Editorial: Evidence-based policy is not a partisan issue, it’s a human one.

Ashkenase editorial
Ryan Ashkenase/THE REVIEW

Science cannot be refuted. This was the rally cry behind this past weekend’s science marches, which occurred in over 610 cities around the world.

Under the Trump administration, climate change and scientific fact have been falsely branded as “fake news.” However, scientific fact is not fake. Properly gathered data is not an opinion, nor is there room for one until further research concludes otherwise. As of now, there is no research that points to the falsifiability of climate change.

Additionally, if data does not align with a personal belief that does not mean the facts can, or should, be written off. Studies on climate change, habitat destruction, dwindling species populations and medical interventions using native plant species all underwent a rigorous, scientific process before they were even initially introduced into the public sphere. Once there, it is not a matter of whether or not the research should be taken seriously. Rather, it is a matter of how to collaborate with the science community in order to effectively and swiftly enact positive change.

This weekend’s marchers evidenced the blatant acts of hypocrisy currently being enacted by the Trump administration. A proposal that was published in March outlines plans to strip 31 percent of the current funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and cut over $5 billion from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This is only one example of a policy that presents barriers for researchers to conduct studies and limits their capacity to communicate crucial findings.

Using fact-based, objective methods of discovery to direct policies are not only in the public interest because of the environmental and health benefits that they offer, but are also key for generating economic opportunities and cultivating the general well-being of our world. Furthermore, environmental issues are usually directly related to issues regarding human rights. Minority and indigenous populations typically live in areas first affected by climate change, exacerbating the vulnerability of an already disenfranchised group. More recently, at Standing Rock, native populations have been continuously forced to confront construction of a pipeline that will further pollute their water. Additionally, the city of Flint, Michigan is still attempting to deal with the consequences of lead poisoned water. Lastly, every human being inhabits the same biosphere so turning the environment into a partisan issue serves virtually no purpose and arguing against climate change does not offer any benefits.

The importance of science in the modern world is clear; however, despite such seeming clarity, there is still much that needs to be done in order to mitigate the damage actively being perpetrated by the Trump administration — which has successfully, and unfortunately, branded itself as anti-science in almost every regard. When entities like the EPA and National Science Foundation are inappropriately questioned about their legitimacy, people who have spent their lives using pragmatic means to reach a solution are successfully disenfranchised. Scientists typically tend to remove themselves from the political sphere. Despite this, 2017 has ushered a global movement of scientists who are actively advocating for funding for science and education in this realm.

There is a quote by Ronald Reagan that has recently resurfaced proclaiming “preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative challenge, it’s common sense.”

It is resoundingly ironic to note the differences between that statement spoken by a former president — and many other former heads of state — at a time when opposing sentiments are spewed by the current president on a daily basis. These marches provided a much needed, public display for fact-based, peer reviewed policy initiatives and an intention to hold higher institutions of power accountable for their actions. It is outrageous and upsetting that, in 2017, peer-reviewed facts and scientific research must be debated and protested to remain protected.

This editorial was developed by The Review staff, led by Editorial Editor Alexandra Eichenstein and Investigative Editor Margaret McNamara.

Share This


Wordpress (2)
  • comment-avatar
    Dave 87 2 years

    ” there is no research that points to the falsifiability of climate change.” At this point, you have lost all credibility. The bulk of research points to climate change, however there is some research that does not, or points to non human origins. Whether you find this research credible is irrelevant, it does exist. Whether or not you remember that the “lead scientists” were caught falsifying data suggests that you don’t have a core base in the subject, and is clearly not unreasonable to doubt more of the source data if some of it was fouled.
    The problem is the narrative. Researchers have bias. Science deals with data, not “facts”, and data have measurement error, and computer models are subject to interpretation and fudge factors. The scientists involved have billions of research dollars as a carrot to exaggerate their claims and ridicule their detractors
    Some (OK, most) anti warmers are idiots and Luddites, but some dispute the conclusions based on real science. Remember, The “Law of Gravity” has been repealed twice.

  • comment-avatar
    Man with the Axe 2 years

    “As of now, there is no research that points to the falsifiability of climate change.”

    Can you name one potentially observable phenomenon that in your opinion if observed, would be evidence against climate change? I’ll be very surprised if you could. Would a 12-year hiatus in strong hurricanes fit? Would a long stretch of very skimpy increases in global temperature? Would annual sea level increases about exactly the same as what has been observed for the last 20,000 years, since the disappearance of the Asian land bridge? Asking for a friend.

  • Disqus ( )