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