By Shaoni Bhattacharya and Emily Twinch
20 JAN 2025
Trump presidency:
Key appointees, as well as WHO and climate stances, worry scientific community
As Donald Trump’s second presidential term begins with his inauguration today, scientists worldwide have sounded warnings about the impact his policies could have on science, public health, climate and research funding.
Scientists are concerned about the consequences of the US pulling out of the Paris climate agreement—as it did under the first Trump administration—and the World Health Organization.
Trump’s nominees for key federal agency posts in science have also caused consternation. There has been anxiety over the impact for science, with vaccine sceptic Robert F Kennedy Jr likely to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, taking charge of federal government involvement in areas ranging from medical research to food safety.
Other nominees include Covid lockdown critic Jay Bhattacharya, proposed as director of the National Institutes of Health, and Lee Zeldin, nominated for director of the Environmental Protection Agency.
John-Arne Røttingen, chief executive of Wellcome, said: “The US has a critical role to play in advancing science and global health. Health security for all nations also depends on global collaboration.
“A Trump administration, and a health department led by Robert F Kennedy Jr, will pose fresh challenges for science, health and equity.”
Rallying for science
A US non-profit organisation, the Union for Concerned Scientists, last week published two open letters rallying support for science in advance of Trump’s inauguration.
The first, signed by over 50,000 “science supporters, scientists and experts” asked Congress to “stand up against attempts to politicise or eliminate scientific roles, agencies and federal research that protect our health, environment and our communities”.
A second letter addressed 99 senators, some of whom have a role in the confirmation of Trump’s federal agency nominees, on behalf of 28 organisations that “support scientific integrity”. It asked them to consider “respect for science”.
“In particular, we urge you to vote against nominees who lack the necessary qualifications, have serious conflicts of interest, or fail to recognise any scientific consensus relevant to their agency,” it added.
Opposing confirmations
The start of confirmation hearings for Zeldin as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday met with criticism from environmentalists. The former congressman has a poor track record on environmental legislation, as noted by the US League of Conservation Voters.
“In his last role in government, then-Congressman Zeldin regularly voted for more pollution and fewer public health protections. He opposed efforts to fund the national flood insurance program—even as rising sea levels continue to threaten his own hometown [on Long Island]—and he voted to drastically slash funding for the very agency he now claims he wants to lead,” said Melinda Pierce, legislative director of environmental organisation the Sierra Club.
“Lee Zeldin has called for the repeal of standards that protect clean air and clean water…We call on members of the United States Senate to oppose his confirmation and protect the lives and livelihoods of this and all future generations.”
Scientifically worrying
Researchers have also expressed concerns to Research Professional News over the choice of Bhattacharya to lead the NIH, which describes itself as the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research.
Bhattacharya’s role in the debate over Covid lockdowns, in which he co-authored an open letter calling for an alternative strategy protecting those at highest risk while allowing those at minimal risk to “live their lives normally to build up immunity”, has seen him labelled by one critic as “a pro-infection doctor” who had wrongly claimed that “one infection led to permanent, robust immunity”.
“Given how bizarre…Trump’s nominations for high office have been, Dr Bhattacharya’s lack of any obvious qualification to be NIH director should not be a surprise,” Martin McKee, professor of European public health and medical director at the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine, told RPN.
“Scientifically, it is worrying that someone who was so wrong about the course of the pandemic should be in this position.”
Stephen Griffin, professor of cancer virology at the University of Leeds, also highlighted Bhattacharya’s pandemic stance as “a particular concern, especially given the worrying proliferation of H5N1 influenza across the US”.
McKee added: “Organisationally, it [the nomination] is also concerning given his lack of any experience of leading something as complex. It is, however, impossible to know what the consequences of this and the other nominations might be.”
Loss from world stage
Scientists are also concerned about losing US expertise and funding from global scientific collaborations. In particular, if the US leaves WHO—a process initiated by Trump during his first presidential term—this would be likely to have a huge impact. The US is WHO’s top donor country, having contributed US$1.284 billion during the two-year period from 2022–23.
“Health leaders in the USA bring tremendous technical expertise, leadership and influence and their potential loss from the world stage would have catastrophic implications, leaving the US and global health weaker as a result,” said Røttingen.
He added: “The scale of the health challenges we all face means it is in everyone’s interest that the WHO can operate at full strength and with all countries as engaged members influencing their priorities.”
