Memphis March for Science Splits Because of Infighting

From here:

On one side are scientists who value their work for its purity, its separation from politics—illusory though that may seem under an administration that seeks to downsize the EPA, cut the NIH budget, and deny climate change. On the other side are scientists who’ve felt the impact of the field’s politics for years. People of color, women, the disabled, immigrants, gay people—they’re all clamoring for scientists to confront science’s biases and improve instead of celebrating its successes on the Washington Mall.

In Memphis, things fell apart. On Saturday, the city will host two official events: a march organized primarily by activists and a rally led primarily by scientists.

This entry was posted in March for Science, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Memphis March for Science Splits Because of Infighting

  1. unclesporkums says:

    “Deny Climate Change”. Nice loaded description they gave.

  2. TFBW says:

    Michael, are you planning to do a post on the march now that it’s over? I have some things to post, and want to know whether it would be better to do it here, or wait for the nigh-inevitable post-mortem review.

  3. Michael says:


    Don’t really have any plans for a MfS posting right now.

  4. TFBW says:

    In that case, I start with some highly recommended reading: Jeremy Samuel Faust explains why the march demonstrates a deeply broken understanding of what science is on the part of most participants.

    Also, the first link in that article is to “some of the best signs from the March for Science”, and I’m going to indulge in a bit of snark by responding to a few.

    I can’t believe I’m marching for facts.

    We have similar doubts.

    Build this wall (arrow points to wall between church and congress)

    Yes! Metaphoric political walls are so Science!

    Got the plague? Me neither. Thanks science!

    Science cured the plague? What, in the middle ages? Please, tell me more.

    What do we want? Science based policy. When do we want it? After peer review.

    How about after independent reproduction of the experiment? Better include a sunset clause in case of retraction.

    Knowing stuff is good Seriously why do I even have to march for this geez

    I’m glad you’re into knowledge, because there’s a thing or two you should know about punctuation.

    I’ve seen smarter cabinets at Ikea.

    Ah, non-partisan science, I see.

    Science is the cure for bullshit.

    Thank you, science, for ridding the world of bullshit. And plague. For an encore, can you also cure Postmodernism and Problem Glasses?

    Less Invasions More Equations

    Fewer. Either that, or drop the plural, although “less invasion, more equation” isn’t exactly felicitous either.

    2 + 2 = 4

    Yeah, man! Stick it to those arithmetic deniers!

    Science gives me a hadron

    Was funnier when I saw it years ago as, “physicists get hadrons”.

    Ice has no agenda it just melts

    … except when it’s a snowflake, in which case it has an agenda and is prone to melt down.

    And, because these weren’t all that funny or sciencey, even with my added snark, here’s an obscure science joke: “an atmospheric scientist walks into 100kPa.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.