Soon-to-be U.S. President Donald Trump (left) and Vice President J.D. Vance attend the election night watch party.Credit: Evan Vucci/AP Photo/Alamy
In the early hours of November 6, scientists around the world expressed disappointment and alarm after Republican Donald Trump won the final votes needed to secure the US presidency. Because of President Trump’s anti-science comments and actions during his last term, many are now bracing for four years of attacks on scientists both inside and outside of government.
Nature readers say US election is monumental for science – here’s why
“In my 82 years of life, I have never felt so sad,” said Fraser Stoddart, a Nobel laureate who left the United States last year and is now chair of the chemistry department at the University of Hong Kong. . “I witnessed events that I feel are very bad, not just for the United States, but for all of us around the world.”
Michael Rubel, a physicist at the City University of New York in New York City who tracks federal science policy issues, said he was “shocked, but not surprised,” given how polarized U.S. politics is right now. No,” he says. Rubel said the implications of the win are profound for both government policy and science, especially because of President Trump’s deep skepticism of scientists and other experts who manage public health and environmental policy within the federal government. said.
Although votes are still being counted in many regions, Mr. Trump has already won enough votes in the U.S. state to secure a landslide victory over his opponent, Vice President and Democrat Kamala Harris. President Trump addressed his supporters as a winner early today, declaring his coalition the “greatest political movement in history.”
Republicans also appear poised to win the upper house of the U.S. Congress, or Senate, by flipping at least three Democratic seats, but there are four more races yet to be called for either party. . Final results in the U.S. House of Representatives could take days or weeks, but Republicans appear likely to maintain control. This would give Trump and his party complete control of the government in Washington, DC.
“We need to prepare for a new world,” says Grazyna Jasienska, a longevity researcher at Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland. “I’m trying to be optimistic, but it’s hard to see any positives for global science and public health even if Republicans were to take power.”
Anxiety overwhelms me
President Trump has previously called climate change a hoax and pulled the United States out of the Paris climate accord. He said he would give Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a politician who has denied the effectiveness of vaccines, a “big role” in his administration and promised to make it easier to fire American scientists and other experts. government opposed to his political policies.
The United States is the world’s scientific powerhouse, but how long will that last?
The concerns pouring in this morning echo those expressed by the majority of readers who responded to a Nature survey last month. Of the more than 2,000 people who responded to the poll, 86% said they supported Harris because of concerns about climate change, public health and the state of American democracy. Some said they would consider changing where they live or study abroad if President Trump wins.
Responses were swiftly taken to respond to these feelings. Tulio de Oliveira, a renowned virologist at South Africa’s Center for Epidemic Response Innovation at Stellenbosch University, posted on X (the social media platform formerly known as Twitter): One of the best universities in (South Africa) in one of the most beautiful regions in the world! ” he said, linking to advertisements for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows.
However, not all researchers oppose Trump’s inauguration. Of those responding to a Nature reader survey, 6% expressed support for President Trump, typically citing concerns about national security and the economy. Cesar Monroy Fonseca, chief scientific officer at Seele Neuroscience, a behavioral neuroscience institute in Mexico City, supports Trump, telling Nature that Trump is “the least of evils.” Monroy-Fonseca said Mexico’s economy is highly dependent on decisions by the U.S. government.
Another reader, who agreed to be contacted but did not want his name used, was concerned about President Trump’s hostility to science and evidence. Nevertheless, the respondent, a longtime nurse from Wilmington, North Carolina, said she would vote for Trump “because at the end of the day, I want to be safe and I want to be able to take care of my family.”
lessons learned
But others are focused on what a second Trump presidency means for science. Lisa Schipper, a geographer who specializes in climate change vulnerability at the University of Bonn, said in light of President Trump’s anti-science comments, “Probably one of my biggest concerns is that President Trump will The goal is to further solidify our trust.” Germany. The percentage of people who say science has a positive impact on society has steadily declined since 2019, according to a survey of thousands of American adults conducted by the Pew Research Center in Washington, DC.
US election debate: What Harris and Trump said about science
“I can’t put it into words, but I think it’s a learning moment,” said Sheila Jasanoff, a social scientist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Trump’s victory signals a fundamental disconnect between academic researchers and many Republican voters. Finding common ground will require social engagement and perhaps humility on the part of scientists, who have yet to fully grapple with this social and political divide. For many Republicans, Jasanoff says, “the problem is us,” the academic “elite.”
Some people are already starting to think about January 2025, when President Trump is scheduled to take office. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association in Washington, D.C., called on the Trump administration to adopt bold, evidence-based science policies and hire skilled and talented people to implement them. I hope I can convince them.” But Benjamin said that the last time he was president, “he had some really great scientists working for him and he undermined them — he didn’t follow their advice. – especially for failing to publicly reprimand them and impose stronger policies on their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We’re going to need brave people who are willing to push back, protect the vulnerable, and do the right thing over the easy thing,” said a senior official at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. They fear retaliation under the new Trump administration. “We have to remember what’s right, and the right thing is to protect public health and the environment.”
Also includes additional reporting from Davide Castelvecchi, Elizabeth Gibney, Max Kozlov, and Alix Soliman.
