It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

March For Science Schedule details emerge

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
At this point, I have no idea where this should go... putting it here because of the possibility that more of you may be interested. In any case, after a few months of suspense, the March For Science group is finally becoming more active and is sharing details.

First (and most important), they have announced a plan for the day's events in Washington DC



In Washington DC, our event will kick off at 10 am with a teach-in and rally on the National Mall and end with a march through the streets of DC. Co-hosted with the Earth Day Network, the rally will be a call for politicians to implement science based policies, as well as a public celebration of science and the enormous public service it provides in our democracy, our economy, and in all our daily lives.

DC event details emerge here


It hasn't been announced officially, but I think many of us will wear white lab coats even if we don't actually NEED white lab coats for our work. It makes a statement.

Second, they're using Skedaddle to help people get inexpensive bus rides to DC (link here)

Third, it appears that there will be quite a few satellite marches (you can look for one close to you at this link) I suspect that these will be smaller than the Womens' March, but hopefully there will be good turnouts.

And finally, the March For Science Facebook page is up - and it's active. They've been passing along some good articles lately, including this one on Gizmodo about (yes) scientists have ALWAYS been activists

They're also on Twitter and Instagram (if you like pictures and memes instead)

Yes, I'll be attending and documenting the one in Washington DC and (later, in a paper or perhaps a blog) comparing and contrasting with my experience in going to the Women's March.




posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd
From your link I find this.

Kelly Ramirez, a microbiologist and one of the founders of the 500 Women Scientists network, never thought of herself as an activist before. “I had my head down,” she said. “You do your work, you publish your papers—it’s not encouraged to take political positions.” But after the election, she realized that she had to take a more active role. “Now, it’s a good time to start being louder,” she said.


Kelly Ramirez has An Open Letter from and to Female Scientists...

Why only Female Scientists?
Isn't that rather sexist?
I bet all the male scientists feel discriminated against.
Here's her letter if you wish to read it.
Open Letter


We reject the hateful rhetoric that was given a voice during the U.S. presidential election and which targeted minority groups, women, LGBTQIA, immigrants, and people with disabilities, and attempted to discredit the role of science in our society. Many of us feel personally threatened by this divisive and destructive rhetoric and have turned to each other for understanding, strength, and a path forward. We are members of racial, ethnic, and religious minority groups. We are immigrants. We are people with disabilities. We are LGBTQIA. We are scientists. We are women.


edit on 2-3-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

While I wouldn't give the whole military budget to NASA, I think trying a 50:50 split between the military and science programs would actually advance both science and the military much faster.



Byrd, I just noticed that you registered 2 days before me. Well played.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
What are they protesting? Didn't Trump just sign something concerning women in the stem field and isn't he about to give nasa a bunch of cash?

I'm confused, is this about that freeze on government employees from releasing anything? That should be ending pretty soon, if it hasn't already.



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   
I have a feeling something really bad is going to happen at the science march. I have no idea what is going to happen or if it really is going to happen, I just got a feeling.
edit on 2-3-2017 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2017 @ 11:58 PM
link   
I'd be willing to support this march if it wasn't for the fact that they've lumped a bunch of non-scientific related political browbeating along with it.

For supposed 'scientists' they sure have ignored a lot of facts, like Trump not being against marriage equality, and being the ONLY president to ever hold up the rainbow flag, and the ONLY presidential candidate and president whose position on LGBT rights has never changed with political winds.

Stuff like this turns me off to these marches. Let's talk about science and how important it is for our society to become more scientifically literate. Leave the pet leftist causes at the door, thanks.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Byrd
From your link I find this.

Kelly Ramirez, a microbiologist and one of the founders of the 500 Women Scientists network, never thought of herself as an activist before. “I had my head down,” she said. “You do your work, you publish your papers—it’s not encouraged to take political positions.” But after the election, she realized that she had to take a more active role. “Now, it’s a good time to start being louder,” she said.


Kelly Ramirez has An Open Letter from and to Female Scientists...

Why only Female Scientists?
Isn't that rather sexist?
I bet all the male scientists feel discriminated against.
Here's her letter if you wish to read it.
Open Letter


Before I answer, I would like to know:
* are you female?
* are you a scientist?

No, not being derogatory, but I can frame my answer better if I know where you're coming from. I suspect the answer to both is "no" because you don't seem to have any connection to these issues but I want to ask before making a really silly assumption.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
I'd be willing to support this march if it wasn't for the fact that they've lumped a bunch of non-scientific related political browbeating along with it.


Scientists have always been activists. Einstein and even Tesla were among the numerous scientists over time that had opinions and tried to get politicians to understand the impact of science on the future.


Let's talk about science and how important it is for our society to become more scientifically literate.

We've been doing this at Earth Day every year for a very long time. We've been holding this dialogue in many forums and on podcasts and tv and so forth (see Neil Degrasse Tyson for example.)

It just hasn't gained as much traction as "Duck Dynasty." And some of the efforts ("Two Scientists Walk Into A Bar" and "Outrageous Acts Of Science") talk about "experiments" and "science" and what they show are neither (and their assessments border on the lame. But they're liked.)


Leave the pet leftist causes at the door, thanks.

Except that we've just gone through a long period where our data has been silenced (or politicians have attempted to silence it (things like gun violence and climate data)), we've faced cuts in funding (and so much of what we have started with university grants), we're seeing research colleagues banned from entering the US and research lecturers banned from entering the US, and so many other things that were not done by society but were done by politicians and specifically by the current administration.

So these "pet leftist causes" actually impact whether or not we can do science (the degree I'm getting is in Egyptology. I speak some Arabic. I would likely be detained and questioned by the US for my travel.)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Protector
a reply to: Byrd

While I wouldn't give the whole military budget to NASA, I think trying a 50:50 split between the military and science programs would actually advance both science and the military much faster.

