Would President Trump be a science guy?: Column
He's inconsistent and sometimes wrong. On the other hand, like Reagan, he does think big.
Science is one of America’s most important strategic resources. With just 5% of earth’s population, we produce over 30% of the world’s science and lead the world in Nobel prizes.
Now that Donald Trump has a realistic chance of becoming the 45th president of the United States, it’s time to ask: What would that mean for American research?
It’s surprisingly difficult to predict the impact the business tycoon and reality show star would have on science if he made it to the Oval Office. Other than his desire to “make America great again,” Trump has failed to elaborate anything resembling a coherent or comprehensive science policy.
On the encouraging side, Republicans have sometimes funded science better than Democrats, for instance showing notable generosity to the National Institutes of Health. And Trump has declared himself a fan of President Reagan, who was a strong promoter of federal involvement in science. “If we don't explore, others will, and we'll fall behind. This is why I've urged Congress to devote more money to research,” Reagan said in a 1988 radio address extolling the benefits of investment in basic research.
Reagan demonstrated his commitment by signing off on the International Space Station, the Superconducting Super Collider and the Strategic Defense Initiative, and he was a champion of NASA and space exploration. If Trump is as much like Reagan as he now suggests, he might support similarly impressive science projects.
Trump's art of the international deal: Column
For instance, given his fondness for real estate, it would not be a stretch to imagine Trump championing a moon colony — a project that NASA believes it could achieve by the 2030s. Other mega projects, such as going to Mars and beyond, could also earn the Trump stamp of approval. More broadly, because a President Trump would likely want to keep America the world’s undisputed leader in science and technology, researchers could be on the receiving end of a funding bonanza.
On the other hand, Trump has said many things that terrify the scientific community. In a September debate, he repeated the thoroughly discredited assertion that vaccines are linked to autism.
In addition, Trump is a climate-change skeptic and might implode the landmark Paris agreement reached by 195 nations to reduce carbon emissions. “I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change,” he told The Washington Post in March. This month, he told Reuters he would at the very least renegotiate the Paris agreement and “at a maximum, I may do something else.”
Some of Trump’s policies would backfire as far as his pledge to “make America great again.” Among the most problematic are his proposal to ban foreign Muslims from entering the country and his shifts on whether he'd reduce visas for skilled foreign workers. America leads the world in science precisely because it is an attractive education destination for the world’s talent. If we close our borders to foreigners, America will be placed at a significant disadvantage.
Bernie's fracking ban would backfire: Column
POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media
Furthermore, Trump's knee-jerk response to lash out at people he dislikes could also create an uncertain regulatory environment and an atmosphere in which scientists are afraid to speak the truth. What would Trump do if an agency or laboratory produced a finding that he disliked? Would he besmirch the scientists’ reputations on Twitter? Would he shut down the lab?
Trump’s penchant for unpredictability would pose challenges for just about everyone, from business people who want a stable regulatory environment to foreign allies who need a dependable partner. For their part, scientists need a steady work environment and reliable funding to design research projects, many of which take years or even decades to complete.
Like everyone else, they’d have to cross their fingers during a Trump administration and hope for the best.
Alex Berezow, senior fellow of biomedical science at the American Council on Science and Health and founding editor of RealClearScience, holds a Ph.D. in microbiology and is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors. Hank Campbell is president of ACSH and founder of Science 2.0.
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns, go to the Opinion front page and follow us on Twitter @USATOpinion.