Early in his second tenure, President Trump cut $1.8 billion cut to scientific research funding that will impact breakthroughs in areas like cancer and Alzheimer’s research. During that funding fight, and after the cuts came, there was shock, awe, and whiplash. Few could believe a president would go this far. 

As Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo put it:

💡
The world of biomedical research has close to no experience operating in a political context—and especially in the context of mass politics...The White House has relied on researchers’ unfamiliarity with political fights, using their sole reliance on bureaucratic channels of funding and review — which the universities and the federal government set up together going on a century ago — against them.

Marshall notes that if/when the general public finds out about what's happening to cancer and Alzheimer’s research, “[T]hey get mad. That, quite simply, is political power for good."

But the scientific community hasn’t been leveraging its political power. A pocket of the right wing, including Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, and Elon Musk, have targeted Dr. Peter Hotez, the renowned Houston physician and vaccine expert. It was part of the larger anti-vaxxer political movement that has grown considerably and begun to shift a slice of public opinion against vaccines. The percentage of Americans who believe childhood vaccinations are  important dropped 18 points in five years. That’s a spectacular drop in support from 2019 to 2024. 

Many scientists will balk at being political. But having political savvy means communicating a clear message to win people over. It means defending science from attacks 24/7 and showcasing the vital role science plays in our lives. All of this “political” work can be done without being partisan.