Introduction
The current discussion surrounding climate change and scientific integrity is more pressing than ever. In this article, we explore recent developments regarding the National Center for Atmospheric Research and delve into the broader implications of specific scientific policies on America’s research landscape.
Part the First: Climate, “What, Me Worry?” Once again, Alfred E. Neuman comes to mind as “policy-based science” remains a priority for the current administration, especially in light of plans to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
The Trump Administration has announced the disbanding of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, which is recognized globally as leading in Earth science research.
Established in 1960, this center has contributed significantly to our understanding of weather and climate. Its advanced research aircraft and cutting-edge computer models are instrumental in forecasting weather events and disasters across the nation. Researchers there cover a wide array of topics, including air pollution, ocean currents, and global warming.
However, in a recent social media post, Russell Vought, head of the Office of Management and Budget, dubbed the center “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country” and announced plans to “break up” the institution.
Vought stated that a “comprehensive review is underway” and assured that “any vital activities such as weather research will be relocated.” (which seems unlikely.)
It is often said, “It’s just the weather,” but we must remember that while we experience climate as weather, climate is the underlying reality.
Mr. Trump frequently dismisses climate change as a hoax, and his administration has labeled nearly all initiatives aimed at studying climate change, reducing hazardous greenhouse gases, or safeguarding communities from global warming impacts as “alarmist.”
According to the administration, the center has promoted what it considers trivial and ideological issues, including research on safeguarding wind turbines from hurricanes and a project that incorporates Indigenous knowledge into studies assessing climate change effects on coastal communities.
Indeed, mockery has become routine in the political landscape. However, the following points are not new:
Closing the facility would also inflict economic damage on Colorado. President Trump has recently clashed with Governor Jared Polis, labeling him a “weak and pathetic man” and asserting, without evidence, that the governor is “controlled” by Venezuelan gang members.
The conflict traces back to a former Colorado election official, Tina Peters, who faced felony convictions for allowing Mr. Trump’s supporters unauthorized access to voting machines following the 2020 elections. While Mr. Trump has pardoned Peters, Colorado officials have countered that presidential pardons do not extend to state crimes. (While I’m not a lawyer, I believe Mr. Childs, my 8th-grade Civics teacher would concur.)
Are we nearing or have we already crossed pivotal climate thresholds due to the carbon emissions we’ve released over the past two hundred years? Is it simply a matter of “just weather” that the hottest years since the 19th century have predominantly occurred in the last thirty years? Perhaps it is time to consult Mr. Vought about this, for soon we may no longer be able to ask the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): “This website is an ARCHIVED version of NOAA Climate.gov as of June 25, 2025. Content is not being updated or maintained, and some links may not work.”
Part the Second: American Science Shattered, Part 9. The National Human Genome Research Institute has been a leader in genome biology since before any complete genome apart from a few viruses was sequenced. James D. Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA double helix with Francis Crick, was the first director of the precursor to NHGRI, the National Center for Human Genome Research. We often overlook just how recent genome research is. Watson lived a long life, and how NHGRI responded to his passing last month had been a topic of discussion for years:
On a government server, drafts of opinion pieces, potential interview talking points for scientists, and a statement from the agency director were stored away. This elaborate PR effort was prepared for two main reasons: Watson had been a staunch supporter of the Human Genome Project and was fundamentally responsible for NHGRI’s existence. Unfortunately, Watson’s enduring beliefs in scientific racism and sexism, which marred his legacy, did not die with him. If anything, they seem to be resurfacing.
Even prior to President Trump’s return to power, igniting a resurgence of racist, anti-immigrant, and transphobic sentiments, ideas rooted in eugenics had been gaining traction in the U.S., fueled by concerns about declining birth rates and new genetic technologies that promise to give prospective parents unprecedented control over their offspring. In the face of this resurgence, NHGRI leadership publicly opposed scientific racism and eugenics, highlighting the dubious evidence and ethical concerns surrounding these technologies, as well as the risk they pose in deterring historically marginalized groups from participating in genomic research, thereby threatening the future of personalized medicine.
Nevertheless, when Watson died in November at the age of 97, NHGRI refrained from releasing any of the materials its team had prepared. There was no one left in their communication office to do so, as Bates, along with all staff from NHGRI’s education and outreach branches, had been dismissed months earlier during the Trump administration’s restructuring efforts.
Is this significant? Absolutely. The public interface of the NIH is crucial for both scientists and the general populace in accessing the vast biological and biomedical knowledge accumulated since the 1950s, largely funded by American taxpayers. When PubMed faced temporary downtime a few months ago, my immediate thought was, “Is this the end?” It turned out to be a brief glitch, but one can anticipate that such disruptions may become permanent, resulting in the severe hindrance of modern biomedical science:
The consequences of these losses have received little attention compared to grant terminations, advisory body purges, and crackdowns on international collaborations undertaken by the Trump administration over the past eleven months, aimed at imposing conservative political ideals on the research sector. Amid the ongoing crisis of public trust in government and science, equally concerning is the dismantling of the essential tools best equipped to address this issue: namely, transparent and frequent communication.
Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon did not respond to detailed inquiries from STAT concerning diminished public communications and centralization at the NIH, but issued a statement indicating that the agency “is modernizing the largest website footprint in HHS, drawing on longstanding efforts and employing a structure that encourages consistent enhancements across the agency.” Recent investments and engagement throughout the NIH “have bolstered the foundation for a more unified and efficient web presence, creating momentum for enterprise-wide updates,” he mentioned.
Such reassurances sound appealing, but are they genuinely accurate? What truths lie in the data that must be concealed or forever lost?
To truly understand what is being sacrificed, one should look towards the genome institute. A congressional mandate to engage with the public is specifically articulated in its founding charter, which it upheld through its designated education and community involvement branch. It’s the only institute dedi>
cated to a molecule, rather than an organ or disease. This molecule carries the complete historical narrative of every human who has ever lived, along with the potential futures of forthcoming generations. Thus, the study of DNA should encompass much more than just inherited genes, offering insights into the societal narratives regarding the significance of such inheritances.
For centuries, scientists have been fascinated by the questions of how and why humans differ. The Human Genome Project aimed to decode the genetic sequences within our DNA, offering potential answers, while also striving to identify the genetic roots of diseases and enhance overall human health. Yet, over the past decade and a half, contemporary geneticists have faced the unsettling realization that their advancements might have perpetuated the myth of race as a biological construct, potentially stoking the flames of scientific racism.
It is easy to assume that eugenics has vanished as a scientific concept, but this is far from the truth. Kathryn Paige Harden of the University of Texas recently published The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality (2022). This book takes a more nuanced approach compared to overt political tracts like The Bell Curve (1994) by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray, yet it has been interpreted similarly. For those interested in deeper analysis, The Genetic Lottery was reviewed in the NYRB by M.W. Feldman and Jessica Riskin, and a subsequent discussion emerged shortly after. Feldman and Riskin presented convincing arguments. For Professor Harden, “While one’s genetics may not determine life outcomes, they still correlate with various socio-economic factors, such as being significantly wealthier by the end of one’s career.” In reality, it’s more plausible that personal wealth at the conclusion of one’s working life could be connected to the financial standing of one’s parents or other stochastic factors, rather than innate talent. Genius, after all, is rarely involved.
However, these discussions are not merely academic:
During a conservative talk radio show last year, Trump inaccurately claimed that the Biden administration welcomed 13,000 migrants with felony histories. He stated, “You know, now a murderer, I believe this, it’s in their genes,” suggesting that “we have many bad genes in our country right now.” At a rally in 2023, he declared that immigrants are “polluting the blood of our nation.” During a visit to Bemidji, Minnesota—a predominantly white city—Trump remarked that the locals had “good genes.” “Much of this is about genetics, isn’t it?,” he asked, adding, “The racehorse theory. You believe we’re so different?” (It seems Trump fails to recognize that thoroughbred horses can suffer from the detrimental effects of inbreeding.)
The president’s rhetoric underscores a broader resurgence of eugenic concepts gaining acceptance within mainstream discourse. Moreover, this is reflected in the rise of technologies claiming to grant parents heightened control over their choices regarding potential offspring. This makes the current moment particularly precarious for NHGRI to lose its voice.
Today, affluent individuals assume they can pre-screen embryos for polygenic traits, hoping to ensure their offspring’s success. This trend is particularly popular in Silicon Valley, yet it’s highly unlikely to succeed. Just this morning, while awaiting my third Zoom meeting, I came across an article by the esteemed Robert Lipsyte, which articulates our society’s sense of aimlessness, titled A Farewell to Sports:
In the year of my birth, 1938, the White Christian males who dominated the sports realm viewed their games as benchmarks of virtue, crucibles of character, and means to prepare for dominance in both business and warfare. Anyone who participated but didn’t resemble them was an outsider, likely resorting to performance enhancers.
This was articulated clearly in a book published that very year by a leading sportswriter, Paul Gallico. Titled Farewell to Sport, it suggested that the “colored brother” was exceptionally successful in boxing because he “is not nearly as sensitive to pain as his White counterpart,” and asserted that New York Yankee slugger Babe Ruth, “like all people from what we designate as low origins… is unrestrained by inhibitions”; similarly, it stated that basketball “appeals to the Hebrew… due to its demands for an agile, cunning mind and flashy trickery, artful dodging, and general cleverness.”
