Speaker 1: Welcome to the nonprofits. For our second segment this week,
Speaker 1: we examined some changing priorities in the United States. This
Speaker 1: article argues that the United States, once a global leader
Speaker 1: in science and innovation, is undergoing a politically driven dismantling
Speaker 1: of its research infrastructure. Federal support for scientific research has
Speaker 1: been slashed, particularly in areas related to climate change, public health, DEI,
Speaker 1: and LGBTQ plus issues. Thousands of scientists have been fired,
Speaker 1: research grants canceled, and leadership roles handed to individuals lacking
Speaker 1: scientific credibility. To put it nicely, agencies like the EPA
Speaker 1: and ih ANDAA have been gutted, and vital programs such
Speaker 1: as climate assessments have been silenced. The US government has
Speaker 1: also cut ties with the international research partners and targeted
Speaker 1: foreign born researchers with suspicion. These moves have triggered a
Speaker 1: brain drain, with other nations recruiting displaced US scientists. The
Speaker 1: article warns that this anti science, anti intellectual cleansing threatens
Speaker 1: public health, national security, economic growth, and America's longstanding global
Speaker 1: reputation for innovation. Without course correction, the damage may be
Speaker 1: long lasting and profound, and this story is from Z
Speaker 1: Network by Mel Girtov on July twenty first, twenty twenty five. So, Cynthia,
Speaker 1: I want to go to you first here. I've always
Speaker 1: thought Cynthia, Cynthia. I've always thought Cynthia was a worthy effort.
Speaker 1: I always thought science was a worthy effort. And I'm
Speaker 1: a firm believer in the adage that knowledge is power.
Speaker 1: So what's happening here with the scientific future of America?
Speaker 2: You know, Cynthia is a worthy effort, and so a scientist.
Speaker 3: I agree, I agree.
Speaker 2: You know, But Scott, if I can to just say, like,
Speaker 2: what really I found so distressing about this article is
Speaker 2: that it reveals not just what the war on science
Speaker 2: is here, but a deeper war on truth, a deeper
Speaker 2: war on we've and the very infrastructure that supports public
Speaker 2: knowledge and well being. We are seeing it on the
Speaker 2: universities levels, Like we just covered in our first episode
Speaker 2: about a research grant being rejected by a university to
Speaker 2: study the effects of LGBTQ plus people on religious campuses.
Speaker 2: That was a scientific study and a lot of us
Speaker 2: would have been curious about what the research would reveal,
Speaker 2: but it was rejected, And we're actually seeing this on
Speaker 2: a larger scale nationwide that scientists who happened to attach
Speaker 2: themselves to universities, to colleges, and even in other private
Speaker 2: and public sectors are basically being silenced. They're funding, our
Speaker 2: is being cut and a lot of distressing things are
Speaker 2: happening within the community to the point where they say,
Speaker 2: I'm leaving here and I'm going to a different place.
Speaker 2: Is going to accept me? And this is a clear
Speaker 2: sustained political effort to dismantle the systems that allow facts
Speaker 2: to challenge power. We are witnessing what amounts to a
Speaker 2: slow motion collapse of Americans scientific leadership. Remember when that
Speaker 2: was a thing where innovation, science, garnering knowledge, passing it
Speaker 2: on to the next generation in this here United States
Speaker 2: was an actual thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, boy, it seems just like yesterday.
Speaker 2: It was yesterday, Scott, but not today. And that collapse
Speaker 2: isn't due to the lack of talent or resources. It
Speaker 2: is due to a political interference that punishes curiosity. It
Speaker 2: defunds basic research and silences the scientific voices for ideological reasons.
Speaker 2: And you know, when a regime begins to decide what
Speaker 2: scientists are allowed to study based not on evidence, but
Speaker 2: on political narratives. We have crossed into dangerous territory. This
Speaker 2: is authoritarianism. Yes, I can say that word creeping in
Speaker 2: through the back door, and it's dressed up as policy.
Speaker 1: I don't know if i'd say creeping, I say it's
Speaker 1: busting through the back door pretty loudly.
Speaker 2: You know it's it's.
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, let me really retract my last statement. It
Speaker 2: is busting through the front door, just like fly Guy
Speaker 2: from I'm going to get you Sucker with the fish
Speaker 2: Bowl Platforms, Darling.
Speaker 3: Ok sorry, sorry, please continue. You just brought an image.
