At the Department of Agriculture, there’s an unwritten rule: don’t mention “the forbidden C-word”—climate. Ethan Roberts, president of the union at the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research in Peoria, Illinois, has noticed this shift firsthand during his nearly ten years in federal service.
Last March, the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service sent out a memo banning over a hundred specific terms related to climate change, with phrases like “global warming” and “carbon sequestration” on the list. Scientists have since adapted, avoiding these terms to keep their research alive. Instead of saying “climate change,” they might use words like “extreme weather” or “soil health.”
This trend reflects a broader issue faced by researchers under the Trump administration, where language related to climate and diversity was more tightly controlled. Reports show that the number of National Science Foundation grants mentioning “climate change” dropped dramatically, indicating a combination of decreased funding and self-censorship among scientists.
For example, Trent Ford, the Illinois state climatologist, describes how he now prefers terms like “weather extremes” in grant proposals. He admits it feels wrong not to use “climate change” when that’s the core of his research, but funding is vital. “Getting a grant can mean the difference between keeping a staff member or letting them go,” he says.
The shift in federal priorities has not only affected how research is framed but has also led some scientists to seek funding elsewhere. Dana Fisher, a professor at American University, has successfully sought international funding, recalling how similar situations arose under previous Republican administrations.
The political climate is changing again, and researchers are adjusting their language. While some terms like “environmental justice” have become taboo, others have risen in usage. A recent analysis revealed that mentions of “clean energy” and “pollution” have declined but at a slower pace than “climate change.”
This evolving linguistic landscape raises ethical questions. Is it censorship or just adapting to political winds? According to Roberts, scientists will continue to refine their proposals to align with shifting priorities, ensuring they can still pursue essential research.
In conclusion, clever wording and strategic framing allow researchers to navigate these challenging waters. The focus remains on delivering important insights, even if some words must remain unspoken for now.
For more on this topic, see Grist’s report.
Source link
climate change,donald trump,environment,science,news