I was particularly taken by his remark that Mildred (Babe) Didrikson Zaharias became one of the greatest athletes of the century (across various sports) “simply because she would not or could not compete with women at their best game — man-snatching. It was an escape, a form of compensation. She would surpass them in every other challenge.”
This backdrop reveals the broader misogyny in sports and society at large. During a casual golf game, Gallico and Zaharias were convinced to partake in a footrace by renowned sportswriter Grantland Rice. Zaharias outpaced Gallico, who subsequently seldom wrote about her without referencing her physique, deep voice, and strength, embodying the underlying belief that a “real woman” couldn’t possibly defeat a “real man.” (One of the best sports biographies I’ve read is Wonder Girl.)
We have witnessed these issues before, Mr. President, BS (Penn); Jay Bhattacharya, MD-MS-PhD (Stanford); and RFKJr, BA-MA-JD (Harvard, LSE, UVA, Pace). We must not revert to past errors, as your persistence may ultimately lead to failure. Yet, the consequences could be enduring. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, from which there is no escape, reminds us that it is significantly easier to destroy than to build or maintain.
Part the Third: A Reply to ambrit and Others About mRNA Vaccines. Recently, during the Coffee Break discussion, we deliberated on mRNA vaccines designed to combat pancreatic cancer. Ambrit raised the question, and others contributed:
Regarding the mRNA topic, there’s an ongoing debate about the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines. Does this discord center around the mRNA method itself or the coronavirus spike proteins utilized in the “vaccines”?
The new “in the patient’s body” methodology raises concerns about its potential for inducing epigenetic changes in young individuals.
These are valid inquiries! While I have extensively read about mRNA vaccines since the first year of COVID-19, I cannot claim expertise in the field. Thus, what follows is based on my readings and intuition shaped by a long career in the lab predating the advent of mRNA as a “reagent.”
The introduction of exogenous mRNA into cultured mammalian cells for synthesizing corresponding proteins was first proposed in 1989. The groundbreaking research has since led to hundreds of thousands of related papers. Dr. Robert Malone of ACIP was the lead author of that foundational paper, which he cites as his justification for claiming to be the inventor of mRNA vaccines. This is inaccurate. However, the methodology itself has proven transformative. Using mRNA to produce an antigen within the subject’s body represents a rapid approach for addressing emerging infectious diseases in the Genomic Era. Nonetheless, to my knowledge, this strategy did not prove effective against Zika virus after its outbreak ten years ago. Nevertheless, the allure of an mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 was irresistible— deemed “exciting” by molecular biologists (and lucrative for Moderna and Pfizer). The assumption was that such a method could not possibly fail!
While the technique itself is well-established, leading to this Nobel Prize (its narrative still waiting to be recounted from a grounded perspective), the vaccines were experimental. This crucial fact was not emphasized by medical and political authorities. One significant concern was that no one could predict how much spike protein any recipient would produce following vaccination or whether generating a viral protein fragment within the host was advisable. From my research experience, the expression of foreign proteins can often be detrimental to cells, especially since a viral fusion protein is extraordinarily foreign compared to cancer neoantigens utilized in the pancreatic cancer mRNA “vaccines.” That said, it is vital to note that mRNA vaccines do not equate to “gene therapy,” contradicting the surrounding hysteria. The introduction of a mechanism capable of inducing epigenetic alterations in young individuals is unlikely in this new in-the-body technique.
Additionally, we must recognize the scientific fact that durable immunity to coronaviruses has never been demonstrated in vertebrates since the discovery of the first coronavirus (potentially in the 1930s) and long before it was ascribed a “crown.” Thus, herd immunity (which we are swiftly losing against measles) for SARS-CoV-2, as advocated by authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Jay Bhattacharya, and Martin Kulldorf, was highly improbable. If the vaccines were promoted as one approach, albeit the swiftest, but not the sole approach to combat COVID-19, the vaccine hesitancy so aggressively fueled by RFKJr over the years may not have escalated dramatically.
I reiterate that much of the turmoil in our times stems from the unyielding confidence displayed by the scientific establishment—“I am smart and you are not.” Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the vaccines saved countless lives by alleviating severe COVID-19 cases in many patients. Moreover, myocarditis is more likely a consequence of COVID-19 infection than an mRNA vaccine. My greatest concern lies in the next pandemic, particularly given the precarious state of medicine, biomedical research, and epidemiological surveillance in our contemporary society.
Conclusion
The interplay between science and politics in the current climate poses serious risks for both public safety and the integrity of research. As we reflect on recent events, it is essential that we prioritize sound scientific practices and transparent communication to reassure the public and advance our collective understanding of complex issues like climate change and healthcare. I wish everyone a joyful holiday season and look forward to our discussions in the new year!
