Not present, not accounted for

In my recent columns, I have analyzed the federal government’s alarming demolition of the U.S. scientific research enterprise. Public health, social justice, climate science, and environmental science have been notable targets of the Trump administration; however, virtually all federal, civilian research has been impacted since January 2025.

These actions are diminishing scientific capacity and deconstructing the infrastructure created after World War II and during the Cold War. During that time, we got serious about water and air pollution and formed the Environmental Protection Agency during the Nixon Administration.

Since early 2025, scientists, professors, research labs, and universities have been cast by the administration as an enemy, and what we are experiencing now is the government’s attempt to disarm and disperse that enemy. To diminish their agency and power.

My analyses have focused on fundamental motivations and consequences, and I have tried to encourage thinking about next steps. However, the federal layoffs, the withholding and elimination of research funding, the closing of institutions, the evictions of organizations, and the decisions of political appointees are so far outside the norm that it’s difficult to know what to do.

Lessons learned

In this column, I am going to reflect on my experiences leading and managing scientific organizations.

Though the government’s current efforts are extraordinary in terms of intent and effectiveness, we need to remember that science has been through tough times in the past. The science “recession” of the late 1960s, early 1970s, and the 2016 Trump administration are key examples.

My personal experience, however, dates to the 1990s when the Mission to Planet Earth, a centerpiece of NASA’s research, was reduced from a $30-billion program to a $7-billion program.

This descoping of NASA Earth Science was accompanied by congressional attacks on climate and environmental science. Even so, effective science advocates still existed in the U.S. Congress of the 1990s. Those advocates assured that scientists had a voice. There were people in power who listened to and trusted scientists.

What can we control?

When faced with difficult situations, one of the first things to do is identify what you can and cannot control. For example, you may be fearful and outraged by certain events, but you still have control over how you respond.

In managing people through crisis or complexity, I knew some people in my organization would respond with anxiety, others with sarcasm, and still others with indifference.

Some were immediately ready to solve the problem. They might have thought, “This is bad. This is challenging. But we need to figure out how to go on.” We ask: What does our experience tell us about what we should do? If we don’t have that experience, where can we find those who do?

I used to advise people in my organization to limit their exposure to their anxious and sarcastic colleagues, whose response did not reflect a useful reality. I would tell them to be careful about what they said and did; that there is no requirement to state every thought in your head. Such discretion limits self-inflected anxiety that can make the situation worse.

I’d remind them it’s important to evaluate a situation from different perspectives: How do I manage this crisis as an individual and as an organization or institution?

As efforts persisted to discredit both individuals and institutions, I would counsel people not to interpret every decision as a personal attack, to put some distance between events and oneself.

These questions of reflection and efforts at self-control are characteristics of leadership.

Active and passive resistance to management is normal in any organization. Anxiety and fear were always present in mine, but I could manage my staff up and down the hallway.

Now that hallway includes social media, and it is daunting to manage the impact of online discourse.

If all one can do is react and proclaim, there is little foundation for a productive path forward.

Presence

Once you can manage the reactive state, it becomes possible to strategize, prepare, and achieve longer-term outcomes. You can adapt and adjust by asking: What are the potential resources? How do I collect things together? Who are my allies? What power do my allies and I have? Before long, you are building a foundation to respond to the crises.

To build a foundation for response, you need to be present in the public and political process.

You may dislike what is happening, but it’s crucial to present the alternative you prefer.

If we only say that we want what we no longer have, we remain trapped in the reactive state, limited to expressions of outrage.

You must be able to articulate specific, achievable goals. Presence without goals has limited potential.

Exercise Due Process

Due process at times seems futile, but it is a mistake to give up and walk away.

A first line of action is adjudication and litigation: appeals to ethics, norms, and reason. In many cases, you will lose, but presence, persistence, and continuity are essential.

If you walk away from due process, you walk away from rules and law and the checks and balances that are integral to the American system. If you walk away, you are saying that laws are not worth preserving.

Due process includes writing to your elected officials, saying what you want, and reminding them that you vote.

Support an independent, objective press

The free press has been a pillar of American democracy from its inception. A strong, independent press fosters accountability. It is essential to being present and bearing witness.

The press is a source of influence and power.

Large news organizations are increasingly owned by a handful of individuals and corporations that align with political agendas or social goals. An emphasis on profits and ratings distorts priorities and erodes journalistic integrity.

As the mainstream press has consolidated under fewer owners and smaller newsrooms, journalists have organized at local, state, and national levels. Many are focused on integrity in journalism and objective news. But funding is perilous.

Such self-organizing leaves us with a fragmented landscape, with news outlets finding hundreds or thousands of customers, not millions.

And with the rise of social media, many would-be citizen journalists identify as independent alternatives to legacy media. Though “free,” they often eschew the ethical and professional protocols that define a fair press. Influencers and supposed experts abound, and many are sympathetic to political goals. But these are advocates, not journalists. Many are wildly popular and quite effective with their messaging.

A crisis of truth

Misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda have always been part of the political process. They are methods people use to steer resources toward personal and collective goals.

Social media platforms are open to all points of view. Unfortunately it is easier to gain a following by poking at human foibles and the uncertainties of knowledge than it is to methodically present a legitimate, evidence-based point of view.

When the Department of Energy published A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S., it presented a platter of propaganda.

Misinformation, manipulative media – even pranks – stand next to established knowledge, actual events, proven facts, and science-based knowledge as legitimate points worthy of discussion. Opposing points of view regarding the same sets of knowledge, events, and facts are distorted into tribal truths and lies. One’s self-identified truth becomes a set of beliefs, independent of evidence, facts, or reality.

We erroneously maintain that fairness requires equal representation of the correct and the incorrect.

Speaking lies is equated with freedom of speech.

We are faced with George Orwell’s chilling proclamation: “Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth.”

Where we are now

With the deconstruction of institutions in today’s political environment, an individual’s response tends to focus on their own well-being. And that’s a rational response.

But we are at a moment in history that requires us to envision how the overall scientific enterprise will look in four, eight, 12 years. We must think of something new.

This requires organization on a large scale.

Decisions by government leaders are eliminating or corrupting the resources that support research to discover, advance, and innovate. To cure, help, and solve.

The dispersal and defunding of this skill base will, at least in the short term, diminish rather than enhance our nation’s presence and competitiveness.

Voices in science need to be heard. We need to be present and to speak.

It is important to support organizations that present science to our elected representatives and that represent the case for science in the courts.

People have the power

We need to vote.

We need to build and support credible and legitimate journalism.

We need to press our institutional allies to support organization, nurture leadership skills, and develop the next generation of leaders.

As we organize, act, and build new capacity, we must consider the long term. How do we support data gathering, analysis, and interpretation? How do we organize and provide knowledge in ways that are trusted and durable?

In our federal laboratories these past six months, we have seen the deterioration of what many consider the most secure scientific capacity in the world. How do we insure the preservation and growth of future knowledge? What is government’s role?

As a start, we must get past reaction and dismay. We need to rise above the emotional convulsions that take us from one outrage to the next. We need to understand, and put into practice, the elements of leadership that lift us above the chaos. We must find our power.