Superposition Vol 1.2

A lot has changed in the world since our first (new) Superposition a couple weeks ago, but we are here, and for now that is enough. 

There are still plenty of things to look forward to, however: one of them being the debut of a Superposition column called “Tony’s Book Corner,” starring JDI’s very own Tony Fassi. Tony once got a single wish from a genie, and (not believing the genie to be real), asked for the superpower of reading books at the speed of light. As you may have already guessed, the genie was in fact real, and though Tony instantly regretted not wishing for something more outlandish and cool, his loss is our gain in this specific circumstance.

Thanks for being here with us.

As Trump and his gaggle of Muskovites return to office, most of the scientific community is bracing for what the administration will bring. Among the priorities being pushed are massive cuts to and restructuring of federal agencies, with particular targets set on essential science organizations like the NIH, FDA, CDC, NOAA, and the nation’s research universities and institutions. 

Already in the first week, Trump has begun the not-unexpected process of removing the US from the WHO and Paris Climate Agreement. And although our international partnerships and alliances are the first to receive the wrecking ball, our domestic science organizations and policies are undoubtedly next up on the Executive Order rollercoaster. So far we’ve gotten the very un-Elon order to end the EV mandate, and a demand to dismantle wind turbines to save the birds (or more likely, the birdies).

It’s not enough that our scientific agencies are poised to be led by conspiracy peddlers and folks hostile to their missions, but those same appointees are actively profiting from the campaigns to undermine science-based solutions– even more so now that it seems we’ve completely eschewed any notion of conflict-of-interest divestment. Between RFK Jr making money from vaccine lawsuits and Surgeon General nominee Janette Nesheiwat shilling supplements, we might as well give each cabinet position a memecoin to rugpull. Meanwhile, Grandma will be paying more for Medicare prescriptions, but I’m sure Dr. Oz has some alternatives to sell her. 

But enough ranting– we’ll have to keep our rage reserves full to ration out appropriately over the next four years.  

More important is actually facing the political realities in which the science community now finds itself. While that will certainly include plenty of resistance to anti-science, anti-climate, and anti-public health policies, we also need to recognize that the world keeps turning and we must also move forward. 

In fact, we need to consider that perhaps the binaries of pro- or anti-science/climate/etc aren’t even the right framework for navigating the realities of this new administration. After all, RFK’s science (or lack thereof) may be absurd when it comes to understanding vaccines, but his crusade against our processed food industry is something long overdue. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, I guess?

So we shouldn’t expect the next four years to simply be anti-science, but rather a nestbed of chaos and contradictions that we’ll need to work through (and even work with).

A New Posture For Science

In an editorial published after the election, Nature intoned that “the research community must engage with the new administration with courage, tenacity, strength and unity,” by “continuing to speak facts to power.”

Suppose we were to answer Nature’s call– what should scientific communication look like in the face of both policymakers who place ideology above evidence and a public environment flooded with bad faith interpretations (let alone direct disinformation about science)?  

For one thing, we can’t think of science as above or outside public engagement. Science cannot become the language of “the elite.” It needs to build more bridges into more communities, and speak to direct, real-world concerns. It can’t turn its nose up at the American public’s growing disregard for facts while insisting that science is not political. Science itself may not be inherently political, but science has certainly been politicized. That’s unfortunate, and it also creates an opportunity.

Right now, the public is arguably more curious about science than at any point in the past 50 years, even if trust in scientists has declined. People recognize that our systems (like healthcare) are falling short, and are eager for new solutions amid an exciting explosion of new bioscience possibilities. That leaves a lot of room for charlatans to take advantage of the public’s questioning, and when the science community fails to engage (or worse, dismisses those questions outright), misinformation will fill the void. If the science community can fortify its reputation as a change agent, it can have a powerful voice in the conversations that will define not just the next four years, but a lot of our policy moving forward. 

Science needs advocates of all types, but most of all, it needs clear and realistic communication about what we know and what we don’t know. Admitting what science doesn’t know is, of course, risky to many science professionals because it will be taken advantage of by those seeking to undermine or manipulate research for their own agendas. But as we’ve seen with everything from climate change to the Covid response, not engaging transparently to genuine (and sometimes even disingenuous) questions only undermines public trust.

The politics, policies, and communication of science are messy and have real-world consequences on our lives and society. The discourse on social media discards uncertainty and nuance, but science must not fall into the trap of following suit. We must advocate for solutions (and even radical changes) based on what we currently know. The science community needs to acknowledge and set expectations that our knowledge will evolve and change.

An Entrepreneurial Imperative

The other major communication challenge that science faces in the coming years is the expected privatization of some (potentially many) science and research programs that are currently publicly administered. Any such transition will also be messy, but means that the science community will need to entrepreneurially step up, lest more dubious private actors fill those vacuums. 

