EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MESSAGE
AIPG Stance on March for Science
Aaron W. Johnson, MEM-2783
awj@aipg.org
Each year, Earth Day is celebrated on April 22. The history of Earth Day is fascinating, and involves two found- ers and two stories. In 1969, at a UNESCO conference in San Francisco, John McConnell proposed a global holi- day to be celebrated on March 21, to honor Earth and to advance peace. McConnell’s proposal was recorded in a proclamation that later was signed by United Nations Secretary General, U Thant. Less than a month after John McConnell made his proposal, Gaylord Nelson, a senator from Wisconsin, pro- posed a separate Earth Day focused on environmental education and aware- ness. This holiday, scheduled for April 22, was focused on the United States. Denis Hayes coordinated this Earth Day in 1970, and in 1990 founded the Earth Day Network which brought Earth Day to a global audience. Hayes would later go on to become director of the Solar Energy Research Institute, which would become the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Both Earth Days continue to be celebrated as each year, on March 21, the United Nations rings the ‘Peace Bell’ as part of UN Earth Day celebrations. The second Earth Day, celebrated on April 22, is the day that has been adopted by most of the world.
By the time you read this, Earth Day will have come and gone, and with it the March for Science, which is the real subject of this column. I’ve received numerous emails from members of AIPG inquiring about our position on the March for Science. Some members have proclaimed staunch support for the March and asked that AIPG lend our support. Others were equally convinced that AIPG is a professional organization devoted to ethics and professional prac- tice and should voice no support for the March, since its aims ‘appear to be more political than professional.’ A third group
expressed genuine curiosity as to the role AIPG would have in the March, if any at all, and why. Frankly, as I read through the letters, and spoke with members via phone, email, and text message, I found that there was no consensus among our members.
Nevertheless, I investigated the core values and goals of the March for Science, to see if these goals shared significant overlap with the core values and goals of AIPG. The March for Science holds the following core principles: 1) science that serves the common good; 2) evidence- based policy and regulations in the public interest; 3) cutting-edge science education; 4) diversity and inclusion in STEM; and, 5) funding for scientific research and its applications. In addi- tion the March lists humanizing science, partnering with the public, advocacy for open, inclusive, accessible science, sup- port for scientists, and the affirmation of science as a democratic value as specific goals of the March for Science. These are valuable core principles and laudable goals, but they share very little overlap with the principles and goals of AIPG.
I also examined the activities that the organizers of the March for Science had planned. I found that the March for Science did not plan direct outreach to legislators and instead had planned a rally that featured speakers on a main stage and teach-in tents around the National Mall. The organizers also planned a march along a predetermined route. As I investigated the March, it seemed to me to be designed more as a rally to draw attention rather than as outreach to identify solutions.
Finally, I reached out to our sister soci- ety, the American Geoscience Institute (AGI). The Institute was founded under a directive of the National Academies of Science, and has as its mission to “repre-
sent and serve the geoscience community by providing collaborative leadership and information to connect Earth, sci- ence, and people.” The Institute also found no consensus on support for the March for Science among their members.
Given the lack of consensus among members, the small amount of overlap between the principles and goals of the March and those of AIPG, and the decision by AGI to make no statement regarding the March, AIPG also chose to make no statement about the March for Science. In addition, as Executive Director, I was unwilling to attempt speak on behalf of all members with respect to the March for Science. I con- tinue to believe that our best strategy is to reach out directly to legislators and speak to specific geoscience topics. Certainly this is something that we can do more effectively and in a more organized, directed fashion. Ultimately I encourage you to continue to make your opinions about pressing issues known, especially those issues that impact the geosciences. We are stronger when we participate in the process of self-gover- nance.
Your section needs to start a Student Chapter Today. Contact Dorothy Combs at AIPG Headquarters for more details.
dkc@aipg.org
www.aipg.org
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
