Concerns About Trump’s Second Term and Its Impact on Science
Donald Trump’s second presidential term has scientists around the world worried. His policies could greatly affect science, public health, and climate initiatives.
One major concern is the U.S. withdrawal from international agreements like the Paris climate accord and the World Health Organization (WHO). During his first term, Trump pulled the U.S. out of these agreements, and there’s fear he might do it again.
The appointments Trump has made for key positions in science-related agencies raise alarms too. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., known for his skepticism about vaccines, is suggested to head the Department of Health and Human Services. This department oversees everything from medical research to food safety.
Other notable nominees include Jay Bhattacharya, a critic of Covid lockdowns, who is proposed for the National Institutes of Health, and Lee Zeldin, nominated to run the Environmental Protection Agency.
John-Arne Røttingen, the chief executive of Wellcome, voiced concerns: “The U.S. plays a vital role in advancing science and global health. Health security in all nations relies on teamwork.” He predicted that a Trump administration might create new struggles for science, health, and equity.
To express their worries, the Union for Concerned Scientists, a U.S. non-profit, released two letters before Trump’s inauguration. The first letter, signed by over 50,000 scientists and supporters, urged Congress to protect science from political interference. It highlighted the importance of maintaining scientific roles and research that safeguard health and the environment.
A second letter targeted 99 senators involved in confirming Trump’s nominees. It came from 28 organizations advocating for scientific integrity and urged the senators to prioritize “respect for science.” They called for opposition against nominees who lack qualifications or ignore scientific consensus.
Environmental activists have taken issue with Zeldin’s confirmation hearings to lead the EPA, citing his poor history with environmental laws. His previous votes tended to favor pollution and reduce public health measures. He even opposed funding for the national flood insurance program, despite rising sea levels threatening his Long Island community.
Melinda Pierce, legislative director for the Sierra Club, said, “Zeldin has attempted to repeal critical health standards. We urge the Senate to reject his nomination to protect future generations.”
Concerns also swirl around Bhattacharya’s potential role at the NIH, which funds much of the world’s biomedical research. His controversial views during the pandemic, advocating for a less restrictive approach, have drawn serious criticism. Some have even labeled his stance as reckless, claiming it could lead to greater health risks.
Martin McKee, a professor of public health, said it is troubling to think someone with such questionable views could lead the NIH. He warned, “There’s a lot we just don’t know about how these nominations will play out.”
Additionally, if Trump exits global collaborations like the WHO, scientists fear the loss of expertise and funding. The U.S. has been a significant supporter of WHO, contributing over $1 billion recently. Røttingen pointed out that losing U.S. leadership in health would weaken both national and global health systems.
He concluded, “Given the health challenges we face, it’s crucial for the WHO to function fully with all countries involved in their priorities.”
