I admit that I am not too fond of modern mass-organized political or social demonstrations, the likes of which we saw surrounding the 2016 presidential election and in its aftermath. Without delving too much into my reasoning, I will say that first and foremost, I think modern mass movements have a predisposition to become disorganized and therefore lose the soundness of their message. For any mass movement to succeed, there must exist a positive balance between a well-defined “rigor of purpose” (beyond slogans and catchphrases) and a well-targeted, purposeful tenacity in direct service to that message.
The March for Science has enormous potential to achieve just that — and more. The March for Science has the opportunity to arrest and reverse the disturbing direction that this country is taking regarding its relationship with science and evidence. As an amateur scientist, I intend to participate in the Boston branch of the March for Science, scheduled to take place on Earth Day this coming April.
Given my reluctance toward politically themed demonstrations, I found it necessary to examine the established purpose of the march. While I have yet to directly communicate with the organizers, and though I do not absolutely agree with certain public statements and tweets by those who claim to be organizers, I wholeheartedly support the march’s purpose. I am optimistic that this march will be different, due to both its inherent nature and the discussion that questions that very nature.
I am dismayed at one widespread assumption that the March for Science is somehow intended to be a recreation of the past Women’s March in Washington, D.C. There has been additional concern that the “conservative” reception — whatever that means — of the March for Science will only entrench skepticism of the relationship between science and liberal policy. For both charges, it is a presumptive claim.
As a participant in the march, I intend to bring my own purpose and agenda, but without compromising the march’s overarching principles. As scientists, academics and professionals, other participants will be especially cognizant of the well-defined intentions as well.
As for the march’s purpose itself, I think the urgent necessity to confront scientific evidence in politics will best be visually demonstrated to the general public through a mass march. Sometimes, as the saying goes, actions do speak louder than words. The issue assumes a different dimension because, as I mentioned in a previous column, certain segments of the population are already skeptical of “science” and its role in society. “Science” should occupy a more prominent role in the American political process and should be a vital mechanism by which policymakers determine their political presence. From a more theoretical standpoint, I find it difficult to distance “science” from politics, or any other area of human experience, especially in our technology-driven age.
Notice that I have included quotations when mentioning the word “science” in proximity to politics; it can be understood as a broad term. It is important to recognize that the practice of modern “science” is not perfect, but that is a separate discussion. Furthermore, it is again important to recognize that there is spectrum of its “quality,” so to speak, ranging from respected, authoritative, instituted research to shabby, halfway science, to outright pseudoscience.
Essentially, what I would want to be accomplished by a March for Science is a physical showing of both amateur and professional scientists’ large presence throughout our country. It should be a clear demonstration of the right and responsibility to express concern, attempt to influence the political process and exercise one’s civic right and duty. Most importantly, the march might even be an opportunity to pull science deeper into everyday life. It is important to earnestly pull science to our governing.