Speaker 3: Do we lose, Cynthia?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 3: Still, I thought you what?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 3: No, no, I did it.
Speaker 2: I made my point. Fly Guy bustened.
Speaker 4: Through the door.
Speaker 3: Okay, all right.
Speaker 2: Hey Fishbowl platforms.
Speaker 1: I liked your I liked your phrase you use their
Speaker 1: slow motion collapse.
Speaker 3: I like, I like that. Steven, what are your thoughts
Speaker 3: on there?
Speaker 1: She's Cynthia's kind of seeing this as really shortsighted policy change, right,
Speaker 1: So so what's your take on this?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Like I've it's just continually, continually, continually feels like every
Speaker 4: week we are talking about how the powers that are
Speaker 4: be are investing in stupefying and removing access to UH information,
Speaker 4: to education, to understanding. This is something that we are
Speaker 4: seeing on a continual basis, and that means that means
Speaker 4: like practically speaking, we're going to be seeing a slower
Speaker 4: response to public crisises, whether it's the next pandemic. I
Speaker 4: have a friend who works in Canadian health here and
Speaker 4: she's I think specifically with the cd or yeah, ties
Speaker 4: to the CDC, And I said, so, what's the deal
Speaker 4: with the next pandemic coming is? She's like, no, I don't.
Speaker 4: I don't want to talk about it because they know
Speaker 4: that it's coming and they know that it's going to
Speaker 4: be worse, and because especially because we're politicizing health, so
Speaker 4: that that's only going to get worse. Or maybe weather,
Speaker 4: I don't know, have we seen any out any of
Speaker 4: the effects of like not actually valuing data when it
Speaker 4: comes to weather. We're going to be seeing the public
Speaker 4: We're going to be seeing the privatization of public data.
Speaker 4: If the government isn't going to be investing in collecting
Speaker 4: and aggregating this data, then other people will and they're
Speaker 4: going to do it, just like everything in capitalism for profit.
Speaker 4: And that means that we can't trust the results of
Speaker 4: this data because it's going to be skewed in order
Speaker 4: to you know better the bottom line, and ultimately it's
Speaker 4: going to result in a weakened democracy because if people
Speaker 4: don't have access to actual data, to actually information, they're
Speaker 4: going to be easier to manipulate, They're going to be
Speaker 4: easier to control. And that means that people who have
Speaker 4: the power will do whatever they can to hold on
Speaker 4: to that power.
Speaker 3: For sure, for sure, I totally agree.
Speaker 1: I mean, the privatization of this kind of of really
Speaker 1: a public service. Really, I mean, it's our government supposedly
Speaker 1: supposing to work for us in our favor, and not
Speaker 1: being doled out to a private corporation that is going
Speaker 1: to have conflicting our conflicts of interest and different priorities
Speaker 1: other than furthering the lives of Americans, Cynthia.
Speaker 3: So I think we all agree.
Speaker 1: In fact, I think any reasonable person would agree that
Speaker 1: this change in direction is at best foolish and even
Speaker 1: downright evil at worst. Besides the loss of scientific leadership
Speaker 1: in the world, what are going to be some of
Speaker 1: the behind the scenes damage that's being done here, you know,
Speaker 1: Before I.
Speaker 2: Get into my whole spiel, I want to talk a
Speaker 2: little bit about a question that is often posed to
Speaker 2: people who happen to be a non believer. We all
Speaker 2: heard it on college shows. We have a few here
Speaker 2: at the ACA, actually truth Wanted On Fridays at seven pm.
Speaker 2: We have a talk Heathen that premieres every Sunday.
Speaker 3: At one day one yep and Central time.
Speaker 2: And then we have the Atheist Experience that happens at
Speaker 2: four thirty pm Central Time on Sundays. And this question
Speaker 2: has always come up. And you're ready for the question,
Speaker 2: because I know that all of you guys are going
Speaker 2: to roll your eyes because you heard it like ten
Speaker 2: trillion times. If you're an atheist, where do you get
Speaker 2: your morals from?
Speaker 4: What?
Speaker 1: No, I've never heard that question. I've never that's never
Speaker 1: crossed now.
Speaker 3: Of course, you know we hear it every all the time,
Speaker 3: all the time.
Speaker 2: And I know Scott that you've heard it a few
Speaker 2: times because you are.
Speaker 1: On talk even on occasion, Yes, on occasion, Yeah, I
Speaker 1: am known to talk Heathen when needed, Yes.
