Charting a course for science during Trump's second term

The 2024 presidential election marks the historic return of Donald Trump to the Oval Office. With this news, scientists and policy experts alike find themselves contemplating the implications his second term will have for the future of science.

At a time when the challenges facing society and the world at large are increasingly complex, from the current changes in the global economy to the effects of resurgent ethnonationalism at home and abroad, the fragility of democratic political institutions to the rampant role of misinformation and polarized news, the direction and role of science are perhaps more important than ever before.

Scientific funding, science and tech policy, and public communication are certain to be scrutinized and questioned. For science to continue thriving and addressing these urgent challenges, we must remain steadfast and clear in our commitment to advocating for science in the service of the public good. Achieving this under a polarizing second Trump administration is likely to present unique challenges.

Throughout his first term, Trump’s stance on scientific matters raised questions about the politicization of science, particularly concerning climate change, public health and the role of regulatory agencies. Science does not operate in a vacuum — it is a crucial component of informed policy and public decision-making. Scientists must therefore work to ensure that the values of objectivity, transparency and integrity remain central to science, and that expertise remains relevant to our national discourse.

One of the pressing challenges ahead will be advocating for the protection of agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health. Over the past several decades, these institutions have played essential roles in advancing public health and environmental protections.

Yet, if the past is any indication, they may face renewed skepticism and possible budget cuts under a second Trump administration. Scientists and research advocates must be ready to engage in dialogue and emphasize the social, economic and public health benefits of maintaining strong, independent scientific agencies.

The Kennedy effect must also be factored into this discussion. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is expected to play a prominent role in the Trump Cabinet. Known for his controversial stance on vaccines, Kennedy has built a public profile that appeals to a segment of the American population increasingly skeptical of conventional public health narratives. His positions on science reveal the truth of Alexander Pope’s famous phrase: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. His views could have significant implications for U.S. health policy, especially if he gains influence over vaccine policy, regulatory standards and federal health agencies.

The growing distrust in scientific institutions requires that scientists redouble their efforts in public engagement, especially around public health issues. Open, clear and consistent communication is needed to rebuild public trust and reduce polarization on topics like vaccination. At the same time, scientific organizations must prepare to protect and defend the credibility of data-driven, peer-reviewed research in an environment where misinformation may gain traction through channels which have fewer checks on verifiable fact — Trump’s support from Elon Musk’s X being one such channel. Scientific advocacy organizations, universities and researchers must be proactive in shaping public understanding, particularly around health and environmental issues where misinformation could have serious consequences.

Trump’s previous stance on climate change also raised concerns, with his administration withdrawing from the Paris agreement and prioritizing fossil fuel interests. As the impacts of climate change become more visible — extreme weather events as seen recently with Hurricanes Helene and Milton — there is a moral and practical imperative for U.S. leadership on this issue. Unfortunately, if the new administration’s policies echo past approaches, the pathway to meaningful climate action will be set back at a time of growing urgency.

This is where state governments, private industries and non-governmental organizations should step up to play leadership roles in addressing climate change. The U.S. scientific community has a key role to play in collaborating with these stakeholders as well as maintaining international ties with scientists from around the world who also recognize climate change as a threat to us all. We must again emphasize how climate action is not merely an environmental concern but also an economic, health and security issue.

The potential impact on innovation and scientific funding also warrants a closer look. In fields like artificial intelligence, biotechnology and clean energy, science-based innovation is key to the nation’s economic prosperity. 

But we also need to make a compelling case for the value of curiosity-driven research — especially in our world-class universities. Foundational scientific inquiry not only advances our understanding of the scientific world but also fuels the innovations that ultimately sustain economic growth and social progress. The nation cannot afford to undermine its capacity for generating new knowledge by underfunding the basic sciences. For example, CRISPR gene-editing technology stemmed from curiosity-driven research into bacterial immune systems.

This fundamental research eventually sparked a revolutionary technology for precise DNA editing, with profound implications across medicine, agriculture and biotechnology, from treating genetic disorders to developing disease-resistant crops. It’s a powerful reminder of how foundational research can unlock technologies that transform entire fields and create whole new startups which can raise huge amounts of private investment.

While the political dust has yet to settle on this 2024 election, scientists and science advocates have a duty to engage early with policymakers in the incoming Trump administration and the public alike. Science is not merely an ivory tower enterprise; it is a service to society that transcends political affiliation and can also generate economic returns which voters have shared is one of their top priorities.

There is room for optimism if scientists continue to be proactive in public engagement, advocate for sustained funding, and emphasize the importance of independent agencies. By reaffirming our commitment to science that is based on evidence and expertise while serving the broadest interests of the global public, we can keep science moving forward even in these challenging times.

In this fraught landscape, our resolve as scientists and science-advocates is crucial. We owe it to society to maintain a steady focus on the principles of inquiry and integrity that define our work and that will, ultimately, define our shared future.

Above all, the scientific community must underscore the interconnectedness of scientific progress and public welfare, affirming that science, at its core, is an essential ally to a prosperous, healthy, sustainable society — something we can all unify around, regardless of how we voted.

Nicholas Dirks is president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences.