The Heisenberg uncertainty principle holds things together. Articulated by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg almost a century ago, it remains the foundation of the physical world. Its name suggests the rule of the vague and temporary. But the principle is quantitative. A high uncertainty about the position of, say, an electron is compensated by a low uncertainty in its momentum. The principle is vital in helping us to understand chemical bonding, which is what holds matter together.
The Trump uncertainty principle, which I hereby coin, does the opposite; it tears things apart. Having taken effect on the US President’s inauguration day back in January, it almost immediately began damaging scientific culture. Researchers can no longer be sure if their grants will be delayed or axed – or if new proposals are even in the ballpark of the potentially fundable. Work is being stalled, erased or doomed, especially in the medical and environmental sciences.
The Trump uncertainty principle, or TUP for short, is implemented in several ways. One is through new policies at funding agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Those new policies, the administration claims, are designed to promote “science, national health, prosperity, and defense”. Despite being exactly the same as the old policies, they’ve been used to justify the cancellation of 400 grants at the NSF alone and hollow out the NSF, NIH and other key US science funding agencies.
The Trump administration has sought to terminate billions of dollars worth of grants at Harvard University alone. It wants to ban US universities from recruiting international students and has even been cancelling the visas of current students, many of whom are enrolled in the sciences. It also wants to vet what prospective students have posted on social media, despite Trump’s supposed support for free speech. Harvard is already suing the Administration over these actions.
Back in March the Office for Civil Rights of the US Department of Education sent letters to Harvard and 59 other universities, including Columbia, Cornell, Princeton, Stanford and Yale, accusing them of what it considers “discrimination and harassment”. The office threatened “potential enforcement actions if institutions do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act”, which “prohibits discrimination against or otherwise excluding individuals on the basis of race, color, or national origin”.
“Saddening, traumatic and unnecessary”
But the impact of the Trump uncertainty principle reaches far beyond these 60 institutions because it is destroying the bonding of these institutions through its impact on the labs, institutions and companies that collaborate with them. It is also badly damaging the hiring of postdocs, the ability to attract undergraduates, the retention of skilled support staff, and laboratory maintenance. Most disruptively of all, the Trump uncertainty principle provides no explanation for why or where it shows up, or what it is going to be applied to.
The Trump uncertainty principle provides no explanation for why or where it shows up, or what it is going to be applied to
Stony Brook University, where I teach, is a research incubator not on the list of 60 institutions of higher learning threatened by the Department of Education. But many of my colleagues have had their NIH, NSF or Department of Energy funding paused, left unrenewed, or suspended without explanation, and nobody could tell them whether or when it might be restored or why it was stopped in the first place.
Support for 11 graduate students at Stony Brook was terminated; though later restored after months of uncertainty, and nobody knows if it might happen again. I, too, had a grant stopped, though it was due to a crude error and the money started up again. Everyone in the sciences I’ve spoken to – faculty, staff and students – is affected in one way or another by the Trump uncertainty principle even if they haven’t lost funding or jobs.
It is easy to sound hyperbolic. It is possible that Trump’s draconian cuts may be reversed, that the threats won’t be implemented, that they won’t stand up in court, and that the Trump administration will actually respect the court decisions. But that’s not the point. You can’t plan ahead if you are unsure how much money you have, or even why you may be in the administration’s cross-hairs. That’s what is most destructive to US science. It’s also saddening, traumatic and unnecessary.
Maintaining any culture, including an academic research one, requires supporting an active and ongoing dynamic between past, present and future. It consists of an inherited array of resources, a set of ideas about how to go forward, and existing habits and practices about how best to move from one to the other. The Trump administration targets all three. It has slashed budgets and staff of long-standing scientific institutions and redirected future-directed scientific programmes at its whim. The Trump uncertainty principle also comes into play by damaging the existing habits and practices in the present.
The critical point
In his 2016 book The Invention of Science, David Wootton – a historian at the University of York in the UK – defined scientific culture as being “innovative, combative, competitive, but at the same time obsessed with accuracy”. Science isn’t the only kind of culture, he admitted, but it’s “a practical and effective one if your goal is the acquisition of new knowledge”. It seeks to produce knowledge about the world that can withstand criticism – “bomb-proof”, as Wootton put it.
Bomb-proof knowledge is what Trump fears the most, and he is undermining it by injecting uncertainty into the culture that produces it. The administration says that the Trump uncertainty principle is grounded in the fight against financial waste, fraud and discrimination. But proof of the principle is missing.
How do you save money by ending, say, a programme aimed at diagnosing tuberculosis? Why does a study of maternal health promote discrimination? What does research into Alzheimer’s disease have to do with diversity? Has ending scientific study of climate change got anything to do with any of this?
The justifications are not credible, and their lack of credibility is a leading factor in damaging scientific culture. Quite simply, the Trump uncertainty principle is destroying the position and momentum of US science.
The post ‘The Trump uncertainty principle’ is destroying the position and momentum of US science appeared first on Physics World.
