spinofflive
PARIS, FRANCE – JANUARY 21: Demonstrators carrying banners and placards take part in the Women’s March next to the Eiffel Tower on the Parvis des Droits de l’Homme on January 21, 2017 in Paris, France. The Women’s March originated in Washington DC but soon spread to be a global march calling on all concerned citizens to stand up for equality, diversity and inclusion and for Women’s Rights to be recognized around the world as Human Rights. Global marches are now being held, on the same day, across seven continents. (Photo by Christophe Morin/IP3/Getty Images)
PARIS, FRANCE – JANUARY 21: Demonstrators carrying banners and placards take part in the Women’s March next to the Eiffel Tower on the Parvis des Droits de l’Homme on January 21, 2017 in Paris, France. The Women’s March originated in Washington DC but soon spread to be a global march calling on all concerned citizens to stand up for equality, diversity and inclusion and for Women’s Rights to be recognized around the world as Human Rights. Global marches are now being held, on the same day, across seven continents. (Photo by Christophe Morin/IP3/Getty Images)

ScienceApril 22, 2017

Today I will march for science. And this is the speech that I’m not going to give

PARIS, FRANCE – JANUARY 21: Demonstrators carrying banners and placards take part in the Women’s March next to the Eiffel Tower on the Parvis des Droits de l’Homme on January 21, 2017 in Paris, France. The Women’s March originated in Washington DC but soon spread to be a global march calling on all concerned citizens to stand up for equality, diversity and inclusion and for Women’s Rights to be recognized around the world as Human Rights. Global marches are now being held, on the same day, across seven continents. (Photo by Christophe Morin/IP3/Getty Images)
PARIS, FRANCE – JANUARY 21: Demonstrators carrying banners and placards take part in the Women’s March next to the Eiffel Tower on the Parvis des Droits de l’Homme on January 21, 2017 in Paris, France. The Women’s March originated in Washington DC but soon spread to be a global march calling on all concerned citizens to stand up for equality, diversity and inclusion and for Women’s Rights to be recognized around the world as Human Rights. Global marches are now being held, on the same day, across seven continents. (Photo by Christophe Morin/IP3/Getty Images)

I’m taking part because I am part of a global community and because Trump’s actions affect us all. And I want New Zealand’s politicians to understand this, too, writes Shaun Hendy.

At 1.30pm this afternoon, I will be marching from Britomart up Queen Street to the Band Rotunda in Albert Park, along with many other Aucklanders who value science. This is our chance to contribute to a global event that was inspired by the Women’s March, and triggered by the arrival of a US President with a fragile relationship with reality.

When we arrive at the Rotunda, I am going to read a few poems. What follows is the transcript of the speech that I’m not going to give.

Should Kiwis care about what Trump does to science on the other side of the world? Yes. When science takes a hit in the United States, it suffers in New Zealand too. The US cut its geothermal research programme in the late 1980s, and as a result, New Zealand’s geothermal capability almost collapsed, making it much harder for us to increase our geothermal energy generation right up to the present day. Trump’s cuts to climate change research, in which the US leads the world, will hurt the rest of the world’s climate scientists, harming us all in the long run.

I’m not marching for the scientists who may lose their jobs. When funding is cut and jobs are lost, it is not great for science, but life for scientists generally works out ok. The geothermal scientists who lost their jobs in the 80s all did rather well, working for industry armed with the bargaining power you get when the world neglects to train your replacements.

I am marching because governments need science and science needs government. Your inner neoliberal – that part of your brain that can anticipate the contents of an Act Party tweet before David Seymour has put away his phone – may balk, but economists are pretty sure about this: knowledge is what makes our economy and society possible today, and much of that knowledge is paid for by the taxpayer.

