April 22, 2017. This year’s Earth Day saw people around the world take to the streets in support of the inaugural March for Science.
The flagship march took place in Washington DC, with teach-ins and appearances by noteworthy scientists and science communicators. Over 500 satellite marches were registered around the globe, with the bulk occurring in the United States and across Europe.
Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, the pediatrician who was named one of Time Magazine’s Most Influential People of 2016 for her role in exposing lead poisoning in Flint, Michigan, spoke at the Washington march and called it ‘the beginning of a movement to ensure that governments do not dismiss or deny science’.
The rally aimed to be political but non-partisan, advocating for evidence-based policy and public funding for research. Nevertheless, the leftist bent was impossible to deny: the March for Science was initially conceived as a response to the onslaught of anti-science antagonism—from billions in proposed research budget cuts to climate change denial and dismantling of environmental regulations—that has issued from the fledgling Trump administration.
Some worry that the protest runs the risk of allying science with the liberal agenda, and therefore justifying its exclusion from conservative policies. The follow-on consequences of politicizing the scientific method are grave. Without question, science should be considered an essential (and impartial) component of every policy, not derided as an obstruction—or worse, a lobby group.
Supporters of the March for Science praise the demonstration for raising awareness about the importance of scientific research as well as the plight of science funding on the chopping block. There is no doubt that a public gathering of like-minded people will engender feelings of rousing passion and solidarity, perhaps even progress.
So what did this march actually achieve? It’s too early to say, but any real change largely depends on how the participants continue to involve themselves long after the march is over. Back in 2014, Moisés Naím hit the nail on the head when he characterised the masses of outraged protesters as an engine. When the aggregated desire for change isn’t followed up with a concrete plan for sustaining protesters’ involvement in the political process, ‘the engine is not connected to wheels, and so the “movement” doesn’t move’.
To effect lasting change, the well-intentioned outrage of the marchers must be channelled into the direct, often dull work of applying political pressure to key decision makers. Contacting representatives, participating in local decision making, fundraising, and voting are concrete actions that can lead to equally concrete outcomes, but these require diligence for greater than a single day’s marching.
As coastal geologist Dr. Robert Young wrote in his New York Times op-ed back in January, ‘We need storytellers, not marchers. If tens of thousands of us show up, it will simply increase the size of the echo chamber.’
Perhaps the next Earth Day will be better spent organizing teams of strategists and asking the writers of witty signs to apply their talents toward more tangible outcomes.
Little Blue Dot Press 