Well, enough said. Thank you Rachel for your words. I really have the same feelings. With a lot of respect, I want to share my two main reasons to support the March for Science tomorrow in Buenos Aires, Argentina:
1. As scientists, we provide invaluable services to the society, as writers, painters or musicians. Nobody would tolerate any reduction in the quantity, or quality, of the arts, because our society is based on it, so, in the same way, nobody should tolerate a devaluation in the quantity or quality of science, because important decisions of our society are based on scientific progress. 2. Because the correct functioning of the sciences depend on people, we should not compromise the free movement of scientists in the world. We, as scientists, although we are persons too, feel very comfortable among scientists, regardless of the place, and we must fight to continue experiencing these good feelings, because only under comfortable atmospheres scientific progress can continue. So, I will be marching tomorrow along with some good colleagues and friends. Thank you. > On 21 Apr 2017, at 12:23, Judith Weis <jw...@newark.rutgers.edu> wrote: > > http://easthamptonstar.com/Opinion/2017420/Why-We-March-Science-Judith-S-Weis > <http://easthamptonstar.com/Opinion/2017420/Why-We-March-Science-Judith-S-Weis> > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> on behalf of Lee O'Brien <colobr...@bajabb.com> > Sent: Friday, April 21, 2017 1:25:48 PM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Why we will March for Science > > 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/ <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 Sergio -------------- "There are no foreign lands. It is the traveler only who is foreign”. Robert Louis Stevenson
