{credit}Cody Anthony Hernandez{/credit}
By Kendall Powell
Caroline Weinberg, an organizer for the upcoming march in Washington DC, expects smaller crowds than last year, although she admits her prediction may again be off the mark. “Last we expected 40,000 people, and we got around 100,000,” she says. She adds that most of the marchers in the nation’s capital city were concerned citizens, not practicing researchers.
In Washington DC and elsewhere, organisers envision events with fewer marchers, placards and chants but more advocacy-related activities. Weinberg and others aim to offer hands-on projects for those taking to the streets in Washington DC. In Berlin, Germany, organisers are planning a “local hero” programme where scientists will give public talks at bars, cafes and other venues. March-related activities in Portland, Oregon, will include speeches by local politicians and a science expo with at least 30 presenters, including a juggler who demonstrates the principles of physics.
The election and inauguration of Donald Trump for US president helped to spur marchers last year, and Weinberg says that she suspects that some scientists this year may be motivated to speak out against Trump’s recent budget proposal, which called for drastic cuts to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention spending plan . But she adds that the march and other forms of science activism shouldn’t depend on crises to draw interest and participation. “Our challenge is to build up a huge crowd and send a message that galvanizes everyone but to also make it sustainable,” she says. “We can’t allow our advocacy to be tethered to those moments.”
Roughly 15,000 people attended last year’s march in Portland, but that kind of enthusiasm will be hard to replicate, says Denesa Oberbeck, a behavioral neuroscientist at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland and a member of the steering committee for this year’s march. “There’s some fatigue and some burnout, but we need to keep fighting,” she says. “We have to maintain an activist stance.”
Kristine Wadosky, a cancer researcher at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, marched in Washington DC last year carrying a sign that read “Curing cancer is non-partisan.” This year, she plans to join the march in Chicago, Illinois, where she will give a talk on advanced prostate cancer for the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. She says that she’s just as energized about science advocacy as ever before, and she thinks that many other young scientists feel the same way.
This time, Wadosky says, she won’t need a sign to send her message, which isn’t especially complicated. “I just want to go to show that I’m a scientists, and I exist,” she says.
Chris Woolston is a freelance writer in Billings, Montana.
Suggested reading:
Growing pains
In support of the March
Reflections on a movement
Scientists across the United States are just now returning to their labs after a weekend of marching, waving signs and, in many cases, wringing out rain-soaked lab coats. The steady rain that fell Saturday, 22 April, on the March for Science in Washington DC didn’t dampen participants’ enthusiasm for standing up for “science that upholds the common good and for political leaders and policy makers to enact evidence-based policies in the public interest,” to quote the March for Science website’s mission statement.
{credit}Kate Carbone{/credit}
But now that the march is over, scientists have to face some important questions: What message did they deliver, what comes next and what does it all mean for their careers? Continue reading
The potential downside? It could mean fewer postdoc positions – but even that may be a positive. The academic pipeline worldwide, especially in the biomedical sciences, has a postdoc glut.
{credit}istockphoto/Thinkstock{/credit}