Science as a Public Good: Findings From a Survey of March for Science Participants

Abstract

On April 22, 2017, millions of people marched for science in response to a growing sense of urgency for preserving scientific funding and knowledge, both perceived as threatened by the Trump administration. This research note highlights data collected at three marches: Washington, D.C.; Los Angeles, California; and Austin, Texas. We examine marcher motivations for participation, finding the environment, current administration, and science funding were most prevalent. Furthermore, we find the majority of marchers support stances that position science as public good, including the belief that science informs responsible government policies and the support of government investments in science.

Keywords

March for Science public goods science activists Trump administration climate change

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Altman

D. G.

(1991). Practical statistics for medical research. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Antonelli

(2005). Models of knowledge and systems of governance. Journal of Institutional Economics, 1(1), 51-73.

Archibugi

Filippetti

(2015). Knowledge as global public good. In Archibugi

Filippetti

(Eds.), The handbook of global science, technology, and innovation (pp. 477-503). Chichester, England: Wiley.

Atkin

(2017, March 7). The EPA’s science office removed “science” from its mission statement. New Republic. Retrieved from https://newrepublic.com/article/141174/epas-science-office-removed-science-mission-statement

Barrow

Mark

(2001). Naturalists as conservationists: American scientists, social responsibility, and political activism before the bomb. In Allen

G. E.

MacLeod

R. M.

(Eds.), Science, history and social activism: A tribute to Everett Mendelsohn (pp. 217-234). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Bolsen

Druckman

J. N.

Cook

F. L.

(2014). Communication and collective actions: A survey experiment on motivating energy conservation in the U.S. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1, 24-38. doi:10.1017/xps.2014.2

Bolton

(2017, January 19). Trump team prepares dramatic cuts. The Hill. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/policy/finance/314991-trump-team-prepares-dramatic-cuts

Boroush

(2013, December). US R&D resumes growth in 2011 and 2012, ahead of the pace of the gross domestic product. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science & Engineering Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf14307/

Boyer

(1984). From activism to apathy: The American people and nuclear weapons, 1963-1980. Journal of American History, 70, 821-844. doi:10.2307/1899750

10.

By the Numbers. (n.d.). In March for Science. Accessed on April 24, 2017 from https://www.marchforscience.com/by-the-numbers

11.

Butler

(2008). Mall intercept survey. In Lavrakas

P. J.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods (pp. 448-449). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Callon

(1994). Is science a public good? Fifth Mullins Lecture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 23 March 1993. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 19, 395-424.

13.

Carson

(1962). Silent spring. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

14.

DiChristopher

(2017, November 22). Climate change deniers are plotting Trump’s path to the holy grail of deregulation. CNBC. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/22/climate-change-deniers-plot-trumps-path-to-deregulation.html

15.

Emam

K. E.

(1999). Benchmarking Kappa: Interrater agreement in software process assessments. Empirical Software Engineering, 4, 113-133.

16.

Frickel

(2004). Just science? Organizing scientist activism in the US environmental justice movement. Science as Culture, 13, 449-469. doi:10.1080/0950543042000311814

17.

Gauchat

(2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77, 167-187.

18.

Gay

(2012). Before and after Silent Spring: From chemical pesticides to biological control and integrated pest management—Britain, 1945–1980. Ambix, 59, 88-108.

19.

Greenwood

Riordan

D. G.

(2001). Civic scientist/civic duty. Science Communication, 23(1), 28-40.

20.

Horton

C. C.

Peterson

T. R.

Banerjee

Peterson

M. J.

(2015). Credibility and advocacy in conservation science. Conservation Biology, 30(1), 23-32. doi:10.1111/cobi.12558

21.

Kahn

Magill

(2016, November 23). A Trump budget could decimate climate funding. Climate Central. Retrieved from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/trump-budget-climate-funding-20907

22.

Kotcher

J. E.

Myers

T. A.

Vraga

E. K.

Stenhouse

Maibach

E. W.

(2017). Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environmental Communication, 11, 415-429.

23.

Kuznick

P. J.

(2004). Scientists on the stump. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 60, 28-35. doi:10.2968/060006009

24.

Lackey

R. T.

(2007). Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 12-17.

25.

Lackey

R. T.

(2016). Keep science and scientists credible: avoid stealth policy advocacy. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of Australia, 46, 14-15.

