An Inflection Point

This week feels like an inflection point in our corner of the nation called the Scientific Ecosystem. I have several reasons for writing about it. First, we are living in historic times and it is important to document what’s happening. Second, I feel a sense of responsibility to share my perspective in a longer format than threads on social media, to inform and invite conversation. Third, Stand Up for Science is in the middle of this broader conversation.

Earlier this week, someone who I deeply respect and admire gave me some feedback. They expressed disappointment at my calling legacy organizations “stodgy” and ineffective. They didn’t think it was productive that I was punching within the scientific community in a recent Science article, particularly given that we have significant challenges to overcome as a field.

“‘Stodgy’ science advocacy groups have clung to ‘tactics that haven’t kept up with the times. … These are people who are still bringing white papers to a gunfight,’ says Colette Delawalla.”

I’ve thought a lot about this feedback. I thought “maybe I am being way too harsh, and I need to just keep my mouth shut…I can do that.” This lasted less than 72 hours, because several things happened within 36 hours:

• The schedule F amendment passed through OMB, opening public servants—particularly at science agencies—up to retaliation and eliminating whistleblower protections and first amendment rights.

• Stand Up for Science hosted our first of many “Future of Science” summits on the Hill with forward thinking, creative science folks, policy folks, and hill staffers.

• Research!America named Senator Katie Britt as their medical research advocate of the year (and accompanying NYT profile).

• The appropriations budget (including scientific funding) was passed and signed into law.

• Holden Thorp published an op-ed in Science about “what has worked” in saving science.

• The President of the United States posted a vile AI generated video of the Obamas as monkeys.

• The Science and Technology Action Committee (STAC) posted a “Thank you” note to Trump for signing the appropriations into law.

(Completely precedented and normal times…)

Let’s start with the Thorp piece.

To give some background: I reached out to AAAS in February of last year to ask for support in the form of endorsement of our 3/7 rallies. I was told no and until this week, had never received any response to my emails to leadership. After a year of ignoring Stand Up for Science and then throwing not so veiled punches in the media over the last several weeks, Thorp’s piece is the first time AAAS leadership has acknowledged our activism in any positive light (Science did write about the rallies last year). I do appreciate this. However, Thorp is trying to have his cake and eat it too with his framing.

He says “Yet, if the measure of success is the extent to which funding was restored, then perhaps the quiet approach has been validated—doing the work that demonstrates, more than heated words, the value of the enterprise to both the public and the politicians.” This is meant to make the point that really it was the “quiet” “usual” ways of going about politics that achieved the goals. He also framed activism approaches as “loud”, “seething”, “heated”...instead of “bold”, “new”, “firm” or something of the like.

In my view, the piece reads like a backward PR strategy: “SEE! We weren’t keeping our heads down...we were being strategic.” Meanwhile, activism focused groups were also engaging in “strategic advocacy” on the hill. Stand Up for Science held over 100 congressional meetings in the back half of 2025—by comparison, the organization thanking Trump (STAC) held 15 all year. Even though Thorp acknowledged “it’s both quiet and heated action” the light he painted our “seething” efforts in was hardly respectful of how much our activism likely was a determining factor of the R&D budget.

My biggest takeaway from Thorp’s opinion was the difference in goals. He was extremely clear about AAAS’ goal: “…the measure of success is the extent to which funding was restored…”

Funding for science; that is their goal.

And, to his point, if that is in fact the goal of the largest general scientific society in the country, then yes, they can have their flowers because they did accomplish their goal. Well…they did to a degree. In any other instance a ~5% decrease in federal R&D spending would be viewed as catastrophic. This acknowledgment of the difference in context through shifted tones (celebration vs. despair) means legacy organizations aren’t continuing on as “normal” and I think this matters. To acknowledge the moment means these groups see what is happening.

Noubar Afeyan said something that captures the way we work at Stand Up for Science:

“Envision the future and then work backwards to build it from there.”