As Donald Trump’s second presidential term begins with his inauguration today, scientists worldwide have sounded warnings about the impact his policies could have on science, public health, climate and research funding.
Scientists are concerned about the consequences of the US pulling out of the Paris climate agreement—as it did under the first Trump administration—and the World Health Organization.
Trump’s nominees for key federal agency posts in science have also caused consternation. There has been anxiety over the impact for science, with vaccine sceptic Robert F Kennedy Jr likely to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, taking charge of federal government involvement in areas ranging from medical research to food safety.
Other nominees include Covid lockdown critic Jay Bhattacharya, proposed as director of the National Institutes of Health, and Lee Zeldin, nominated for director of the Environmental Protection Agency.
John-Arne Røttingen, chief executive of Wellcome, said: “The US has a critical role to play in advancing science and global health. Health security for all nations also depends on global collaboration.
“A Trump administration, and a health department led by Robert F Kennedy Jr, will pose fresh challenges for science, health and equity.”
Rallying for science
A US non-profit organisation, the Union for Concerned Scientists, last week published two open letters rallying support for science in advance of Trump’s inauguration.
The first, signed by over 50,000 “science supporters, scientists and experts” asked Congress to “stand up against attempts to politicise or eliminate scientific roles, agencies and federal research that protect our health, environment and our communities”.
A second letter addressed 99 senators, some of whom have a role in the confirmation of Trump’s federal agency nominees, on behalf of 28 organisations that “support scientific integrity”. It asked them to consider “respect for science”.
“In particular, we urge you to vote against nominees who lack the necessary qualifications, have serious conflicts of interest, or fail to recognise any scientific consensus relevant to their agency,” it added.
Opposing confirmations
The start of confirmation hearings for Zeldin as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday met with criticism from environmentalists. The former congressman has a poor track record on environmental legislation, as noted by the US League of Conservation Voters.
“In his last role in government, then-Congressman Zeldin regularly voted for more pollution and fewer public health protections. He opposed efforts to fund the national flood insurance program—even as rising sea levels continue to threaten his own hometown [on Long Island]—and he voted to drastically slash funding for the very agency he now claims he wants to lead,” said Melinda Pierce, legislative director of environmental organisation the Sierra Club.
“Lee Zeldin has called for the repeal of standards that protect clean air and clean water…We call on members of the United States Senate to oppose his confirmation and protect the lives and livelihoods of this and all future generations.”
Scientifically worrying
Researchers have also expressed concerns to Research Professional News over the choice of Bhattacharya to lead the NIH, which describes itself as the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research.
Bhattacharya’s role in the debate over Covid lockdowns, in which he co-authored an open letter calling for an alternative strategy protecting those at highest risk while allowing those at minimal risk to “live their lives normally to build up immunity”, has seen him labelled by one critic as “a pro-infection doctor” who had wrongly claimed that “one infection led to permanent, robust immunity”.
“Given how bizarre…Trump’s nominations for high office have been, Dr Bhattacharya’s lack of any obvious qualification to be NIH director should not be a surprise,” Martin McKee, professor of European public health and medical director at the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine, told RPN.
“Scientifically, it is worrying that someone who was so wrong about the course of the pandemic should be in this position.”
Stephen Griffin, professor of cancer virology at the University of Leeds, also highlighted Bhattacharya’s pandemic stance as “a particular concern, especially given the worrying proliferation of H5N1 influenza across the US”.
McKee added: “Organisationally, it [the nomination] is also concerning given his lack of any experience of leading something as complex. It is, however, impossible to know what the consequences of this and the other nominations might be.”
Loss from world stage
Scientists are also concerned about losing US expertise and funding from global scientific collaborations. In particular, if the US leaves WHO—a process initiated by Trump during his first presidential term—this would be likely to have a huge impact. The US is WHO’s top donor country, having contributed US$1.284 billion during the two-year period from 2022–23.
“Health leaders in the USA bring tremendous technical expertise, leadership and influence and their potential loss from the world stage would have catastrophic implications, leaving the US and global health weaker as a result,” said Røttingen.
He added: “The scale of the health challenges we all face means it is in everyone’s interest that the WHO can operate at full strength and with all countries as engaged members influencing their priorities.”
January 20, 2025, marks the 70th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and Afghanistan. On this occasion, let's have a look at some key indicators highlighting the growing cooperation between the two countries.