When the tide goes out, everyone can see who’s swimming naked. In the Trump era’s tsunami against science, we’re learning that among those pretenders—long mouthing support for vulnerable people but then standing silent when it matters—are too many scientific societies, the professional or special interest groups that are supposed to advocate for their researcher members. Scientific organizations must act—not just to defend research, but to defend the lives and communities that depend on their work.
Since January the Trump administration has slashed federal funding for research projects centered on equity, health disparities and marginalized communities. Some scientific organizations, like the American Public Health Association, have taken a stand and joined an ACLU lawsuit filed on April 2 to protect these essential projects, and just two days later 16 state attorneys general followed suit.
Yet no other scientific societies have taken steps to join legal challenges, despite the vocal resistance of individual scientists.
On supporting science journalism
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
I experienced this passivity firsthand in late March, while attending the Society of Behavioral Medicine conference in San Francisco, where 1,900 researchers came to discuss medical advances in today’s changing health care environment. As a public health researcher and professor whose work focuses on HIV, stigma and health equity, I’ve spent my career trying to ensure groups that have been historically overlooked or excluded are not erased from research agendas. So witnessing my own professional society choose silence in this moment hit differently.
At the meeting, grassroots scientists circulated a petition asking SBM’s leadership to join the ACLU’s lawsuit. Sparked by the tireless work of social psychologist Laramie R. Smith, whose research has illuminated how stigma drives HIV’s unequal distribution both in the U.S. and globally, we asked our discipline to join in halting politically motivated grant cancellations, under the hashtag #TerminatedScience.
In less than 24 hours on March 27, the petition had over 300 signatures. It now has more than 400.
Beyond the numbers, the comments from signatories were powerful—and damning. Researchers voiced deep concern about the erosion of academic freedom and scientific integrity. Many described the Trump administration’s cancellations as a direct attack on science and research rooted in facts, warning that political interference is not just stalling progress but actively endangering public health.
They also highlighted the human effects. Many terminated projects centered on advancing health equity—addressing disparities faced by LGBTQ+ individuals, BIPOC communities, women, immigrants and rural populations. These aimed at improving lives, preventing illness and responding to unmet needs. Defunding this work is not just a blow to science—it’s a betrayal of the communities that science is supposed to serve.
“These projects weren’t just data points on a spreadsheet. These were projects designed to reach people who have long been excluded from health care and research,” said Smith. “Canceling these projects isn’t just bad policy; it’s harmful to the health of real people in our community.”
Early-career scientists in particular spoke to the devastating toll: careers interrupted, research halted midstream, trainees left without mentorship or direction. There was a palpable sense of destabilization—of demoralization. One signatory warned that the scientific pipeline for young scientists is being dismantled before our eyes.
Nevertheless, the SBM board voted against joining the lawsuit. Their follow-up communication, sent to the membership listserv, stated that they had “given serious and lengthy consideration” and ultimately decided that, with the board’s fiduciary duties in mind, “it is not in the best interest of the Society to become a co-plaintiff.” No further explanation was provided—no criteria for future action, no timeline, and no invitation for open dialogue. For a society grounded in behavioral and social science, this lack of transparency and community engagement was stunning.
While this experience served as a master class in grassroots scientific advocacy, it also left me with a more unsettling realization—one I hadn’t fully questioned until now: Are the scientific organizations we belong to actually willing to defend science when it is under attack? While APHA has stepped up, will other organizations like the American Psychological Association, National Academy of Sciences, and American Association for the Advancement of Science, also do so? The APA has 173,000 members. AAAS has more than 120,000 members. No one could have a more powerful voice than these organizations that represent so many scientists and researchers.
Scientists should be asking this question of their professional societies—and demanding real answers. These organizations represent us, our values, and our work. If they are unwilling to take a stand now—when science is being politicized, targeted and punished—what message does that send about their commitment to our collective mission?
And it’s not just scientists who deserve answers. So do the taxpayers who have supported this work for decades, in the belief that science truly serves the public—especially the most vulnerable. When institutions choose silence over advocacy, it raises serious questions about whose interests they are really protecting.
It’s not just HIV research that’s under threat. Projects focused on LGBTQ+ health, reproductive justice, youth mental health and racial equity have all come under fire—signaling that no area of socially conscious science is safe from political interference. This isn’t a moment for professional societies to be cautious. It’s a moment for them to be bold.
Even if your area of research isn’t currently in the crosshairs, it may be next. The pattern is clear, and the list of terminations is growing. This isn’t limited to research focused on racial justice or LGBTQ+ equity; recently terminated grants have included work on biobanking infrastructure, Alzheimer’s risk and memory mechanisms, and global food safety regulation. Will you wait until they’re knocking on your door to cancel your funding before you speak up?
I urge you to ask this simple but critical question: What is my professional society actively doing to protect science right now?
And if the answer is “nothing,” perhaps it’s time to rethink your membership.
Because silence isn’t neutrality. It’s complicity. And science deserves better.
This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of their institution or Scientific American.