The early morning of November 6th saw Donald Trump secure the electoral votes needed to reclaim the White House, sending tremors through the global scientific community. As the vote count continues, scientists and researchers around the world are voicing concerns about the future of U.S. science policy and its potential impact on the global stage. Many fear that Trump’s history of anti-science rhetoric and the actions of his previous administration could lead to weakened environmental protections, setbacks in public health, and a further erosion of trust in scientific expertise.
Nature
, a renowned scientific journal, conducted a survey of its readers regarding the U.S. presidential race, revealing widespread apprehension about a Trump presidency. Over 2,000 respondents expressed their support for Vice President Kamala Harris, citing concerns about climate change, public health, and the stability of U.S. democracy. A significant number of respondents even indicated they would consider relocating their work or studies if Trump won.While the majority voiced their concerns, a small but notable segment within the scientific community expressed support for Trump. According to the survey, 6% of respondents favored him, citing concerns about security and economic issues. This group expressed a preference for Trump’s perceived strength in these areas.
The prospect of another Trump administration has ignited fears among scientists about the potential impact on climate and environmental policies. Trump previously dismissed climate change as a “hoax” and withdrew the United States from the Paris climate agreement. He has also suggested a key role in his administration for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a vocal vaccine skeptic, raising concerns about future public health initiatives.
Nobel Laureate Fraser Stoddart, who left the United States last year and currently chairs the chemistry department at the University of Hong Kong, expressed his dismay, stating, “In my long life of 82 years … there has hardly been a day when I felt more sad. I’ve witnessed something that I feel is extremely bad, not just for the United States, but for all of us in the world.”
Michael Lubell, a physicist at the City College of New York who closely monitors federal science policy, highlighted the profound implications of Trump’s win. Lubell warned that Trump’s return could fuel increased skepticism towards scientists who play a vital role in managing public health and environmental policy within the federal government. “I am shocked, but not surprised,” he told Nature, “given how polarized US politics are right now.”
The global scientific community is echoing these concerns. “We need to be ready for a new world,” said Grazyna Jasienska, a longevity researcher at Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland. “I am trying to be optimistic, but it is hard to find any positive aspects for global science and public health if Republicans take over.”
Tulio de Oliveira, a virologist from South Africa, even encouraged scientists to consider relocating, posting on social media, “With the changes around the world, you may want to relocate to one of the best Universities in [South Africa] in one of the world’s most beautiful regions!”
An anonymous U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official expressed trepidation about the potential impact of a new Trump administration on environmental regulation. The official stated, “Starting now, we are going to need brave people, people willing to push back, protect the vulnerable, and do what’s right over what’s easy. We do have to remember what’s right. And what’s right is protecting public health and the environment.”
Despite the prevailing anxieties, some members of the scientific community remain hopeful that Trump might embrace a more evidence-based approach during this term. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, told Nature, “I hope we can convince the Trump administration to adopt a bold evidence-based science agenda and to hire people who are skilled and competent to implement it.” Reflecting on Trump’s previous administration, Benjamin noted that Trump initially had capable scientists on his team but often undermined them, particularly during the federal response to COVID-19.
However, a few researchers expressed some understanding for Trump’s appeal among a segment of the public. Sheila Jasanoff, a social scientist at Harvard University, suggested that Trump’s popularity highlighted a fundamental disconnect between academic researchers and many Republican voters. “Trump’s victory illustrates a fundamental disconnect,” Jasanoff said, adding that bridging this divide might require “social engagement and likely humility” from scientists.
Several researchers are also concerned that Trump’s rhetoric may continue to erode public trust in science. Lisa Schipper, a geographer specializing in climate change vulnerability at the University of Bonn in Germany, remarked, “Perhaps one of my biggest worries … is that Trump will be another nail in the coffin for trust in science.” Schipper’s concerns reflect the broader apprehension about how this presidency could impact perceptions of scientific authority.
Not all scientists expressed dismay at Trump’s victory. César Monroy-Fonseca, chief scientific officer at Seele Neuroscience in Mexico City, told Nature he views Trump as “the lesser of the evils,” citing the importance of U.S. policies for the Mexican economy. Monroy-Fonseca’s support highlights the complex interplay between scientific concerns and other factors, such as economics and security, that influence perspectives within the scientific community.
