Content area
Full Text
Research leaders in the United States and elsewhere should address the needs and employment prospects of taxpayers who have seen little benefit from scientific advances.
One question dominated discussions at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) at the weekend. Researchers, journalists and science lobbyists squeezed into conference rooms, perched on recycling bins and sat on the floor between rows of filled chairs as they strained to listen to those who tried to offer a response. The question was phrased in various ways, but the variations all boiled down to: how should science and scientists respond to the administration of President Donald Trump?
The answers were numerous too - from political activism to better communication - and were met with cheers, applause and the odd standing ovation. Many scientists will have leftthe Boston conference with renewed hope, or at least a sense of combined purpose. They had an answer of sorts to their question.
But it's the wrong question. It is not Trump that scientists must respond to. The real question is what science can do for the people who voted for him. Exactly who did support him, and why, is still being debated by political scientists, but it's clear that many of those who voted Trump are those he canvassed in his campaign and credited in his inauguration speech. It is people who feel leftbehind by supposed progress and who have suffered a real or perceived collapse in their quality of life.
PERSUADING THE UNCONVINCED
One speaker at the...