26.

Landis

J. R.

Koch

G. G.

(1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 159-174.

27.

Lane

N. F.

(1997, June). An open letter to scientists and engineers: Let’s get the word out together about why science matters. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation Office of Legislative and Public Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/media/nlaaultr.htm

28.

Letzter

(2017, January 24). The EPA, which protects Americans from poison and pollution, has been frozen under Trump. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/epa-freeze-trump-2017-1

29.

Liptak

Acosta

(2017, June 2). Trump on Paris accord: “We’re getting out.” CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/trump-paris-climate-decision/index.html

30.

Lubchenco

(1998). Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science, 279, 491-497.

31.

March for Science. (2017, May 15). The science behind the March for Science [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://medium.com/marchforscience-blog/the-science-behind-the-march-for-science-crowd-estimates-f337adf2d665

32.

March for Science Mission. (n.d.). March for Science. Retrieved on April 24, 2017 from https://www.marchforscience.com/mission

33.

Meyer

J. L.

Frumhoff

P. C.

Hamburg

S. P.

de la Rosa

(2010). Above the din but in the fray: Environmental scientists as effective advocates. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 299-305.

34.

Miller

J. M.

Krosnick

J. A.

(2004). Threat as a motivator of political activism: A field experiment. Political Psychology, 25, 507-523.

35.

Mooney

(2017, April 22). Historians say the March for Science is “pretty unprecedented.” Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/22/historians-say-the-march-for-science-is-pretty-unprecedented/?utm_term=.1cccb8499d1c

36.

Mooney

Dennis

Mufson

(2016). Trump names Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma attorney general suing EPA on climate change, to head the EPA. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/07/trump-names-scott-pruitt-oklahoma-attorney-general-suing-epa-on-climate-change-to-head-the-epa/?utm_term=.63a14f084b44

37.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

38.

Nelson

M. P.

Vucetich

J. A.

(2009). On advocacy by environmental scientists: What, whether, why, and how. Conservation Biology, 23, 1090-1101.

39.

Pew Research Center. (2015). Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/

40.

Pew Research Center. (2016). The politics of climate. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/#

41.

Pielke

R. A.

Jr. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

42.

Reardon

Tollefson

Witze

Ross

(2017). US science agencies face deep cuts in Trump budget. Nature, 543, 471-472.

43.

Rest

K. M.

Halpern

M. H.

(2007). Politics and the erosion of federal scientific capacity: Restoring scientific integrity to public health science. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 1939-1944.

44.

Robison

(2016). The social rewards of engagement: Appealing to social motivations to stimulate political interest at high and low levels of external efficacy. Political Studies, 65, 24-41. doi:10.1177/0032321715619431

45.

Sides

(2015, June 10). Why Congress should not cut funding to the social sciences. Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/06/10/why-congress-should-not-cut-funding-to-the-social-sciences/?utm_term=.a62ccb3e5b93

46.

Smith-Spark

Hanna

(2017, April 22). March for Science: Protesters gather worldwide to support “evidence.” CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/22/health/global-march-for-science/index.html

47.

Sneed

(2017, April 21). The March for Science is just the first step. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-march-for-science-is-just-the-first-step/

48.

Suhay

Druckman

J. N.

(2015). The politics of science: Political values and the production, communication, and reception of scientific knowledge. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 6-15. doi:10.1177/0002716214559004

49.

UNESCO. (1999). Declaration on science and the use of scientific knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/eng/declaration_e.htm

50.

Van Stekelenburg

Klandermans

. (2017). Individuals in movements: A social psychology of contention. In Roggeband

Klandermans

(Eds.), Handbook of social movements across disciplines (pp. 103-139). New York, NY: Springer.

51.

Van Stekelenburg

Klandermans

Van Dijk

W. W

. (2009). Context matters: Explaining how and why mobilizing context influences motivational dynamics. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 815-838.

52.

Van Stekelenburg

Klandermans

Van Dijk

W. W

. (2011). Combining motivations and emotion: The motivational dynamics of collective action participation. Revista de Psicologìa Social, 26(1), 91-104.

53.

Walgrave

Verhulst

(2011). Selection and response bias in protest surveys. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 16, 203-222.

54.

Wilholt

(2010). Scientific freedom: Its grounds and their limitations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 41, 174-181. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.03.003