I will also march because the Trump administration has been even more intent on laying waste to human rights than it has to science. Trump’s attempts at travel bans deserve to be protested by scientists not just because they hurt science, but because scientists must also respect human dignity and diversity. The scientific community is learning the hard way that it cannot tolerate researchers who refuse to work with people on the basis of their place of birth, gender, or religious beliefs. Likewise, scientists should have no tolerance for politicians whose policies use these characteristics as a basis to single out people for harm.

Science has a chequered history here, which may make it no worse than many other human endeavours, but few professions claim the high ground to the extent that science does. Scientists are often reluctant to acknowledge this, but a glance around most scientific tea rooms will generally leave you with an eyeful of the pale, the stale, and the male. And although I bring a dose of this myself to the march, I’ll be there to protest the attempts of the most scientifically, militarily and politically powerful country in the world to target people who are less privileged.

The Women’s March, Paris, on January 21. Photo by Christophe Morin/Getty Images

I will march because science is political. Captain Cook’s first journey to the Pacific was undertaken with an admirable scientific goal – to help measure the distance from the Earth to the Sun – but his bosses also had their eye on extending Britain’s colonial reach. Faster than you could plead “Not guilty, m’lord,” one of my ancestors found himself on a ship to Botany Bay. In the end my ancestor prospered, while the indigenous Australians he encountered suffered terribly, along with their descendents. Science has consequences, not all of which are beneficial, and so scientists should be very concerned when the politicians who pay for their science abandon tolerance and respect for others.

Some scientists have asked to be left alone in their labs this weekend to get on with their work. I would still encourage them to come along, if only to acknowledge how fortunate they are to have a lab to retreat into – in science there are inequities and power structures that prevent or make it harder for some groups of people to become scientists in the first place.

I’m going to march to Albert Park today because I am part of a global community and because Trump’s actions affect us all. I will march because I want New Zealand’s politicians to understand this too.

And then I am going to read some poetry.

See also … Nicola Gaston: Why scientists need to go to the barricades against Trump – and for the humanities
John Pickering: Why I won’t be joining the march for science


The Spinoff’s science content is made possible thanks to the support of The MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, a national institute devoted to scientific research.

Keep going!
thinkagain

ScienceApril 21, 2017

Why I won’t be joining the science march tomorrow

thinkagain

Across New Zealand tomorrow, scientists (and others) will join their peers around the world in a March for Science, calling for ‘science and knowledge to be reaffirmed as fundamental to the democratic decision making that supports society in Aotearoa New Zealand’. Local organisers explain their motivation here; at the Spinoff recently, Nicola Gaston powerfully explained why she would be pitching in. Here John Pickering explains why, having thought it over, he has decided against taking part.

When I’ve marched in the past it has been to protest or celebrate. The call for a March for Science, due to take place in New Zealand tomorrow, has me confused as to its purpose.

When I first heard the suggestion of a March for Science in New Zealand I admit I was immediately sceptical (occupational hazard). The suggestion had come in response to the policies of the Trump administration in the US. I am appalled by many of them and by the apparent ignoring of the scientific consensus – but then given the flip-flop on so much that was said in the campaign, it would take a brave person to predict there won’t be a similar flip-flop with respect to climate change policies and the like. That aside, is the March in New Zealand intended to be a protest against Trump?

Nicola Gaston in a persuasive blog post writes that with her Bachelor of Arts in her back pocket she will be marching for science and the scientists. Paraphrasing Niemoller she writes “First they came for the scientists, but I was not a scientist, so I did not speak out”. She hit a nerve with me – it is a sentiment that has resonated strongly in me ever since I walked though Auschwitz concentration camp and spent several years living in a country soon after the communists had relinquished power.

It is right and proper to speak out for the oppressed, whoever they are and whether we agree with them or not. However, the headline on Nicola’s post, “Why scientists need to go to the barricades against Trump – and for the humanities”, and the first few paragraphs paint the call to march as a political protest against Trumpian rhetoric and policy. This, for me, is not an encouragement to march in NZ. There are many many countries and issues around the world that I abhor and that I think reflect more closely Niemoller’s sentiments – “First they came for the migrants”, “First they came for the children (for the sex trade)”, “First they came for private property” – and I struggle with what I can do about any of them. However, marching in New Zealand protesting policies in another country is not something I see as effective unless we are demanding action from our government against those countries.