Speaker 2: Indeed, And I'm pretty sure that that and even if
Speaker 2: it's has not come up on a call and like
Speaker 2: on a recall, but I'm pretty sure that in dialogue
Speaker 2: or you know, in bigger audiences that question has come up.
Speaker 1: So how does that morality question then affect how does
Speaker 1: the where's the link here to what we're talking about?
Speaker 2: Well, we should have policies that actually reduce suffering, because
Speaker 2: the way that we would answer the question is that
Speaker 2: we base our morality on well being, and the way
Speaker 2: that we think about well being is to reduce the
Speaker 2: suffering that could happen to human beings and also the
Speaker 2: communities of other animals that we actually share this earth with. Okay,
Speaker 2: and I know that my mother would go crazy because
Speaker 2: I ended not one, but two sentences in this whole
Speaker 2: dialogue trialogue, because it's three of us.
Speaker 3: A trialogue, Right, do it?
Speaker 5: Do it?
Speaker 2: I give you permission with a proposition regardless, I'm going
Speaker 2: back to being serious, which I cannot be. But what
Speaker 2: I'm saying is serious that simply cannot happen if we're
Speaker 2: choking off scientific inquiry. I'm especially concerned about the way
Speaker 2: this trend fosters mistrust. We have seen it so many times,
Speaker 2: especially at the height of the pandemic, when an mRNA
Speaker 2: vaccine was developed in order to quell the first variant
Speaker 2: of COVID nineteen that we actually was faced and then
Speaker 2: we would change or we would re up that vaccination,
Speaker 2: depending on what the behaviors of that variant is doing
Speaker 2: at that time. But because there was so much mistrust
Speaker 2: and misinformation that was pumped into the public discourse about vaccines.
Speaker 2: And let's be clear, gentlemen, that this particular discourse is
Speaker 2: not new, because we've been having conversations concerning anti vaccination
Speaker 2: for a while now, before there was even the pandemic
Speaker 2: that we experience in twenty nineteen twenty twenty. So we
Speaker 2: are in this particular place that science is now considered
Speaker 2: a four letter word because even though the science is
Speaker 2: not a four letter word, because oh, all the different
Speaker 2: institutions that are pushing medical science, medical research, or even
Speaker 2: research in of itself when it comes to human beings
Speaker 2: cannot be trusted because of all the misinformation that was
Speaker 2: said about the vaccines. It's going to cause people to die.
Speaker 2: It's going to call this that in third right, And
Speaker 2: we find when we actually did a cursory research, because
Speaker 2: all the information concerning the vaccinations that were being given
Speaker 2: to the public were we're not behind a paywall, you
Speaker 2: can actually pull them up and read the effects and
Speaker 2: read the studies. Still I can't trust it because because reasons,
Speaker 2: and that mistrust becomes a feedback group, right, and politicians
Speaker 2: end up listening to that feedback loop, and then they
Speaker 2: defund science and it's blame not for and because it's
Speaker 2: not being funded now or you know, we're experiencing blame drain.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, brain drain. Then we're going to end up
Speaker 2: having a loss of capacity and the public's out and
Speaker 2: the public's outcomes are going to be worsen, and then
Speaker 2: science is going to be blamed not for solving problems,
Speaker 2: it's actually was never allowed to study the problem in
Speaker 2: the first place.
Speaker 3: For sure.
Speaker 1: For sure, I like how you described it disconnecting, disconnecting
Speaker 1: from the science, or disconnecting from reality. It's it's like
Speaker 1: trying to operate your computer after you yanked out.
Speaker 3: The cord from the monitor.
Speaker 1: Right, It's you're disconnecting yourself from the actual real world
Speaker 1: that we live in. And it's troubling and and it's terrifying,
Speaker 1: and it's hilarious, and it's all these different things. Stephen,
Speaker 1: what can we do, I mean, as science supporters, what
Speaker 1: can we do as people that believe in science that
Speaker 1: believe in taking steps in the real world using real
Speaker 1: consequences and real actions. What are we left to do
Speaker 1: with here?
