Well worth reading this short piece by Josh Lawlor and colleagues: "Federal scientists, a great American invention: a letter to our federal colleagues". It's a beautiful thank you to US federal scientists. 10,109 PhDs in STEM and health lost their jobs in 2025 alone -- 17% of the workforce gone in a single year. These people have “changed our fundamental understanding of ourselves, the environment, the planet, and the universe and, in the process, have inspired generations of Americans”. I’ll never quite understand the motivations behind attacking science in this way. It’s a short but powerful reflection — well worth your time.
Submitted my comment and alerted both senators re the OMB rule. my message:
"This rule will kill scientific research in the US. It states:
"One or more senior political appointees designated by their agency head must conduct “a pre-issuance review” of all discretionary grants, making sure they follow several principles, including to “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”"
I submitted a comment today. The text follows.
"This rule subjects every research grant to review by a political appointee who will likely lack qualifications to understand the proposals. This is yet another misguided attempt to throttle scientific research in the US. It effectively kills the goose that lays golden eggs. it will make us less safe, less profitable and less competitive in the international sphere. Moreover it makes our country more ignorant, which seems to be the Trump Republican Regime's primary goal.
It is, like former attempts, susceptible to junk science advocates and misguided underlings who rely on results of a keyword search without considering context.
Reject this ill-considered rule."
Russell Vought must be exposed for the villain that he is."
"Political interference in science discovery is what lead the USSR straight into the Chernobyl disaster. Learn the lessons of history and let scientists decide what science to pursue."
Political control of science always begins the same way: by claiming it's merely about "priorities"—and ends with inconvenient facts no longer receiving funding.
Good article, packed full of valuable information. It's especially good news about the rapid energy transition in Australia. They serve as a role model for the rest of the world.
I’m an editor and I regularly edit academic texts. Last week a 60 page grant proposal to a US government funding agency landed on my desk. It was a great proposal, clearly thought out, seeking funding for a very necessary academic training program. The topic was clearly about a societal impact of climate change. The authors tied themselves up in linguistic knots in their attempt to not use the words ‘climate change’ or anything related. My heart broke for these hard working and clearly ethically driven academics trying to work in a political climate in which their grant proposal could well be tossed aside for mentioning the C words. I would be interested to know how many grant proposals mention climate change this year, relative to previous years.
It’s so good to hear what other counties are getting done. It’s inspiring and something that hasn’t been done much in the past. We’re all in this together!! No one gets left out.
Thank you so much for your positivity in this sometimes grim space. I really like your portmanteau of scilencing and thoroughly welcome the good news you find - I'm so thankful that at least NOAA had been continued, for now.
Thanks for the numerous stories and facts showing that renewable power is the econmically prudent way forward. Fossil fuels are being shown costlier in dollars as well as health for people and the natural environment. May politicians add this fact to their platforms. Five months to make rational changes with emotional rhetoric.
When I visited Beijng in 2009 to give a series of lectures on musical and cultural sustainability, there was a law that automobiles could drive on certain days, not all days, on account of the massive air pollution. If your license plate ended in an add number, you could drive on, say, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; if you had an odd number it was Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. The air was so polluted that after only a few hours walking around as a tourist my eyes began to burn. It's interesting to hear that China has been taking global heating very seriously and doing some things to reverse it even as it continues to mine and burn coal.
Climate advocacy that does not account for whether future people enter political systems with sufficient conditions for equal influence is itself reproducing illegitimate valuation. There is a way forward.
The conclusion to draw from today's letter is this:
The fossil fuel industry is in a fight for its very existence, and the gloves — and the mask — are off.
It's time for the rest of us to stop bringing knives to a gunfight.
It's on.
