We just completed one year since the first March for Science (MfS) – on 22nd April, 2017. It was special because it was the first ever time there was a concerted voice from across the world to stand up for science. Much of the push then was from the USA due to huge budget cuts for academic research, which seemed to reach its worst after the new President took office in late 2016. But it took that one lead for many countries across the world to organize their own marches. The reasons varied – some marched for raising concerns on reducing the budget for science and research, some for more evidence-based thinking, and some to bridge science and society – depending on each country’s needs.
Post-April 2017, the USA Congress was able to rebuff most of the budget cuts asked for by the President. There are good chances, though not definitive, that the MfS helped in building oneness in the scientific community to stand up for their demands and also sensitize public towards their demands. Fast forward to one year later, there are still countries where budget cuts continue in research – India being one of them or evidence-based thinking is glaring at face. One of the questions that one often thinks about is what good are these marches in solving these issues. The most sympathetic answer is that social changes are slow. So, in many parts of the world – this year on the 14th of April, people took to MfS again. The number of marchers went down all across the world, possibly much of the glamor of the march has worn off for most. So, I rather look at the March for Science this year as a step of perseverance. Now stripped off the paparazzi, it is a platform for those who believe in standing up for their cause beyond being amazed by the novelty.
Now for the persevering marchers for science, is it sufficient to showcase the lack of government’s understanding of academia, its support for exploratory research or emphasize on evidence-based thinking? In my opinion, this has to be a two-way process. The marchers need to bring out what is lacking in the academic system. Along with government support, equally amiss are well-targeted efforts from the academicians to reach out to the public effectively. The two together are a vicious circle. While many academic systems do not openly talk about their responsibilities towards the society concretely, I find it endearing to follow a German university town – Göttingen’s example trendsetting.
I was in Göttingen last year when they participated in the first MfS, which looked like most of its global counterparts. There was a peaceful procession where the marchers spoke of the merits of science and connect the ivory towers of academia with rest of the society. The march this year again looked very similar. But what differed are the activities in between. The Göttingers have actively engaged in working towards open science movement to make scientific research findings accessible to all. And possibly consequently, this year’s opening speech to the participants of the MfS by the University Vice President also dwelled on the importance of open science. The MfS, Göttingen organizers acknowledge the shortcomings in academia that call for its own downfall. This, to me, is hugely different from the other parts of the world where MfS seems to put all/most of the blame on the governing bodies. I agree that support from the German Government in academic sciences has been reasonable. But I wonder if history, too, plays a huge role in Germany’s sense of accountability in many aspects – science being just one of them.
Göttingen, the Stadt die Wissenschaft (literally translates into the City of Science or the City that makes Knowledge) has long been a melting pot of academics from different streams working together and has more than 50 Nobel laureates associated with it. A city that was renowned for its science until the first half of the twentieth century saw the World War II rob it of many of its stalwarts, including those in science. It learned the hard way that politics leaves nothing unscathed, and it takes decades to build back the prowess lost.
The demographics in Göttingen, and Germany, in general, are changing. The country is fast getting populated with people from different countries and hail from varied socio-economic backgrounds – a noteworthy change in the last fifty years. All across the world, we have seen the challenges in maintaining harmony in a diverse society, irrespective of its economic standing. It is only heartening that majority of the country actively stands for the inclusion of diversity in social, economic, academic, political fronts. To me, this signifies their lessons from the past.
Maybe it is a part of this culture that motivated the science students and scientists to participate in MfS more for better connecting with the society rather than any other demands. A healthy discussion with society cannot be unidirectional. Academics need to understand just as much why society doesn’t feel the need to support science. To earn public support, academics need to view their scientific pursuits beyond the lens of fulfilling their intellectual obsessions. There are enough research questions that fall in the overlapping domain of the two that can be pursued by many researchers. However, researchers who might want to take up the unconventional academic questions might not always be equally appreciated. India serves as an interesting example where many older researchers put an impetus on studying Indian flora and fauna – to unravel many of the mysteries of life hidden in them. However interesting the questions might be, the existing evaluation mechanisms based on citations will fail these early researchers until there is a big enough community of people pursuing the field.
The onus is on the research community to align its mechanisms with the social responsibilities it carries – just as much as government should while funding exploratory academic pursuits. I hope the marches happen each year so that both, academicians and government evaluate each other’s contributions towards a better society. Only then, there will be March for Science and not March for Scientists.
About the author: Somdatta Karak, Ph.D. works as a science communicator at Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, India. She has been a Teach for India fellow. Her main interests are bridging the scientific fraternity with young students, industries, policymakers and general public. Follow her on Twitter.
Cover art: The cover image was designed by Vinita Bharat, Ph.D. Follow her work as Fuzzy Synapse at Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter.
Acknowledgments: Sincere thanks to The Science Times CSG team on Instagram who make interesting science available to public and scientists, and to Ms. Yuko Maeda for providing me with the content on the 2018 MfS at Göttingen.
