President-elect Donald Trump (left) and Vice President–elect Mike Pence (right) meet with Representative Paul Ryan (R–WI), the speaker of the House of Representatives. U.S. POLITICS Scientists start to parse a Trump presidency Fears for climate and social science research, hopes for infrastructure boost By Jeffrey Mervis PHOTO: JOSHUA ROBERTS D onald Trump’s surprising victory last week over Hillary Clinton has profoundly altered the U.S. political landscape. Many scientists were no less confounded by the outcome, which delivered the White House to a man many academics opposed and maintained Republican control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Even so, the science establishment has already begun to coalesce behind a common message: Don’t stick your head in the sand, and don’t assume the worst. Continue making the case to the incoming administration and Congress that research contributes to the prosperity and security of the nation. The community’s initial sense of despair stemmed in part from Trump’s public comments questioning the validity of such bedrock scientific concepts as vaccination and climate change, and the absence of any sciencesavvy advisers on his campaign team. “Already wary of Trump’s support for science, the scientific community will be watching closely to see if President Trump is able to transcend his early rhetoric and find a way to demonstrate that he will respect and take science seriously,” says Tobin Smith, vice president for policy at the Association of American Universities, a Washington, D.C.–based consortium of the nation’s top research universities. One worry is how the new president will wield his immense executive powers. With a stroke of a pen, for example, Trump could undo Obama-era executive orders easing controls on human embryonic stem cell research and undermine high-profile regulations aimed at reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and protecting small waterways. A second concern is that a Republican president is less likely to threaten to veto legislation produced by a Republican Congress. That threat is often enough to derail legislation before it reaches the Oval Office. In recent years, President Barack Obama used it to fight proposals that the scientific community also opposed, including plans to alter peer review at the National Science Foundation (NSF), curb research in the earth, environmental, and social sciences at NSF and NASA, and weaken environmental rules. In addition, Obama has actually vetoed a dozen bills, one-third of which involved climate or environmental issues. Then there is the question of how a Trump administration will affect federal funding of research. The encouraging news is that, SCIENCE sciencemag.org regardless of which party controls Congress and the White House, spending on science has for decades remained steady as a portion of the overall federal budget—about 10% of nondefense discretionary spending, to use one common metric. In addition, fields such as biomedical research enjoy broad bipartisan support. But other fields—including climate and the environmental and social sciences—are unpopular with many Republicans, and are likely to be squeezed. History has shown, however, that having the same party control both the White House and Congress is no guarantee of legislative harmony. Sharp differences could arise after Trump’s initial list of priorities—creating jobs, restricting immigration, and repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act—are translated into proposed legislation. Some of Trump’s goals could even create opportunities for science advocates, such as his campaign pledge to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into repairing roads and bridges, harbors, airports, and rail systems. Scientific groups would like to see cyber and scientific infrastructure included in any bill. Increased infrastructure spending is attractive to members of both parties. “Anything that will encourage economic growth and create jobs, this will make America bet18 NOVEMBER 2016 • VOL 354 ISSUE 6314 Published by AAAS 811 Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on January 25, 2017 IN D EP TH NEWS I N D E P T H tween House and Senate Republicans over NSF’s approach to funding research. In the House, Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), chairman of the House science committee, has enraged many scientists by writing NSF reauthorization measures that propose cuts to the geosciences and social sciences, as well as changes in NSF’s vaunted system of peer review to choose the best ideas. Smith says he simply wants to put scarce dollars to their best use, whereas scientists say he wants to impose his own views over those of experts. Obama’s White House has threatened to veto Smith’s legislation because it “could cast a shadow over the value of basic research … [and] would add nothing to accountability in Federal funding for scientific research, while needlessly adding to bureaucratic burdens.” The Senate also has not embraced Smith’s vision. Instead, this past June, a Senate panel A longer spending freeze T his week Congress returned for a short lame-duck session. And the first thing Republican leaders did was delay completion of a 2017 spending bill until after Donald Trump takes office—a decision that forces science agencies to tread water. All agency budgets are now frozen at 2016 levels under what is called a continuing resolution (CR), which prohibits starting new programs or expanding existing initiatives. Congressional spending panels have