Two leading scientific organizations are urging the Trump administration to consider the extensive “scientific, cultural and historical significance” of 27 national monuments placed in safekeeping by three previous presidents in its review of whether to limit or end the protections now preserving the sites.
Imagine this: A cop pulls you over and arrests you because you match the description of someone wanted for a heinous crime. You are innocent, but after being charged and brought to trial, you watch as experts testify with “scientific certainty” that hair and footprints at the scene match your own, and you are led from the courtroom in shackles.
This may seem like a scene straight out of a TV melodrama, but this scenario happens in real life far too often. A number of forensic techniques lack scientific validity and reliability yet are used frequently in our nation’s courtrooms.
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.
President Donald Trump's budget plan for fiscal year 2018 systematically takes a knife to climate research and programs across the government.
President Donald Trump may be 6,000 miles away from Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, but that didn't stop him from launching an all-out assault on climate science and related energy research. The weapon of choice? His fiscal year 2018 budget proposal.
The poor and the disabled are big losers in President Donald Trump’s $4.1 trillion budget proposal while the Pentagon is a big winner.
Public health experts are expressing serious concern about the White House's proposed 2018 budget, which would substantially cut funding to key government health agencies and programs.
As The White House released its budget request for the 2018 fiscal year on Tuesday, the Trump administration made good on its promise to target deep cuts to federal spending on climate, energy, science, research and other programs widely seen as critical to America’s ability to adapt to a warming world and reduce its impact on the climate.
The president's $4.1 trillion budget package for 2018 would ax a variety of medical, energy, and basic research programs, while boosting funding for defense and homeland security.
How does science fare under President Trump's proposed budget?
Not too well.
It’s clear from the Trump administration’s 2018 budget proposal: The administration doesn’t think spending at the National Institutes of Health is a very good deal. The budget suggests cutting $6 billion from the NIH — or nearly a quarter of the agency’s total budget.
President Donald Trump unveiled his full 2018 budget request to Congress today. The spending plan, for the fiscal year that begins 1 October, fleshes out the so-called skinny budget that the White House released this past March. That plan called for deep cuts to numerous research agencies. But it did not include numbers for some key research agencies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF). ScienceInsider will be scouring today’s budget documents for fresh details. Come back to our rolling coverage for analysis and reaction.
President Donald Trump unveiled details of his latest 2018 budget proposal today (May 23), and the scientific community—while not entirely surprised—was frustrated by what it read. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) would receive $25.9 billion, a more than $7 billion drop from 2017 funding. The NIH’s Fogarty International Center, which focuses on developing countries, would be eliminated, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality would be folded into other NIH programs.
In the News
In our 169-year history and in keeping with our mission to “advance science, engineering, and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people,” the AAAS has developed a strong record of speaking up for science. We will continue to be the “force for science,” and actively seek opportunities to expand our communication and advocacy activities.
AAAS provides leadership to the scientific community on issues affecting science and scientists by:
- Advocating for conditions in which science can thrive, including a society and government that provide essential freedoms and support;
- Setting high standards for the practice and applications of science;
- Ensuring that scientific evidence is well integrated in decision-making and policymaking;
- Providing tools and mobilizing the science community to communicate and advocate for science; and,
- Being a trusted source and communicator of scientific information on public issues.
[Banner photo credit: House Science Democrats]