The headlines document the hostility of the administration of President Donald Trump to the scientific community. At the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The New York Times estimates 1,300 layoffs and resignations since Trump took office, with another 1,000 threatened. At the US Environmental Protection Agency, an estimated 1,155 scientists face possible layoffs. Then there are the cuts of grant programs, such as those through the National Institutes of Health, which could endanger the funding of up to 300,000 researchers nationwide.
What drives this? To gain a better understanding, NPQ interviewed government workers who have either lost their jobs or are afraid of being axed during Trump’s ongoing firings. Speaking on the record and anonymously to avoid reprisals, these people see the cuts and broader hostility as part of a larger trend—a horrifying and growing contempt for knowledge in American life.
The Rising Tide of Hostility to Scientific Research
“I received a lot of extremely nasty emails and occasionally phone calls, often swearing at me about things I had stated or written,” Kevin Trenberth tells NPQ. A distinguished scholar at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Trenberth previously worked for the World Climate Research Programme and has published widely on climatology. In a memoir about his half-century career as a climate scientist, Trenberth talks about interacting with climate deniers, but does not detail all of the emails and other messages he received.
“I have been to the fore in climate science for many years and the denial really took off with Climategate in 2009,” Trenberth recalls. Climategate was a 2009 incident in which the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was hacked, with emails being leaked and mischaracterized to falsely allege a conspiracy among scientists to distort facts.
[Scientists] see the cuts and broader hostility as part of a larger trend—a horrifying and growing contempt for knowledge in American life.
Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, was one of the scientists targeted by Climategate. Mann says he has suffered considerable vicious harassment fueled by conspiracy theories.
Anti-intellectualism, Mann notes, is not new. In conversations, he likes to cite Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, the Pulitzer Prize-winning 1963 book by Richard Hofstadter. The historian admitted that when societies develop intellectual classes, there is no guarantee that they “will be discreet and restrained in the use of its influence; the only assurance that can be given to any community is that it will be far worse off if it denies the free uses of the power of intellect than if it permits them.” In other words, the gains from science outweigh the costs. Moreover, those who try to silence knowledge often do so for partisan reasons.
Even though they may not realize this consciously, the climate change deniers who harass scientists like Trenberth and Mann seem to operate from the premise that they can punish their targets into silence—or at least suffering—for doing a job that conflicts with the right’s political biases. Sadly, such targeting has often been effective, slowing the development of scientific knowledge in the process.
A Chilling Effect
Climategate in 2009 was a turning point, Trenberth explains. “Up till then, many of my colleagues aimed to do first-class research that was important and get it published in a high-visibility journal such as Nature or Science.”
But, he adds, “after about 2009, when anything important was discovered and featured, there was a blast of nasty emails to the author. Many or most did not enjoy that at all and went back into the ivory tower. A few, like me, tried to stand up against them. Generally, organizations were very poorly prepared to deal with this sort of thing, and authors were not educated to expect such responses.”
Another esteemed climate scientist, who spoke with NPQ anonymously to avoid retaliation, recalls their experiences as a former high-ranking federal science advisor. At first, this person says, hostility to science was a corporate talking point, peddled by various special interest groups with axes to grind against environmental regulations. Before long, however, it became a broadly accepted stance by the conservative base.
“It’s against intellectual rationality and science in general,” this scientist explains when describing the right-wing’s emergent philosophy. “The technology and science that has shaped our world for many decades now is under attack in a fashion that is particularly cruel to human beings.”
For the scientists, it is cruel because most of them—whether employed by the government, academia, or the private sector—are animated by a sincere desire to learn about and improve the world. For the harassers, at least those who don’t directly profit from climate change, it is cruel because they seem to believe they can obviate scientific reality by bullying scientists.
Sign up for our free newsletters
Subscribe to NPQ's newsletters to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.
By signing up, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of use, and to receive messages from NPQ and our partners.
The former federal science advisor describes the breadth of the attempted erasure: “It isn’t just climate change, I would term it perhaps environmental sustainability, which is characterized by many things.” Whether it’s humans dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, clogging the oceans with plastic pollution, or disrupting our endocrine systems with industrial chemicals, science, they point out, “doesn’t care about who thinks” what, ideologically. Therefore, in the grand scheme of things, everyone loses because of anti-intellectualism.
“The description you have of anti-intellectualism might be broadened to say anti-rationality,” the scientist adds. “The application of that in the public domain into everyone’s lives is a particularly concerning version of what the current people in power are attacking. So, to undermine the ability for people to believe and have confidence in rational thinking is fundamentally even more disturbing.”
Growing Public Alarm
Scientists are not the only ones expressing alarm about the growing public lack of respect for knowledge. Jasmine Charbonier is a 36-year-old digital marketing strategist from Florida who has noticed the rising anti-science tide, even in her nonacademic field. Charbonier says she sees a “weird pattern where some of my coworkers don’t just disagree with climate science, they seem downright angry at anyone who references peer-reviewed research or scientific data.” She recalls one occasion in October when an anodyne presentation about a company’s sustainability initiatives abruptly took a malicious turn.
“This guy…started going off about how ‘elite academics’ are trying to control everyone’s lives,” Charbonier says. “The hostility was unreal. He literally called me a ‘brainwashed puppet of Big Science’—whatever that means. And I’m just standing there thinking, dude, I’m just showing carbon emission stats.”
Like the climate scientists, Charbonier is dismayed by this anti-intellectualism. She characterizes it as a manifestation of society’s larger culture wars.
“A lot of this anti-intellectual pushback isn’t really about the science at all.…It’s wrapped up in identity politics and cultural grievances.”
“I’ve learned that a lot of this anti-intellectual pushback isn’t really about the science at all,” Charbonier says. “It’s wrapped up in identity politics and cultural grievances. These folks see scientists and academics as part of some shadowy establishment that looks down on ‘regular people.’ I’ve had coworkers dismiss scientific journals as ‘propaganda mills’ and mock anyone with advanced degrees.”
Gerti Mema, 39, a Canadian marketing manager who works in industries such as transportation, hospitality, and construction for Equipment Finance Canada, has also experienced anti-intellectualism as he talks to his clients about shifting regulations and sustainable practices.
“I have encountered climate change deniers who seem hostile not only to science but also to those who advocate for change,” Mema said. “It’s one thing to disagree, but the aggression toward individuals who present factual information is troubling….It’s challenging to have a constructive dialogue when the other side is more focused on dismissing facts than engaging in an open conversation.”
A Way Out?
Does this anti-intellectual wave have limits? Mema is optimistic. His employer, for instance, acknowledges that climate change is a fact. “The evidence across scientific research, industry shifts, and even government policies make it clear that we are witnessing environmental changes that impact every sector, including the industries we serve. At Equipment Finance Canada, we see this through a growing demand for green technologies, such as energy-efficient machinery and electric vehicles.”
“It’s one thing to disagree but the aggression toward individuals who present factual information is troubling.”
Striking the same tone, albeit from a scientific rather than a business perspective, Trenberth believes people who want to make a difference should focus on improving the world around them. As to whether the tide of anti-intellectualism can be curtailed, Trenberth is mixed, saying it is possible in some cases to educate people and have them change their minds, but for others, it may not be.
“I tried responding to some that were not too bad, but, in most cases, they were down and out deniers of climate change and not amenable to facts,” Trenberth says. “Social media has exacerbated all these aspects.”
