The criticisms by Wallace Manheimer, Christopher Barsi, and Joseph Moody (Physics Today, June 2021, page 10) of David Kramer’s excellent, entirely fact-based report, “The undermining of science is Trump’s legacy” (March 2021, page 24), demand a response. The writers attack Kramer and imply that he wrote a political opinion piece. Nothing could be further from the truth. Kramer’s report is good science journalism, focused on what highly respected scientists and former presidential advisers have said about Donald Trump’s impact on science, particularly with respect to the role of facts and fact-based decision making. It illustrates each issue with facts and examples.
Kramer accurately describes Trump’s handling of the pandemic as an example of his undermining of science. Trump did in fact sideline Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx, a well-documented fact attested to by both doctors. Moody asks, “Has there ever been a more aggressive effort to impede the spread of a virus?” Such a question is ludicrous on its face. Trump, who at one point admitted to downplaying the pandemic, was the loudest voice in the nation denying the effectiveness of masks and pushing back against social distancing.
Moody says that “most any unbiased individual would applaud Trump for seeking a variety of opinions.” But seeking a variety of opinions on a scientific or medical subject shouldn’t entail amplifying the opinions of those with no background or training in the area, as Trump did with Scott Atlas, a radiologist with no expertise in infectious disease, virology, epidemiology, or statistics.
Barsi claims that Kramer conflates science with “his personal preference for the government planning of scientific research.” But the story does no such thing. Kramer reports on a public issue—namely, Trump’s legacy in science. He does not advocate for government funding of scientific research. Barsi accuses Kramer of imposing his views of the 2015 Paris Agreement, but the piece does not do that either. Rather, it straightforwardly reports on the fact that Trump’s climate actions were not based on facts and science, thus illustrating how Trump damaged the position of science in the nation.
Certainly, COVID-19 vaccines were developed extraordinarily quickly during the Trump presidency, as Manheimer notes. But that has nothing to do with the damage Trump has done to science and the respect for science in the US, through multiple instances of his refusal to acknowledge facts and the role science must play in public policy, no matter how uncomfortable that may be. Kramer is to be congratulated for his straightforward, fact-based account of that damage.
