Like it or not, discussion about the 2016 presidential election is coming to its bitter end. On Jan. 20, 2017, the next president-elect of the United States of America, Mr. Donald J. Trump, is expected to be sworn in and assume the most powerful office in the world as the 45th president of the United States. A Trump administration carries deep uncertainties for various segments of the American populace as well as the international community at large. One such area of particular concern is the uncertain status of the role of science and technology under a Trump administration not only within the United States, but also throughout the globe. The interconnectedness of modern science implies that drastic, regressive policy changes — likely under a Trump administration — in a place as globalized, scientifically advanced and economically influential as the United States would produce far-reaching implications. These are the kind of effects that threaten to disturb and quite possibly demolish years of scientific collectivization and policy advancement, both domestically and internationally. Based upon his comments on the campaign trail and even before then, Trump might prove to be quite possibly the most anti-science president yet.
Realizing this, a number of scientists have already expressed collective concern regarding Trump’s apparent anti-science policy positions by exposing his various comments that seem to reveal a concerning ignorance and general mistrust of major recent political achievements predicated on well-established scientific consensus. The primary subject of Trump’s backsliding policies is the international progress that has been established in order to combat the existential threat of climate change. Trump is documented to have repeatedly expressed doubt concerning the very existence of this phenomenon, believing that there is no evidence of human responsibility for climate change to even that it is rather the creation of a Chinese government conspiracy that intends to dampen the economic activity of other countries. More importantly, he intends to act upon this belief and rescind the United States’ participation in the historic Paris agreement on climate. While the Paris agreement was arranged such that each independent signatory state would control its own implementation of the agreed international emissions reduction benchmarks, and therefore can act independently of whether or not the United States participates in such a plan, an omission of an enormous polluter such as the United States is troubling. It is even more worrisome considering that Trump has spoken toward reversing progress outlined under Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Trump has stirred additional controversy by appointing Myron Ebell, a supposed climate skeptic, as the next head of the Environmental Protection Agency transition team for his incoming administration. From a domestic economic policy standpoint, Mr. Trump has made a centerpiece of his policy that he intends to dismantle governmental regulations on shale, oil, coal, offshore drilling, fracking and natural gas production. Doing so simultaneously delegitimizes government subsidies to alternative energy sectors, thereby casting into doubt the progress made toward alternative, renewable energy sources as well as a reduction in fossil fuel emissions.
Besides the colossal issue of climate change, Trump’s proposed budget cuts as well as his unusual personal policy stances affect other sectors of science, technology and medicine. Trump’s repeated comments on widespread federal budget cuts and smaller government cast considerable doubt over the sustainability and longevity of basic research at American universities and research institutions. Moreover, Trump is recorded to have expressed repeated doubt concerning the safety of vaccinations in children and whether it is a culpable agent for autism. He has not accepted the enormous wealth of literature that shows otherwise on the matter. As I have written before in a previous column, it is somewhat ludicrous for the existence of skepticism and deniers of the safety of vaccinations, much less the president of the United States of America. However, the technology and manufacturing sector in the United States is reasonably expected to benefit from the purported tax cuts and loosened government restrictions that would accompany a conservative administration. Some economists and researchers contend that Mr. Trump’s policies would produce a domestic economic environment that would favor exports over imports, thereby incentivizing companies to relocate back to the United States as well as protect domestic startup companies.
One should remember, however, that it is still premature to definitively predict how a Trump administration would alter the role of science in our national identity, as well as our cooperation with other advanced nations. We can hope, ironically, that Trump’s notoriety for equivocation on his policy stances may ultimately produce an administration and legislation that respects and promotes the role of science in human affairs. But should these propositions, as they currently stand, come into reality, then they would spell unimaginable defeat for human progress. The only optimism that I can offer is that he does not intend or is at least unable in actuality to enact the policy positions that he has so far stated.