Well worth reading this short piece by Josh Lawlor and colleagues: "Federal scientists, a great American invention: a letter to our federal colleagues". It's a beautiful thank you to US federal scientists. 10,109 PhDs in STEM and health lost their jobs in 2025 alone -- 17% of the workforce gone in a single year. These people have “changed our fundamental understanding of ourselves, the environment, the planet, and the universe and, in the process, have inspired generations of Americans”. I’ll never quite understand the motivations behind attacking science in this way. It’s a short but powerful reflection — well worth your time.
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fee.70050
Submitted my comment and alerted both senators re the OMB rule. my message:
"This rule will kill scientific research in the US. It states:
"One or more senior political appointees designated by their agency head must conduct “a pre-issuance review” of all discretionary grants, making sure they follow several principles, including to “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”"
I submitted a comment today. The text follows.
"This rule subjects every research grant to review by a political appointee who will likely lack qualifications to understand the proposals. This is yet another misguided attempt to throttle scientific research in the US. It effectively kills the goose that lays golden eggs. it will make us less safe, less profitable and less competitive in the international sphere. Moreover it makes our country more ignorant, which seems to be the Trump Republican Regime's primary goal.
It is, like former attempts, susceptible to junk science advocates and misguided underlings who rely on results of a keyword search without considering context.
Reject this ill-considered rule."
Russell Vought must be exposed for the villain that he is."
Russell Vought and like Trump...........evil!!!
My comment to the feds...
"Political interference in science discovery is what lead the USSR straight into the Chernobyl disaster. Learn the lessons of history and let scientists decide what science to pursue."
I sent a comment, I said science solves human problems and problems and is vital for our shared earth! And then I attached this article! 🙋♀️
Political control of science always begins the same way: by claiming it's merely about "priorities"—and ends with inconvenient facts no longer receiving funding.
Good article, packed full of valuable information. It's especially good news about the rapid energy transition in Australia. They serve as a role model for the rest of the world.
Thwaites glacier has a crack and it's about to collapse, so sea-level rise might be several meters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz-AKBbxAR8
3.3m--horrific for many coastal cities
I’m an editor and I regularly edit academic texts. Last week a 60 page grant proposal to a US government funding agency landed on my desk. It was a great proposal, clearly thought out, seeking funding for a very necessary academic training program. The topic was clearly about a societal impact of climate change. The authors tied themselves up in linguistic knots in their attempt to not use the words ‘climate change’ or anything related. My heart broke for these hard working and clearly ethically driven academics trying to work in a political climate in which their grant proposal could well be tossed aside for mentioning the C words. I would be interested to know how many grant proposals mention climate change this year, relative to previous years.
It’s so good to hear what other counties are getting done. It’s inspiring and something that hasn’t been done much in the past. We’re all in this together!! No one gets left out.
Parking lots with solar panels like the French are doing. It’s now a law. Providing shade and power.
Thank you so much for your positivity in this sometimes grim space. I really like your portmanteau of scilencing and thoroughly welcome the good news you find - I'm so thankful that at least NOAA had been continued, for now.
Thanks for the numerous stories and facts showing that renewable power is the econmically prudent way forward. Fossil fuels are being shown costlier in dollars as well as health for people and the natural environment. May politicians add this fact to their platforms. Five months to make rational changes with emotional rhetoric.
When I visited Beijng in 2009 to give a series of lectures on musical and cultural sustainability, there was a law that automobiles could drive on certain days, not all days, on account of the massive air pollution. If your license plate ended in an add number, you could drive on, say, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday; if you had an odd number it was Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. The air was so polluted that after only a few hours walking around as a tourist my eyes began to burn. It's interesting to hear that China has been taking global heating very seriously and doing some things to reverse it even as it continues to mine and burn coal.
... ended in an even number, you could drive on, say, Monday...
Sadly, we've now got some pretty quiet scientists in Canada too - despite a former Prime Minister who vowed to let scientists speak to media again.
Birth inequity.
Climate advocacy that does not account for whether future people enter political systems with sufficient conditions for equal influence is itself reproducing illegitimate valuation. There is a way forward.