If there is a distinctive feature of the policy of Donald Trump towards the scienceit is the tendency to downsize it, marginalize it and, in some cases, to ignore it completely. From cuts to Noaa Until the exit from Paris agreements and of theWHOhis administration has adopted a line that considers research more as an obstacle than as an opportunity. But why? Why has a country that has built its economic and technological supremacy also thanks to science, from the spatial era to digital revolutions, today it is a deal as a problem?
Science does not create immediate profit
Science is not neutral in the eyes of politics. Not because it has an ideological agenda, but because it produces data, and the data can disappear economic and political balances. Scientific research works with long timescollects evidence, studies complex phenomena and, sometimes, reveals uncomfortable truths. If a study shows that an industrial sector contributes to pollution or that a political choice has negative long -term effects, those who govern have two options: accept reality and intervene, or minimize and discredit the source.
The administration on several occasions has shown that it preferred the second way. From the limitation of funds to Noaa to attempts to reduce the role ofEPA (Environmental Protection Agency), the strategy was clear: reduce the weight of science in the political and economic debateespecially when the data interfere with an immediate profit vision.
The emblematic case of layoffs to Noaa wanted by Trump
There Noaa (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), established in 1970, is the agency that monitors the climateThe oceans he is extreme atmospheric phenomena. His data are crucial to predict hurricanes, storms and other events that may have devastating impacts on communities and economics. But Noaa is also a pillar in research on climate change. His studies contribute to defining global strategies for the reduction of CO emissions₂ and for adaptation to climatic changes. And it is here that he enters into conflict with a policy that has often denied the climatic crisis.
In the first months of 2025, the Trump administration has Cut hundreds of jobs in the Noaadrastically reducing the United States ability to monitor the atmosphere and oceans. A decision that does not only have scientific, but also economic consequences: Sectors such as agriculture, tourism and energy depend on reliable climatic data to plan their activities.
Industry and science: allies, not enemies
Let me be clear, this is not an attack on industry. Economic progress is also based on research, innovation and competitiveness. Companies need efficiency, market strategies and returns to investments. This is the engine of the economic system, as it likes or not. The point is that the science follows another logic. He does not work on financial quarters, or on four -year -olds of government, but on decades of observations, analyzes and experiments. And the results often emerge in the long run, without an immediate economic return.
In the case of Noaa, let’s think about meteorology: without atmospheric models developed in decades of study, today we would not have reliable forecasts. Let’s think about research on marine biodiversity: without data collected in years of monitoring, we would not know how to sustain ocean resources sustainable. Cut the search because he does not bring immediate profits It is a strategic error, Not only for the environment, but also for the economy itself.
The consequences of a blind policy
Reducing the weight of science in political decisions means exposing the country to avoidable risks.
- Without reliable climatic dataentire local economies can be affected by non -expected extreme events.
- Without independent searchesindustrial strategies risk based on incomplete or partisan information.
- Without investments in researchthe United States lose land in the global competition on innovation.
And this has a cost, economic and social. Because if there is one thing that science teaches, it is that the problems ignored today become crises tomorrow. Science is an investment, not a luxury.
The real problem is not the cuts in scientific research, but the mentality that guides them
The reduction of Noaa staff, the exit from the Paris agreements, the abandonment of WHO are undoubtedly wrong decisions, but the real aspect on which to reflect is that they represent a worrying trend; represent a mentality in which science is perceived as a brakelong -term planning like a obstacle and reality as something adaptable to needs Policies of the moment.
These are not simple administrative measures, but signs of a way of govern which preterate in an extreme way, much more extreme than what happened to date, the immediate consent and the quick economic return knowledge and preparation for the future.
At the base there is a dangerous logic: the idea that science is useful only if immediately functional to political or industrial interests. Scientific research does not respond to electoral cycles or market strategies. Responds to the method, data and reality. And ignore it does not avoid the consequences. Refers to them, making them worst.