Speaker 4: Like I think we're in this situation because we got
Speaker 4: so comforted, just like with democracy, just like oh yeah,
Speaker 4: I don't need to vote because you know, you know,
Speaker 4: it's fine, everything is fine, everything is fine. Oh my
Speaker 4: fucking god, we're all on fire. Same with science, Like
Speaker 4: if we just trust that someone else is going to
Speaker 4: take care of it, like the scientists they can handle themselves,
Speaker 4: then we're going to lose them as well, right So
Speaker 4: the way, so yeah, it's up to us to get
Speaker 4: involved in to be supporting these things that we really
Speaker 4: think are important and that and like for all, Yeah,
Speaker 4: we've got more access to supporting more people than ever before.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 4: So maybe we're going online and we're using social media
Speaker 4: to like follow and disseminate science from sources that are
Speaker 4: outside of government control. Right Like maybe we're looking up
Speaker 4: The Conversation or Catherine heho of repping out for Canada there,
Speaker 4: but just like being able to just like our favorite
Speaker 4: YouTube or you know, Instagram influencers, maybe we're actually like
Speaker 4: putting our support behind people who are trying to make
Speaker 4: a difference for not only our world, but for the
Speaker 4: generations to follow us. Right, maybe we're actually getting involved
Speaker 4: in citizens science, right, Like, maybe we're taking upon ourselves
Speaker 4: to say, you know what, we want to see this
Speaker 4: data collected, so we are going to do what we can. Right,
Speaker 4: And there's so many different organizations that rely on citizens
Speaker 4: to be involved without government funding.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 4: If you go to a place like eBird dot org,
Speaker 4: that's a way that you can be gathering information about
Speaker 4: the local bird population, taking readings of what birds are
Speaker 4: in my neighborhood, and then that information can be globally
Speaker 4: or i naturalist dot org another organization about just recording
Speaker 4: what's happening in your exact area, or pistarter dot org
Speaker 4: another website that is a directory of different citizens science
Speaker 4: organizations that could use support from people who actually give
Speaker 4: a fuck.
Speaker 1: Hmm, yeah, maybe we can maybe if we know the
Speaker 1: producer show, we can we can try to get some
Speaker 1: of those web those web addresses into the notes for
Speaker 1: the for the show. But yeah, but oh well, what
Speaker 1: do you know, Well, what do you know? But no, seriously, Steve,
Speaker 1: and I think you're you're spot on there. I mean,
Speaker 1: we basically if we want this. If we want to
Speaker 1: be a knowledgeable nation, if we want to be a
Speaker 1: knowledgeable society, we have to take it upon ourselves to
Speaker 1: make make sure that we know things, and make sure
Speaker 1: that we can do things, and make sure that we
Speaker 1: participate in science. Science is not just a dusty book
Speaker 1: on a shelf. Science is getting out there and viewing
Speaker 1: the world and thinking straight and making good conclusions there.
Speaker 1: And I think we're not alone here. I want to
Speaker 1: share you some information that I found. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: sorry the math teacher. I got to pull some stats
Speaker 1: into into the program here. So, according to a twenty
Speaker 1: twenty three p Research study, researchers found that seventy eight
Speaker 1: percent of Americans say that scientific research is a worthwhile
Speaker 1: investment for the nation, with ninety percent of Democrats and
Speaker 1: sixty eight percent of Republicans agreeing with that statement.
Speaker 3: I think both of those.
Speaker 1: Numbers are really really low, especially that Republican number that
Speaker 1: should be up around one hundred percent. I mean, if
Speaker 1: you can't understand the value of scientific research, then you
Speaker 1: know that I don't know what I can do for you.
Speaker 1: But that's so, seventy eight percent of Americans think that
Speaker 1: it's a worthwhile investment. And I like the fact that
Speaker 1: they use the word investment there, because this is an
Speaker 1: investment that we're doing. We're investing our time and our
Speaker 1: energy and our priorities now for a better future for us,
Speaker 1: for our children and our children's children, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: The same study found that a full ninety percent of
Speaker 1: Americans said that it was either somewhat important thirty seven
Speaker 1: percent or very important fifty three percent for the US
Speaker 1: to be a world leader in scientific achievements with the Britain.
Speaker 1: And in this case, the breakdown by party affiliation was
Speaker 1: about the same. So ninety percent of Americans think it's
Speaker 1: either somewhat important or very important not only for us
Speaker 1: to have scientific advancement, but for the US to be
Speaker 1: a world leader. And so I'm going to ask this
Speaker 1: of Cynthia. First, are the wishes of the American people
Speaker 1: being ignored?
Speaker 5: Here?
Speaker 3: Is this a betrayal of the trust that we have
Speaker 3: in our government?
Speaker 5: Here?
