

that it's likely, you know,

11:24

President Trump will sideline

11:26

scientists and sideline science.

11:28

And, you know, ultimately,

11:30

I really believe this

11:32

comes down to profit and power.

11:35

The goal, again, is to sideline

11:37

the good science that keeps

11:39

the public safe in favor

11:41

of empowering corporate greed.

11:43

And so the goal, therefore, becomes

11:45

how do you... sideline those scientists.

11:48

And already some of the ways

11:50

we've seen the past Trump administration

11:53

and what we've already seen them

11:55

signaling for the next administration

11:58

is a couple ways. Number one. on out

12:00

and out firing scientists, right?

12:02

Using some policy tools, perhaps

12:04

folks have heard of Schedule

12:07

F, that would allow the

12:09

president to reclassify conceivably tens

12:11

of thousands of scientists' positions,

12:13

which have historically been merit-based,

12:15

what you think of as

12:17

a regular civil service position,

12:19

and people that have credentials

12:21

and experience and have gone

12:24

through a merit-based system to

12:26

demonstrate they know how to

12:28

do that scientific work. One

12:30

of the goals that Trump

12:32

has talked about has been

12:34

to reclassify those and either,

12:36

number one, reclassify them, number

12:39

one, so he can fire

12:41

them, or equally or perhaps

12:43

more dangerous, reclassify those positions

12:45

so they can become politically

12:47

appointed. So there's the threat

12:49

of Schedule F that will

12:51

be a lot of legal

12:53

maneuvers that will have to

12:56

happen before it might actually

12:58

take place. That alone, though,

13:00

is a threat that. that

13:02

has that chilling effect. So

13:04

let's then go on to

13:06

that harassment element. Scientists should

13:08

be able to do that

13:11

work free of harassment and

13:13

influence. And so currently all

13:15

scientific agencies have adopted what

13:17

are called scientific integrity policies

13:19

that provide scientists those protections

13:21

to do their work free

13:23

of that political harassment and

13:26

influence. I'm expecting that. Whether

13:28

it's in week one or

13:30

shortly thereafter, we will see

13:32

Trump roll back those scientific

13:34

integrity policies that exist. It'll

13:36

require him rolling back an

13:38

executive order that was created

13:40

under the last administration, but

13:43

already even signaling the rollback

13:45

of those, i.e. telling scientists

13:47

within agencies that were taking

13:49

away one of the safeguards

13:51

you have, also creates that

13:53

chilling that chilling that chilling.

13:55

effect. It both can stop

13:58

scientists from from doing the

14:00

work that they're currently doing,

14:02

pausing it, altering it, and

14:04

or just get them to

14:06

leave an agency. That's another

14:08

way that that chilling will

14:11

happen. You know, I think that

14:13

in some ways the chilling has

14:15

already begun. You

14:17

really unprecedented to see,

14:20

I guess it was in

14:22

maybe November or December when

14:24

we saw Elon Musk using

14:26

Twitter to essentially publicly

14:29

docs. federal scientists.