Let’s take NOAA as an example here. It has emerged as a specific target for either commercialization or to be spun out as a more politically-influenced independent agency. Although most of the conversation around its privatization has focused on the impact for weather forecasting services, NOAA also oversees a great deal of vital environmental data and research efforts, ranging from coastal and fishery management to support for international shipping. 

Should the agency become more commercialized, we can expect more public-private partnerships similar to what we’ve seen with NASA. I’m sure that’s only one vein of the federal goldmine that the owner of the world’s largest satellite constellation company is looking to mine. 

And speaking of mining, we can probably expect a new NOAA to put even more emphasis on extracting deep sea resources. This will be a classic opportunity vs opposition moment for the science community. The seabed minerals are critical to scaling the energy transition, but the environmental concerns need to be taken into consideration as well. While we would expect this administration to run roughshod into the oceans to extract whatever value it can, this is very much a long-term project and any company involved will need to move with the recognition that their technology and approach needs to have an equally long-term vision.  

The biggest threat, however, remains to basic research funding, especially as priorities are anticipated to shift to more commercialized and applied technologies. But even with this, the chaos monkeys are not setting up a simple black-and-white situation. Disease research may take an extreme funding hit, but at the same time, the investments in AI could accelerate bio breakthroughs. The science community will be faced with any number of Operation Warp Speed-style contradictions over the next four years, and we can’t just dismiss those opportunities outright. 

While the science community should be skeptical of these reorganizational efforts, and be prepared to resist them wherever makes sense, it also shouldn’t view the shake up as purely an either/or scenario. There's an opportunity to accelerate scientific discovery in the chaos, and a moral obligation to pursue it. 

Certainly, some of the scientific bureaucracy could stand to be shaken up, whether that means how we allocate breakthrough research funding, or the evolution of regulations in order to meet current challenges. 

So even as the science community resists the destructive dismantling of essential programs, it also needs to be actively involved in what may replace them. We need to understand the changes as opportunities to operate and communicate differently– and perhaps more effectively.

Science as Science

It’s tempting to throw trite talking points and slogans back at those who seek to undermine science. But we can’t simply rely on mantras like “follow the science” to change minds and promote scientifically rigorous agendas. It’s not naive to believe we can still galvanize the public behind good science because today's breakthroughs are exciting and full of meaningful opportunities that can impact our lives. 

It would, however, be a mistake to attempt to impose science upon the public as truth or fact, rather than as a nonstop process of discovery. In an era defined by negative partisanship, any effort exerted in the war on facts is met with equal and opposite force. Science has an alternative this time: to present itself transparently for what it is– a powerful source of exciting discoveries, and a continual pursuit to expand human knowledge with evidenced-based progress. And, perhaps most importantly, a catalyst for radical change.

How Watch Duty’s wildfire tracking app became a crucial lifeline for LA

Watch Duty emerged as the essential app for communities during the LA wild fires, and we especially appreciate founder John Mills’ commitment to keeping the app a free, non-profit, and citizen-sourced system. In an age where government and commercial solutions often fail us, it’s encouraging to remember how much we can accomplish as a community. Much like the Covid Tracking Project, though we shouldn’t have to rely so much on the public to spearhead these initiatives, we should celebrate and support those who step up to lead the necessary work.

We’ll highlight some of your answers from our previous question (who is your science person of the year) in our next issue. 

This week, we’re curious: what is one of the most interesting books you’ve recently read?

Tony’s Book Corner

While Neal Stephenson is most readily recognized as a master of speculative sci-fi, with his latest novel, Polostan, he reminds us that he is also an adroit and entertaining writer of historical fiction. 

Polostan, set in the US and the Soviet Union of the 1920s and 1930s, follows the adventures of Dawn Rae Bjornberg – the daughter of a communist, Russian father and a swashbuckling cowgirl of an American mother. Over the course of her travels across the US and the incipient Soviet Union, our delightfully vulnerable and charismatic protagonist rides the rails with Old Left activists of the sort Woody Guthrie sang about, runs guns with the help of Al Capone's Chicago mob, catches the eye of a young George Patton, and is suspected of spying for the Americans. After being tortured, and then cleared, she is enlisted as a spy by Lavrentiy Beria, the abhorrent head of Stalin's secret police. 

We are introduced to Russian and American scientists who are trying to explain the origin of cosmic rays and engage in high-altitude balloon research. These scientific and technical scenes are as engaging as any fan of Stephenson's more speculative fiction will have come to expect. Delightfully, what really makes Polostan worth reading is the author's attention to character and narrative development. 

Whether you are a fan of Stephenson's science fiction or new to him altogether, Polostan is a treat. It's the first part of a multivolume work (Bomb Light), and while I will eagerly anticipate the next installment, I also found Polostan engaging enough to stand on its own.

Next time on Superposition: “We need less discarding of ideas because ‘that will never work’ and more exploration of ‘But what if it does!’”

Superposition is a production of JDI, designed and written by Shanna Gerlach and Doug Freeman