Speaker 1: Are we being hoodwinked, or are we being left behind?
Speaker 1: Or what's what's happening here?
Speaker 2: Unfortunately, we are being hoodweek, batboozled, run a book let,
Speaker 2: us tray plymouth rock, We didn't land on Plymouth rock.
Speaker 2: Plymouth Rock landed on us. When it comes to this
Speaker 2: conversation about scientific research, Unfortunately, the seats have been sown
Speaker 2: to put distrust and misinformation into the conversation when we're
Speaker 2: talking about trusting science. And then we even have like
Speaker 2: people who happen to be big influencers on the interwebs
Speaker 2: that actually will call scientists or science and of itself
Speaker 2: a religion and it's not. Science is based on creating hypotheses,
Speaker 2: testing a hypothesis, to seeing if it's the closest thing
Speaker 2: to fact that we know. And on top of that,
Speaker 2: when you test the hypothesis and it comes out to
Speaker 2: actually be the closest thing to what is fact is
Speaker 2: others are invited to test that outcome to see if
Speaker 2: what you are saying is the actual fact or if
Speaker 2: you are just coming up with the booshit.
Speaker 1: Okay, okay, no mining words here, no mining words.
Speaker 2: Indeed. So I think it's important and I understand that
Speaker 2: the society that we're living in right now is that
Speaker 2: a lie can run around the world a hundred times
Speaker 2: before the truth can put on its pants in the morning.
Speaker 2: But the very thing that has to be done is
Speaker 2: that those who are committed and care about the truth
Speaker 2: need to continue to say it, you know, they need
Speaker 2: to continue to actually be committed to putting out data
Speaker 2: that has been peer reviewed, that has been tested, that
Speaker 2: has gone through the methodology, so that we are not
Speaker 2: going to continue to think the Son is a god.
Speaker 2: We're not going to continue to think that if we
Speaker 2: do a dance, sing a song, that rain is going
Speaker 2: to come. It was through some scientific research that we
Speaker 2: actually debunked a lot of superstitions that said that weather
Speaker 2: patterns and other phenomenon that we saw were supernatural. No,
Speaker 2: these are natural things, and we have the data to
Speaker 2: back it up. That needs to be a thing that continues.
Speaker 2: And the only way that that could continue is if
Speaker 2: people like you, like me, like that's out there that's
Speaker 2: viewing us is committed to making sure that that continues
Speaker 2: to have.
Speaker 1: I agree, I agree completely, but we're we're running short
Speaker 1: on time here. I want to make sure I get
Speaker 1: one more question into Steven. So I said that ninety
Speaker 1: percent of Americans think that it's important for the US
Speaker 1: to be a leader in the science development in this world.
Speaker 3: Do you think we've.
Speaker 1: Kind of, you know, blown our chance there is it
Speaker 1: time for us to pass the keys and you know,
Speaker 1: let somebody else be the be the world leader in
Speaker 1: science there? Or or do we need to kind of
Speaker 1: rally the troops and kind of take up that that
Speaker 1: flag again, or you know, should we just pass it on?
Speaker 4: Well, what's the what's what's this American exceptionalism thing that
Speaker 4: I hear about?
Speaker 3: Like, yeah, yeah, we do have that, y'all.
Speaker 1: Like, if you want to be fired, if you very
Speaker 1: that's why I'm very happy to give this question to
Speaker 1: the non American on the panel here today. So should
Speaker 1: America step aside and get out of the science business?
Speaker 4: Like, if y'all want to be driving the car, sure,
Speaker 4: but if you're if the engine is on fire, you've
Speaker 4: got issues, So you know, deal with your fucking issues
Speaker 4: before you try it behind the driver's seat, right, like
Speaker 4: the other countries.
Speaker 5: Are, We're We're okay, we are okay, We will be
Speaker 5: okay without you for a little while. You've got pull over,
Speaker 5: figure out what's going on, and then when you're ready
Speaker 5: to get back on the road, come on in. We
Speaker 5: want you to be here.
Speaker 4: But for now, just chill the fuck out.
Speaker 3: I will turn this car around.
Speaker 5: That's it.
Speaker 1: Back to Winnipeg.
Speaker 2: Steven just like read America for filthyo, and I love.
Speaker 1: It all right, all right, And you know, I think
Speaker 1: we should end on those words as well. So those
Speaker 1: of you out there watching, if you've enjoyed watching us,
Speaker 1: talk about this tonight awesome