14:31

Again, unheard of, calling

14:34

scientists out by name

14:36

and position. They ran

14:38

specific offices. He called

14:40

them out and tweets,

14:42

by name, by office, and essentially

14:45

threatened them, ridiculed

14:47

them, and that also

14:49

has a chilling effect. A

14:52

lot of these tactics come

14:54

down to... really scary harassing and

14:56

intimidating scientists to stop doing that

14:58

work to leave those positions so

15:01

Whether the position is going to

15:03

be shuttered whether it's going to

15:06

be filled with somebody who

15:08

passes a political litmus test

15:10

But it's done to basically

15:12

Get rid of good science that

15:14

keeps us safe so that They

15:16

can politicize scientists or science in

15:19

the name of corporate Greek The

15:21

last time around, when Trump

15:23

was elected, we saw big

15:25

movements, like The March for

15:28

Science, which made headlines and

15:30

raised public awareness around the

15:32

globe, what do you think

15:34

the scientific community and our

15:37

supporters, both the UCS supporters

15:39

and the supporters of science

15:41

in general, what do we

15:44

need to focus on to make

15:46

sure the public is aware of

15:48

the threats facing science? Number one,

15:50

just continue to help make folks

15:53

aware of these threats. This is

15:55

a science emergency. We don't have

15:57

to understand the inner working. of

16:00

the government to know that it

16:02

keeps us safe. Again, there's so

16:05

many great reports that have come

16:07

out in the past few years

16:09

that have shown, by and large,

16:12

the public really trusts scientists and

16:14

supports federal scientists and supports, again,

16:17

agencies like the EPA who do

16:19

that work. So all of us

16:21

can can use our voice to

16:24

help champion science. line two when

16:26

I think about education I would

16:29

say one of something all of

16:31

us can do right now and

16:33

today is to make sure we

16:36

are up to date on the

16:38

UCS disinformation playbook. Disinformation has played

16:41

such a role in getting us

16:43

to where we are in the

16:45

past few years in the amount

16:48

of anti-science disinformation that we're already

16:50

seeing just absolutely be, you know,

16:53

spued. All of us are subject

16:55

to disinformation so we need to

16:57

know how to recognize it and

17:00

to counter it. And so go

17:02

see the ECS playbook for how

17:05

to do that. Now some other

17:07

ways that folks can join us

17:09

here at EUS and some of

17:12

the efforts that we're doing. Become

17:14

a supporter if you're not. Check

17:17

out Becoming a member of our

17:19

Science Network if you happen to

17:21

be a science. scientist and eligible

17:24

to do that. So let's go

17:26

back to that supporter network. You

17:29

know, I'm so excited to share

17:31

that just in the past week

17:33

or so, UCS delivered a letter

17:36

to I think every member of

17:38

Congress championing the need for science.

17:41

And so we had more than

17:43

25,000 members, supporters, scientists. Just advocates,

17:45

sign on to this letter that

17:48

we delivered to Congress. And folks

17:50

can go and see that letter

17:53

on our website. Keep an eye

17:55

out. as we do trainings for

17:57

other ways that people can get

18:00

involved, such as writing public comments

18:02

on proposed pieces of policy rules

18:04

and writing comments to help inform

18:07

federal rules and policies. And so

18:09

what that looks like is each

18:12

of us is allowed to weigh

18:14

in when the federal government proposes

18:16

a new rule. on, again, whether

18:19

it's something around transportation or climate

18:21

or the census or whatever it

18:24

might be, those can go out

18:26

for public comment. And what that

18:28

looks like is you're going on

18:31

to the federal website and writing

18:33

a letter and saying who you

18:36

are and why you support it

18:38

or object to it. And so

18:40

we work with groups around the

18:43

country to help train them up

18:45

and individuals as well through webinars

18:48

and trainings. And then also, again,

18:50

just using that voice to remind

18:52

your community about the power of

18:55

science. And so that can look

18:57

like some of the toolkits in

19:00

terms of writing a letter to

19:02

the editor in your local community.

19:04

When we talk about this work

19:07

at the federal level, you know,

19:09

yes, there is the DC Bellway

19:12

where a lot of this, the

19:14

nitty gritty and a lot of

19:16

the politicking happens. But really, we

19:19

have to remember that's being done

19:21

in our name and for us

19:24

in all the communities that we

19:26

live at across the country. And

19:28

ultimately, you know, good rules, good

19:31

policies, good science. The goal is

19:33

that it's done so that it

19:36

plays out in our community. And

19:38

so that's just a powerful reminder

19:40

that we need that voice inside

19:43

DC, but we also need that

19:45

voice in your own community. some

19:47

things around scientific integrity before, but

19:50

there is something called the Scientific

19:52

Integrity Act. So I was hoping

19:55

you could talk a little bit

19:57

about what that specific act is.

19:59

and why it matters. Great,

20:02

love it. So scientific

20:04

integrity, again, you know,

20:06

a set of practices

20:08

that would help protect

20:11

scientists and keep them

20:13

free of that political

20:15

interference and harassment. And so,

20:18

you know, right now agencies,

20:20

federal agencies that we've

20:23

talked about, they have

20:25

a scientific integrity policy

20:27

in place in place.

20:29

because under the Biden administration,

20:32

there was an executive order

20:34

that was issued requiring agencies

20:37

to adopt a final scientific

20:39

integrity policy. So this work,

20:42

the idea of scientific integrity,

20:44

has been decades in

20:46

the making. UCS has pushed

20:48

all administration over the past

20:51

decades around scientific integrity. And

20:53

over the years, we've seen to

20:55

get. taken up by agencies more

20:57

and more and more to the

21:00

point where we now had an

21:02

executive order requiring agencies. And so

21:04

at the end of 2024, we

21:07

saw, I think nearly every agency

21:09

issue a final scientific

21:12

integrity policy. Now here's

21:14

the thing. On day one of a new

21:16

Trump administration, those can be

21:18

rolled back. Because those

21:20

policies were created by

21:22

an executive order. and not

21:25

a law through Congress, they can

21:27

be simply rolled back at the

21:29

stroke of a pen. Hence the need

21:31

for a piece of legislation

21:34

passed by Congress that would

21:36

enshrine scientific integrity in law.

21:38

And so that is the Scientific

21:41

Integrity Act that we have

21:43

worked with or advocated with

21:45

Congress for many years to

21:47

push this forward. We will

21:49

continue to do so. Representative

21:52

Paul Tonko out of New

21:54

York has been the lead

21:57

champion of scientific integrity over.

21:59

years and has continued to

22:02

push for scientific integrity. I

22:04

hope and I expect in

22:06

the new Congress we will

22:08

see that the bill reintroduced

22:10

and we will continue to push

22:12

for it and advocate for it

22:14

and scientific integrity and law

22:17

period for those those

22:19

protections that could then

22:22

protect that federal scientists

22:24

regardless of political administration.

22:26

Just let me raise one other thing.