I envision a future in America where immigrants are welcomed, our president makes me proud to be an American, people feel that their vote matters and their electeds listen to them, everyone has access to quality healthcare, children have full bellies, and we face our national skeletons with unity and courage. I envision a diverse scientific ecosystem that spans across demographics and nations, that serves the public good, that works within and for communities, that offers freedom of inquiry, that is built to support the scientists within, and that is well funded. I don’t think we get to this future by continuing with any version of “business as usual.”

Funding for science is one of the goals of Stand Up for Science. But, we have several goals, because we can walk and chew gum at the same time. These include:

• An overall increase of federal R&D of 30% over 5 years and inflationary increases beyond that bump.

• Restoration and increase of all federal programs related to the expansion and support of the STEMM talent pool.

• End of government censorship of science and scientists.

• Evidence-based governance.

• Reestablishing the social contract between science and the public.

• Prevent science from being used to advance ideological extremism.

• Rebuilding science in a way that reimagines the discovery pipeline such that it benefits the public, the scientists within, and the economy in equitable ways.

All this to say: maybe comparison of “seething” and “heated” activist organizations and “quiet” legacy organizations isn’t fair.

One is building and the other is maintaining a status quo.

If you follow me or Stand Up for Science anywhere on socials, you will have seen some mention of Peter Drucker’s autobiography Adventures of a Bystander. Drucker tells the story of being in the faculty meeting at Frankfurt University in February 1933, when the Nazi commissar announced that all Jewish people would be banned from university grounds. After a threatening and violent tirade, a distinguished biochemical scientist asked: “Will there be more money for research in physiology?” to which the commissar replied there would be “plenty of money for racially pure science.” Satisfied with this answer, the scientist continued his work while his Jewish colleagues were expelled.

Every executive order, every policy change, every unhinged thing the President has done in the last year has presented institutions with a choice. This appropriation bill in January was no different, though the context was starker. Which path would organizations choose?

1. Science at any cost.

2. Science with clear values.

In a moment where the US is building and filling concentration camps, civilians have been shot dead in their streets by a paramilitary, renown scientists are in the Epstein files, attacks on independent centers of thought abound, and we are hurling into authoritarianism, scientific organizations and institutions have spent the last several weeks celebrating the budget. I haven’t raised a huge stink about this because I figured the celebration would die down.

This week, two straws broke the camel’s back for me: first, Research!America named Senator Katie Britt—a woman who voted to kick 16 million Americans off their healthcare and who has celebrated ICE—their medical research advocate of the year. What about the federal scientists that have been fired and punished for whistleblowing? Second, was that hours after the President of the United States posted a vile AI generated video of the Obamas as monkeys, the Science and Technology Action Committee (STAC) issued a statement thanking Trump for funding science. The video was up when this statement was issued.

Science must have values. There must be red lines in the sand.

If Jim Crow level racism, pedophilia, insurrection, a masked paramilitary killing and kidnapping civilians, banned words and censorship, eugenics-based pseudoscience drive health and environmental policy, grants being cancelled for not aligning with “administrative priorities”, political appointees replacing career bureaucrats at science agencies, limits placed on foreign scientists’ contributions to American science, and established research findings being walked back because the President disagrees aren’t red lines…then, where the hell is the line?

If we get “science” from people who are willing to lock children in cages, what are we really getting? If we can only have “science” on their terms, what does that mean for who we are willing to throw under the bus to continue our work?

When science doesn’t have clear values and is willing to continue at any cost, the best thing that happens is what our scientific ecosystem looked like on Jan 19th, 2025—productive, innovative and lively, but at the expense of not being great for a lot of people. The worst is science being used as a weapon of the state—as seen in German, the USSR, China, Spain, and Italy in the early 1900’s. With the same people in charge of science who are sending children to camps, we should not assume goodwill and we sure as hell shouldn’t be licking their bo—I mean, thanking them for signing bills into law.

To finish my tome, I stand by my quote in Science. But it’s because I’m not ok with this moment being about duct taping together structures that we have outgrown as a society. We can dream of and work for a future that is so much better. We don’t have to accept this version of science or democracy. At any point, anyone can decide they have had enough and fight for better. I encourage our legacy organizations to do this. If believing in and fighting for a better future makes me “loud”, “seething”, and “heated”: fine. It wouldn’t be the first time a woman standing up for her values was labeled as such.