by Bert Breij (PhD)
During Donald Trump’s presidency, the scientific community faced an unexpected adversary: the state. With budget cuts to key research programs, the sidelining of climate science, and the dismantling of diversity initiatives, U.S. science experienced what many researchers saw as a direct political attack. Yet this period of contraction sparked a surprising counterforce—an unprecedented surge in scientific solidarity, both national and international. Technology and cooperation became tools not only of innovation, but of resistance.
Marching for Science: From Protest to Global Movement
It began in April 2017 with an idea that seemed almost unthinkable in previous decades: scientists marching in the streets. The March for Science, held in over 600 cities worldwide, brought together researchers, students, educators, and concerned citizens. They protested not only funding cuts, but also what they saw as a deeper erosion of truth, expertise, and public trust in science.
In Washington, Berlin, Nairobi and Sydney, banners read “Science is not a liberal conspiracy” and “There is no Planet B”. But more than slogans, these marches marked the birth of a global network of solidarity, one that would deepen over the following years.
Saving Data, Defying Silence
As U.S. government websites quietly removed public climate data, a new form of solidarity took shape: data rescue. Scientists and coders, from Philadelphia to Vancouver, gathered in overnight hackathons to copy, archive and secure environmental and climate datasets before they could disappear.
Projects such as DataRefuge and Climate Mirror emerged, not only to preserve information, but to protect the very idea that data should serve the public good. This wasn’t just tech activism—it was a grassroots technological response to state censorship, driven by shared values and mutual commitment.
Europe Steps In: Brain Drain, Brain Gain
With tightened immigration policies and a chilling effect on academic freedom, many international scientists in the U.S. began looking elsewhere. European research institutions responded, not only with concern, but with open arms. Germany’s Humboldt Foundation and the European Research Council stepped up with fellowships and funding, actively courting researchers at risk of exclusion.
This talent flow reflected more than academic opportunity—it was a gesture of scientific hospitality. Solidarity, here, meant providing refuge, continuity, and dignity in the face of institutional uncertainty.
Open Science as an Act of Resistance
Perhaps less visible, but no less impactful, was the shift toward open-access publishing. As funding grew uncertain and institutional gatekeeping intensified, scientists began sharing more of their work publicly, on platforms like arXiv, bioRxiv and Zenodo.
This surge in open science was not only about efficiency—it was about accessibility and equity. It ensured that research remained available to those whose institutions could no longer afford access. In a time of narrowing borders, knowledge flowed freely.
Organized Support: Speaking Out and Stepping Up
Major scientific organizations took clear and vocal stances. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Royal Society, and universities around the world issued solidarity statements. They defended the role of science in society and called for the protection of academic freedom, particularly for scholars from underrepresented or marginalized backgrounds.
Science, often stereotyped as neutral or detached, showed its ethical backbone. These institutions reminded the world: science is not only about results—it is about responsibility.
The Unexpected Gift of Adversity
Ironically, Trump’s assault on science may have unified researchers in a way that decades of consensus-building could not. Solidarity was no longer abstract—it was immediate and necessary. Researchers who had never seen themselves as activists became organizers, communicators, and coalition-builders.
The lesson? Technological progress is not just about innovation; it is about community. When political conditions become hostile, solidarity becomes the technology of survival. And sometimes, as the Dutch footballer Johan Cruijff wisely said, “Every disadvantage has its advantage.”
This surge in open science was not only about efficiency—it was about
accessibility and equity. It ensured that research remained available to those
whose institutions could no longer afford access. In a time of narrowing borders,
knowledge flowed freely.
Organized Support: Speaking Out and Stepping Up
Major scientific organizations took clear and vocal stances. The American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Royal Society, and
universities around the world issued solidarity statements. They defended the
role of science in society and called for the protection of academic freedom,
particularly for scholars from underrepresented or marginalized backgrounds.
Science, often stereotyped as neutral or detached, showed its ethical backbone.
These institutions reminded the world: science is not only about results—it is
about responsibility.
The Unexpected Gift of Adversity
Ironically, Trump’s assault on science may have unified researchers in a way that
decades of consensus-building could not. Solidarity was no longer abstract—it
was immediate and necessary. Researchers who had never seen themselves as
activists became organizers, communicators, and coalition-builders.
The lesson? Technological progress is not just about innovation; it is about
community. When political conditions become hostile, solidarity becomes the
technology of survival. And sometimes, as the Dutch footballer Johan Cruijff
wisely said,
“Every disadvantage has its advantage.”
