Why We March for Science

Since the March for Science began, many of our members have been extremely concerned about the problematic discourses that have come from the March for Science organization and many of their supporters. These discourses attempt to shut down marginalized scientists (#marginsci) and underrepresented minority (#URM) voices, dismiss social sciences and social scientists, and claim that the march is not-and should not-be political.

After discussing these issues in one of our meetings in February, two members wrote a response to these  discourses. This response was open for comment and shared with our membership to educate about the March for Science conversations, support #marginsci and #URM, set goals for ourselves as a local pod, and state why we are marching for science. 

So when we say we are marching for science, that means we march to support: 

  • Funding for the sciences- no budget cuts to NOAA, EPA, NSF, NIH, NEA, and NEH
  • Listening to and taking actions in support of marginsci and URM voices in science
  • Fair and equitable opportunities in the sciences
  • Stronger science education in schools
  • Listening to the evidence on climate change, social inequality, women’s health, etc. 
  • Our science colleagues and students affected by the Muslim ban

500 Women Scientists Write Seattle Times OpEd

On February 20th, the Seattle Times published the OpEd, As EPA head, Scott Pruitt must act on climate change, written by Seattle pod members Sarah Myhre, Jane Zelikova, and Kelly Fleming. The authors challenged Pruitt to use his position to accept climate science and work in the best interest of all the citizens of the United States. 

As the authors state:

Continuing to “debate” the existence and causes of climate change hurts the American people. It is intellectually dishonest. It is irresponsible. Here is the truth about science: You cannot pick and choose the science that is convenient for you. You cannot reject physical science about climate change, only to enjoy the computer in your pocket, the clean water in your bathroom, or the antibiotics at the pharmacy.

We encourage more scientists to speak out in support of evidence-based environmental policy.