spent months working on a dozen bills that would fund the government through September 2017. But those measures would also have needed to pass muster with President Barack Obama. So the Republican leadership decided By Jeffrey Mervis to extend the CR, which expires on 9 December, until 31 March, which is two months into the Trump administration. A separate bill to spur drug development and bolster biomedical research remains in limbo. A longer CR will likely stall highprofile Obama initiatives in precision medicine, neuroscience, and cancer at the National Institutes of Health, and delay boosts to high performance computing and a new neutrino experiment within the Department of Energy. It also complicates a planned upgrading of the academic research fleet by the National Science Foundation: A House spending panel has declined to fund the request for two ships, while a Senate panel wants to build three ships. j supported NSF’s current practices in its version of a reauthorization bill. Science lobbyists hope that the Senate’s view will prevail in current negotiations to iron out differences between the two bodies. Looking at the big picture, the new administration’s attitude toward science remains a mystery. Trump’s transition team hasn’t yet said who it has selected to review policies and appointments at key science agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, NSF, and NASA. That does not mean science advocates should despair, says lobbyist Joel Widder of Federal Science Partners in Washington, D.C. “Until you know who you’re talking to [in the Trump transition], I’d keep the message simple—support for basic research generates new knowledge that can fuel economic growth and provides the talent that industry needs,” says Widder, a former longtime NSF government affairs manager and congressional staffer. Widder offers similar advice to those worried that Trump will drag his feet on appointing a presidential science adviser, or choose someone not highly regarded by the scientific community. Fairly or not, science politicos believe that a lengthy delay in the appointment means science is an afterthought—or worse—in a new president’s administration. “I think they will be able to find someone of [good] stature eventually,” says Widder about the Trump administration. “I just don’t think it’s high on their list of things to do right now.” David Goldston of the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C., and a former chief of staff for the House science committee, even suggests that scientists may be happier if Trump doesn’t name someone with far-reaching authority to coordinate research policy. “Benign neglect is not always the worst” outcome, he says, if it means more flexibility for science agencies. j With reporting by the Science news staff. 812 18 NOVEMBER 2016 • VOL 354 ISSUE 6314 Corrected 18 November 2016. See full text. Published by AAAS sciencemag.org SCIENCE Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on January 25, 2017 Scientists hope any new infrastructure spending bill will include money for scientific facilities. PHOTO: PORTLAND PRESS HERALD ter,” says former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, now a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, D.C. But Lott and others say that finding a way to pay for any infrastructure program will be a major sticking point. If that problem is solved, an infrastructure bill may be the best chance for science advocates to secure a short-term rise in federal research funding. Their model is the 2009 economic stimulus package, passed shortly after Obama took office, which included $21 billion for several research agencies. Absent such an initiative, science spending is likely to remain flat. One big reason is that a 2011 law aimed at reducing the federal deficit over 10 years by limiting overall discretionary spending remains in force. That law triggered the across-the-board cuts known as sequestration in 2013, and the politics of deficit reduction haven’t gotten any easier since then. Trump may try to alter that law to boost defense spending, something that many congressional Republicans also want, without also increasing domestic budgets. Under the current law, any increase in defense spending would require cuts to domestic programs, a category that includes every science agency outside the defense and homeland security departments. Most congressional Democrats would vehemently oppose that move, and in the Senate they have the 40 votes necessary to block a vote (assuming the Republican majority doesn’t change the so-called filibuster rules). At some point the new administration will also have to weigh in on a disagreement be- Scientists start to parse a Trump presidency Jeffrey Mervis (November 17, 2016) Science 354 (6314), 811-812. [doi: 10.1126/science.354.6314.811] This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Article Tools Permissions Visit the online version of this article to access the personalization and article tools: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6314/811 Obtain information about reproducing this article: http://www.sciencemag.org/about/permissions.dtl Science (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published weekly, except the last week in December, by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. Copyright 2016 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; all rights reserved. The title Science is a registered trademark of AAAS. Downloaded from http://science.sciencemag.org/ on January 25, 2017 Editor's Summary