Since Nicola wrote that piece, the March organisers have written about the reasons for the March (here and here). While what has happened in the US is still very much to the fore, the organisers’ attentions seems to have turned towards a protest against policies of the current government. “Our current government has and continues to be ineffective in defending our native species and environment,” writes Geni, a Christchurch organiser. “The government believes they are improving freshwater, yet they aren’t utilizing NZ freshwater ecology research outputs or freshwater scientists for these decisions,” writes Erin in Palmerston North. “You only have to look at the Land and Water forum to open the discussion about the government ignoring the advice of scientists in regards to water quality,” writes Steph in Auckland. And the March for Science website advises: “The dismissal of scientific voices by politicians is perhaps best encapsulated by our former Prime Minister’s dismissal of concerns about the impact of our dairy industry on water quality.”

The organisers, in the spirit of peer review, invite critique. My first thought is that if people want to protest the government’s actions with respect to water quality, then please do so. But please don’t dress it up as a “March for Science” as if New Zealand politicians are inherently anti-science. It comes across as a belief that the New Zealand government is tarred with the same brush as the Trump administration with respect to its treatment of science. I don’t think that comparison is fair.

As an aside, I believe we must be careful with the generalisation “anti-science”, a phrase I’ve regularly heard from the voices and pens of scientists in the past few years. The phrase has almost always been used to describe people who take stances in opposition to the scientific consensus on matters such as vaccinations, fluoridation, or climate change. I don’t believe these people are anti-science per se – indeed, they often try (and fail) to use science to back their views. Furthermore, they may well embrace the findings of science in general. Troy Campbell and Lauren Griffen’s recent post in Scientific America is a good panacea against the loose and pejorative use of the term “anti-science”.

A placard at the Frankfurt Women’s March in January. Photo: ZeWrestler

Another aspect of the call to march that I find difficult is the statement “We acknowledge that in Aotearoa New Zealand the scientific community has yet to live up to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and that there is an ongoing process of decolonization required to achieve greater inclusion of Māori in the scientific community.” I admit I’m not entirely sure what this means. However, as a member of the scientific community it sounds like I’m being slapped over the wrist. Further, I feel it is accusing me of some form of racism. I’m sure this was not the intention, but it is the impression I get and one I don’t like getting.

This is all a pity, as I’d hoped that the March for Science would be more of a celebration, with the added value of standing in solidarity with scientists who have been silenced or disenfranchised. To be fair, celebration is obviously on the mind of some of the organisers such as Cindy from Dunedin: “together to celebrate the quest for knowledge and the use of knowledge to protect and enhance life… hope that the March for Science Global initiative will empower scientists and other knowledge-seekers to continue their important work and to share it widely.” However, this does not seem to reflect the overall tone of the call.

One of the goals of the March is to highlight that “good scientists can be political.” I applaud this sentiment and it is something I have tried to be take on board in the past – twice I stood as a political candidate in the general election (2005 and 2008). Beyond protest, I would encourage all scientists to spend a few minutes with their local MP explaining why and what they do. The temptation is to bemoan the lack of funding, but I would suggest that funding follows understanding, and we need to engage with politicians and as we do so to recognise the complexity of the decision making with all the competing interests that they have to make.

I began with a question, to march or not to march? As I’ve written this, I’ve come to the conclusion that, on balance, the call has not resonated with where I’m at, or with what I think of as effective dialogue with politicians, therefore I will not be marching. I appreciate that others will disagree; nevertheless I wish them a very positive experience.

John Pickering is associate professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of Otago based in Christchurch. This post first appeared on his blog.


The Spinoff’s science content is made possible thanks to the support of The MacDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, a national institute devoted to scientific research.