At the USDA’s research division, staff are cautious about one particular word: climate. Ethan Roberts, union president at the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research in Peoria, Illinois, points out that the recent shift in language reflects deeper changes in federal policies.
Last March, a memo circulated within the USDA, banning over a hundred terms related to climate change, including “global warming” and “carbon sequestration.” Roberts and his colleagues decided to navigate around this by using different phrases. Now, words like “elevated temperatures” and “extreme weather” have replaced the climate-specific terms.
This isn’t just a local trend. Across the U.S., many researchers have resorted to creative wording to avoid conflict with new political climates. When Donald Trump first assumed office, there was a noticeable shift in language usage. As various sectors downplayed climate discussions, adopting terms like “coastal resilience” instead of “climate change” became common among researchers. Austin Becker, a professor at the University of Rhode Island, noted that this change was often more about securing funding than personal convictions.
The numbers tell a compelling story. A report found a staggering 77% drop in National Science Foundation grants that mentioned “climate change” from 2023 to the following year. This decline stems partly from reduced funding opportunities and from researchers themselves avoiding controversial terms. For instance, state climatologist Trent Ford has also begun using “weather extremes” to keep funding flowing.
Ford, who studies how climate affects agriculture, finds it disconcerting. “Not mentioning climate change feels wrong,” he said. Yet steering clear of the term often leads to more successful grant applications. He remembers how quickly priorities shifted; something once deemed essential could become a liability under a new administration’s review.
Interestingly, terms like “environmental justice” and “equity” have become even more politically sensitive. The Trump administration has reportedly dismantled key offices at the Environmental Protection Agency that supported such initiatives, further limiting researchers’ scope.
The dynamics of research funding often lead scholars to seek alternatives. Dana Fisher from American University has turned to private and overseas funding, finding success during administrations that were less supportive of climate research. Her past work included a project funded by the Norwegian Research Council when George W. Bush was president—a time when grants were scarce in the U.S.
This tension between language and funding can complicate the work of scientists in various fields. While some researchers can subtly shift their phrases to align with federal standards, the core need for effective climate-related study remains urgent. Many, including Roberts, are determined to adapt without compromising their mission.
As public discourse shifts, the strategies researchers employ will likely evolve as well. The ongoing challenge is to communicate urgent climate issues while satisfying funding requirements. For Roberts, the art of clever word usage isn’t merely a workaround; it’s essential to continuing impactful research.
The consequences of this language shift may reverberate beyond funding decisions. Are we witnessing censorship or merely the adaptation of science to political winds? According to Roberts, it’s a little of both, as scientists strive to keep their work relevant and financially supported.
Source link
byline-external
