Don’t discount the value of science in our nation’s security

The proposed $1.2 billion 2017 funding cut to the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) budget, along with the first budget request of the Trump Administration, is a thinly veiled attempt to silence science. 

The 2018 budget request seeks to “re-prioritize Federal spending so that it advances the safety and security of the American people.” This proposed budget is clear in its focus on punitively obvious, proximal safety issues, such as border security and military strength. 

However, the Administration, in its resentment against its critics, is disregarding the deeper, more distal public safety solutions, such as medical research and clean energy options that scientific research reveals. 

{mosads}The proposed budget reduces nearly 20 percent of funding to both the NIH and Department of Energy’s Office of Science. It also reduces the budgets of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The National Science Foundation (NSF) is not specifically addressed in this proposal, but those of us dependent on this granting agency are concerned.

As a scientist, it is frustrating to see funding expanded for one aspect of public safety while another is dismantled, inarguably pointing to how little science is often valued. Charles Darwin stated, “Great is the power of steady misrepresentation…”  Although he was speaking specifically to the distortions about his own work, these words transcend misconceptions of evolution by natural selection, and are germane to the prominence of science in general.  

Science has been steadily marginalized in the K-12 education system.

According to a sample of scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), nearly half considered K-12 STEM education in U.S. schools as “below average,” which has larger implications for politicized resistance to science and scientific funding. Of these scientists, 75 percent also speculated that this deficiency in STEM education is the primary cause for the drought of this type of knowledge in the general public.  

In a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, most Americans correctly identified basic scientific questions, such as those concerning nuclear weapons (surprise, surprise). However, it was the application of science that was largely misunderstood.

For example, only a third of Americans knew that amplitude determines loudness of sounds, and that altitude affects the temperature at which water boils. If these straightforward scientific facts are largely unknown, it’s unsurprising that the benefits of science, including improved economic security, remain largely unrecognized.

In 2014, an opinion survey was conducted with the general public and scientists on a variety of scientific issues. The disparity between the two groups was astounding. While 82 percent of AAAS scientists polled said the growing world population was a major issue, only 59 percent of U.S. adults agreed.

Moreover, 88 percent and 37 percent of scientists and U.S. adults, respectively, supported the consumption of genetically modified foods. And when the question of human-driven climate change was broached, 87 percent of scientists agreed we play a role, while only 50 percent of adults said the same.  

These statistics highlight the general public’s under-appreciation for the interconnectedness of variables. It’s estimated that global population size will reach 9.7 billion by the year 2050, with over 400 million in the United States alone. 

Food production will need to increase, making it crucial that research continues on genetically modified crops that are cost-effective, insect-resistant, pesticide-limited, and produce higher yields. Mix in the agricultural effects of climate change such as altered growing seasons, changes in precipitation levels, and increased temperature and carbon dioxide levels, and the economic ramifications of such effects, and we are in big, Malthusian trouble.  

And yet, the proposed budget slashes funding to those agencies that focus on the ramifications of climate change, food production, and medical innovation.  

There will be those who say a $54-billion-dollar increase in defense spending will enhance national security, but, science says otherwise. According to geologists, a southern border wall will be more difficult and expensive to construct than the Trump Administration appears aware, with years of surveying, different terrains that require specific construction strategies, and problems in keeping such a mega-structure upright and functional. Social scientists warn that building a wall will not stop the migration of individuals across the border, but will thrust them underground, increasing violence and trafficking in these areas.

To that end, it’s essential and urgent to contact federal and state representatives to voice concern and opposition over this budget request. 

The American people deserve a budget that focuses on defense, diplomacy, and education, not one based on “unquestioned military dominance.” Perhaps this hyper-aggressive stance is an attempt by Trump to restore his masculinity in a country that largely disapproves of his performance. 

Darwin’s words about misrepresentation are powerfully relevant to the challenges we face today, and perhaps the remainder of that quote will offer hope to those who defend and support science. “Great is the power of steady misrepresentation, but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure.” 

Kristin L. Krueger, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Loyola University Chicago and is a Public Voices fellow. Krueger’s work has appeared in Scientific American.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.