22:29

and talk a little bit

22:31

about how scientific integrity

22:33

is possibly under threat

22:36

in the next administration

22:38

as well. So I've just

22:40

mentioned that the president

22:42

could essentially roll back

22:44

an executive order that

22:47

requires agencies to have

22:49

scientific integrity

22:51

policies. November and December

22:53

of 2024, we saw the

22:56

House Oversight Committee signal that

22:58

they are coming after scientific

23:01

integrity in the new

23:03

Congress. What happened is

23:05

House Oversight, which really does

23:08

have far-reaching abilities to

23:10

hold hearings, call witnesses,

23:13

subpoena evidence on just

23:16

about anything. House

23:18

oversight sent a letter or

23:20

letters pardon me to three

23:23

federal agencies the EPA HHS

23:25

and Department of Interior Requiring

23:28

those agencies to submit

23:30

a lot of documents

23:33

correspondence and other materials

23:35

on scientific integrity

23:38

policies Scientific

23:40

integrity officers and

23:42

essentially anything related

23:44

to scientific integrity

23:47

in those agencies. That's

23:49

really scary and worrisome,

23:51

the way the letters have

23:54

been written signal that

23:56

we should expect the

23:59

new cost. And this

24:01

is James Comer, who's

24:03

the head of House

24:05

Oversight Committee, to likely

24:07

hold what I have

24:09

been told could look

24:12

like McCarthy-style hearings coming

24:14

after science and scientific

24:16

integrity. So I can't

24:18

report any more at

24:21

this time as we

24:23

wait for the new

24:25

Congress to really kick

24:27

into gear. But I

24:29

think it is a

24:32

very worrisome sign that

24:34

the new Congress is

24:36

expecting to politicize scientists

24:38

and science even more

24:41

for political gain. We

24:43

are wrapping up and

24:45

I like to end

24:47

by asking my guests

24:49

a two-part question. So

24:52

Jen, we are the

24:54

Union of Concerned Scientists.

24:56

Why are you concerned?

24:58

I'm really concerned because...

25:00

In my career, I

25:03

have lived and worked

25:05

in, gosh, more than

25:07

40 countries around the

25:09

world. I have spent

25:12

a lot of my

25:14

career focused on issues

25:16

of environmental justice and

25:18

equity. I as an

25:20

educator and a former

25:23

professor have worked for

25:25

that net generation of

25:27

scientists. I have been

25:29

the recipient of the

25:32

good science that keeps

25:34

us safe. I am

25:36

concerned because so many

25:38

of those things that

25:40

do provide the basic

25:43

protections for us are

25:45

at risk. And whether

25:47

the species perpetuates for

25:49

millennia to come or

25:52

not. There

25:54

are those

25:56

of us

25:58

term if

26:00

all of us are not concerned

26:02

and do our part. So I'm

26:05

concerned because the evidence

26:07

in front of me tells me

26:09

I should be. That's a great

26:11

answer. Very scientist forward.

26:14

I love it. And so

26:16

then the second part of

26:18

the question. It's more positive,

26:20

more motivational, but what

26:22

are you doing about

26:24

that concern? Yeah,

26:28

that comes back, I mean,

26:30

aside from all the work,

26:32

you know, here at UCS,

26:35

I tell you, well,

26:37

some of the things

26:39

I'm doing are just

26:41

constantly continuing to expand the

26:44

way I think about equity,

26:46

thinking about, you know,

26:48

who I can work with to find

26:51

ways to, to find

26:53

joy to increase, how

26:55

science benefits benefits. so

26:58

many of us. I

27:00

know again it sounds

27:02

a little basic,

27:04

but I think we

27:06

have such an

27:09

amazing opportunity and

27:12

need to remind

27:14

people the joy of

27:16

the endeavor of science,

27:19

of scientific

27:21

inquiry. the

27:24

basic joy of being

27:26

curious, of asking questions

27:29

about our world. Why

27:32

does this look this

27:34

way? How did we get

27:37

here? So helping pass

27:39

on that mindset,

27:41

helping people

27:43

learn about science,

27:46

the value of it, the

27:48

joy of it. I wish I

27:50

did more writing around that.

27:53

Perhaps that should be a

27:55

personal goal for the year.

27:57

That would certainly be positive.

27:59

in a way, because

28:01

I do think we've spent

28:04

today, for an example,

28:06

a lot of our time

28:08

talking about the dire talking

28:10

about the dire I am also

28:12

working through UCS, but

28:14

in these other arenas as

28:17

well, to remind us to

28:19

that science has given

28:21

us thus far. science It

28:23

has the potential to solve

28:25

so many problems. many that

28:28

should be empowering. Many thanks to

28:30

Dr. Jen Jones and to thanks

28:32

to for Jones and to

28:34

help. for production help. last

28:36

This will be the

28:39

last episode of This

28:41

is Science with Jess

28:43

miss I will miss

28:45

every single one of

28:47

you. Keep looking at

28:49

UCS for ways you

28:52

can help the fight

28:54

to save science. Stay strong,

28:56

science, science stalworts.