What she said (below)... I couldn't have said it better. I will be marching tomorrow for the same reasons.
On 19 Apr 2017, at 18:40, Rachel Blakey <rachelvbla...@gmail.com> wrote: Dear ECOLOG-ers, I’m Rachel, an early-career ecologist from Australia about to start my second postdoc in the U.S. I am starting this thread in response to several emails on the list where people are making arguments about why we, as scientists, should not march for science. It’s clear that the March for Science (https://www.marchforscience.com/) signifies different things to different people. This is OK, it’s what happens when we are building a diverse political movement, and these discussions are all part of it. Given this diversity of opinions, I thought it would be useful to share why many of us will be marching for science on Saturday.* I will start out with my opinion, but I hope that many of you will also share yours. * I am marching to protest the game-changing environmental policies of President Trump that not only affect the US but the world. Trump’s administration has denied the science behind climate change and is taking steps to exit the Paris Agreement while removing regulations on fossil fuels to allow big polluters free reign. Furthermore, he is dismantling the EPA and is scaling back NASA’s earth science program, hampering our abilities to monitor, research and respond to global environmental change. As scientists, we are not only fighting for our jobs but for the future of the planet. Bad environmental policies are not limited to the Trump administration, so I am also marching to demand the following from global governments: broad-scale emissions reductions, transition to renewable energy, science-based decision making, science-based natural resource management and an increased investment in biodiversity conservation, including expansion of protected areas. The vagaries of the global market are not a viable substitute for evidence-based decision-making when it comes to preserving the future of our planet. I also wanted to address the concerns about the March for Science being a protest. There seems to be a lot of concern about protests being ineffectual and many insist that the March for Science is not a protest. As a woman, it is close to home for me: the suffragettes protested and even died, so that one day I could get my PhD. Without the civil rights movement, we would not have the African American scientists who contributed blood banks, open heart surgery and the NASA advancements shown in *Hidden Figures*. Forty-seven years ago, on what we now know as “earth day” (that we have co-opted for the March for Science this year), 20 million Americans protested, demanding better protection for the environment. These protests spurred changes such as the creation of the EPA and legislation to protect air, water and endangered species. Forty-seven years later, we must mobilise again to protect these hard-won gains. However, a protest in itself is not everything. We must see this protest as a first step in galvanizing and rebuilding the global environment movement. All of the alternatives to the March for Science proposed by ECOLOG-ers are also important components of this movement. As scientists, we need to work together, focus on our common goals and support each other because we have a big task ahead of us. As an applied scientist, who asks questions that concern environmental management and conservation, I often feel that I am “fiddling while Rome burns”. I think that for our work to be relevant and important, we need to engage with the community, our stakeholders *and* in politics. If we stand by while climate change is admonished and even the flat earth society is re-emerging, we have failed ourselves and we have failed our community. *I would love to hear from fellow ECOLOG-ers about why they will march for science on Saturday, please reply to the thread!* Cheers, Rachel V. Blakey University of New South Wales Australia/California, US
