After President Trump released a proposed FY 2018 budget on May 23 that would severely cut funding for scientific research, our members have been busy contacting their representatives. Through AAAS’s advocacy platform, more than 550 members sent 1,687 letters to 330 congressional offices expressing a range of views on how the budget request would impact research.

On April 10, Attorney General Jeff Sessions opted not to renew the NCFS, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a Notice of Public Comment Period on Advancing Forensic Science requesting input on how they should “move forward to strengthen the foundations of forensic science and improve the operations and capacity of forensic laboratories.”

We encourage you to make your voice heard on the importance of ensuring that all branches of government receive advice on the best scientific information available, and that rigorous science is used in convicting the guilty and exonerating the innocent. Comments are due June 9, 2017.

The linked dashboard can be used to follow science and technology appropriations for FY 2018. Click on individual tabs to see how different agencies are faring throughout the funding debate, and mouse over for more detail. Currently, only data from the Trump Administration's budget request is displayed; data from Congressional spending bills will be added and updated once Congress begins to take up spending legislation this summer.

Visit regularly for updated content.

From August 25, 2016

Last month, geographer Richard Heede received a subpoena from Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Smith, a climate change doubter, became concerned when the attorneys general of several states launched investigations into whether ExxonMobil had committed fraud by sowing doubts about climate change even as its own scientists knew it was taking place. The congressman suspected a conspiracy between the attorneys general and environmental advocates, and he wanted to see all the communications among them. Predictably, his targets included advocacy organizations such as Greenpeace, 350.org, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. They also included Heede, who works on his own aboard a rented houseboat on San Francisco Bay in California.

By 2050, a bad night’s rest could be almost twice as common as it is now. That’s the conclusion of the largest study yet on sleep and temperature, which finds that climate change could make restless nights more frequent.

As expected, President Donald Trump today announced he is withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate accord. In a speech from the White House Rose Garden, Trump made a largely economic case for withdrawing from the agreement, arguing the nonbinding accord was unfair to American workers and U.S. competitiveness (points many economists fiercely dispute). At the same time, Trump said he was open to beginning “negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an—really entirely new transaction—on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.” He provided no detail, however, on what that new agreement might look like.

President Donald Trump’s expected decision to pull the United States away from the Paris Agreement would put future generations at risk and leave the nation without a plan to mitigate the impact of climate change on society, said Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, on June 1.

Earth does not have environmental problems—rather, psychologists argue that the environmental crises we currently face are the result of unsustainable human behavior. This paper reviews psychology research about why our responses to environmental crises have been inadequate. Why might some people believe climate change is real while others do not? The article discusses why understanding ecology is critical and notes specific types of behaviors that can inspire the change that is needed to create a livable planet. The review ends with a description of conservation psychology topics that need further research.

The White House’s final proposal for the 2018 budget is in, and the numbers have some scientists worried. If Congress passes the budget as it’s written, the National Institutes of Health would lose $7.7 billion, or 22 percent of its entire budget. The Department of Energy’s Office of Science would lose 17 percent of its funding for research into nuclear physics, environmental and biological science, and other programs. And the Department of Agriculture, which funds agricultural research, would lose up to 11 percent of a budget that is already far too small, according to Rush Holt, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Details are emerging from the Trump Administration's proposal to make historically large spending reductions for science and technology funding.