Military based research is actually different ... but you can't tell where they will overlap. And NASA isn't the be-all-and-end-all of research. That's just space science. Many of our advances are done through universities that initiate and develop ideas and processes and grants make that possible - from social sciences (such as research on inner cities... I was part of one of those research teams) to epidemiology (one old project I was on was about how to effectively get information about West Nile Virus to senior citizens (who are very vulnerable)) and so on and so forth.

The National Science Foundation has funded a lot of this type of research and has a good track record (developments and papers and foundations for other advances.) Grants are hard to get (and the proof you need to submit is monumental and that won't guarantee you funds. The NSF is asking for 8 billion this year and the Republicans in the House and Congress have been trying to cut the NSF budget for years (Archaeologists staged a protest in 2015 over attempted budget cuts but I bet most folks didn't notice)

But... all the budgets in the word aren't going to help if our government is detaining visiting scholars who are involved in research or other academics aren't allowed in. And if US politics causes other countries to restrict our entry via visa, we lose opportunities for research and contact with potential colleagues in other countries. This also slows research.

International cooperation is vital to research because the fields are so broad and so complex and many countries are involved in research. As an example, I am constantly seeing requests for information to scholars across the world (from other scholars across the world) on the Egyptology email server. We share information so that research can march faster. Often a person in one country may have access to research or material (and sometimes in a different language) that would be helpful to a project.


Byrd, I just noticed that you registered 2 days before me. Well played.

Actually, I was on the older board as well. Member since 1998 or 1999.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
I have a feeling something really bad is going to happen at the science march. I have no idea what is going to happen or if it really is going to happen, I just got a feeling.


We're a bunch of scientists. No one has ever made any sweeping violent threats against us, and I doubt anyone will.

We're certainly not going to do anything except demonstrate and teach! I'm looking forward to the teaching booths; will see if there's things there that I might put into public lectures (I do public lectures at some conventions and for some groups.)

My prediction is that the crowd will be smaller than the Women's March but will be equally peaceful.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 05:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

I don't disagree with that you said, it's the stuff you didn't reply to that I have an issue with. It's the constant leftist droning against things that aren't happening the way they say it is.

That said, I firmly support scientific endeavors and the public funding there of. The Trump administrations apparent hostility toward certain areas of research and certain medical provisions is something I do not support and I firmly stand with you against any such policy that would hinder those endeavors.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Well what you should understand Projectvxn is that Science, by its nature, nurtures the sentiment that can best be described as "On the fence"

This is not necessarily leftist... it attempts to be centrist, and the issue with the US and how people see and interpret everything is in a sense that you have to be full right wing, or full left wing...

When you are a scientist... you tend to realize that the grass is not greener on either side. And as for leftist droning... that is quite ironic really given the amount of droning on about things that are not happening as justification for certain events... by the right wing... is pretty hilarious also.

Remember how much Conservatives go on about liberals wanting safe spaces? yeah, the funniest and most ironic thing given that in my experience as a someone who is a professional scientist and tries to be centrist... the conservative thinkers scream more about wanting safe spaces (but in a different form) than liberals do. LOL Whats that? don't want any hard questions, opinions or the possibility of negative news? lets make press briefing a safe space
and claim any criticism is fake... yay... see what i mean? works both ways... oh yeah and guess what? Both are wrong.


Now on topic, the March is quite important because what has happened as a fallback is that the public view of science has taken a massive negative hit without good reason or provocation, we already have the general sense that science is a waste of money and that all these science boffins do is 'waste waste my hard earned tax money' when really it is quite the opposite. Fundamental science is vastly underfunded, and what appears to have happened is an attempt at censorship over a whole field of science because it doesn't appear to fit one politicians view... this is potentially quite dangerous and degrades the validity and reputation of the United States as a scientific leader. Science is not left, or right... and it's censorship and defunding is as silly and ridiculous as book burnings.

As for threats of trouble? Id be doubtful if it happens it would be at core from the science participants, never met a single scientist in my career so far who would go on a riot. Maybe there might be a first time, but that would be an exception and not the rule
edit on 3-3-2017 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Jesus. Everything has to have Trump hate behind it.

Love him or hate him, one things for sure: he's a catalyst for action. Now to see where that action takes us.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Byrd

I don't disagree with that you said, it's the stuff you didn't reply to that I have an issue with. It's the constant leftist droning against things that aren't happening the way they say it is.



It's not the topic of this thread, but as a "leftist", I will say that it appears to me Trump talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. Yes, he has spoken positively about the LGBT community, but he is also okay with states discriminating against gays and transgender people. That tells me he doesn't really care, he is just trying to play both sides. Disingenuous to say the least.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: rickymouse
I have a feeling something really bad is going to happen at the science march. I have no idea what is going to happen or if it really is going to happen, I just got a feeling.


We're a bunch of scientists. No one has ever made any sweeping violent threats against us, and I doubt anyone will.

We're certainly not going to do anything except demonstrate and teach! I'm looking forward to the teaching booths; will see if there's things there that I might put into public lectures (I do public lectures at some conventions and for some groups.)

My prediction is that the crowd will be smaller than the Women's March but will be equally peaceful.


It isn't the scientists I feel that are going to cause problems, it is some radical nuts that believe in religion too deeply. I doubt if it will be Christians though. The Boston Marathon did not have disruptive or polarized people parcipating. I am sure that there will not even be much police presence at their science march, they are a low threat group. So because of that lessening of police activity, there is more of a chance one of the ISIS members may do something. Hitting a bunch of scientists would be a prestigious terrorist action for their group.

Any time you get a bunch of people together at an event nowadays, it attracts the attention of terrorists. It has been quiet lately.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Why are there respected scientists claiming that there are widespread problems that need to be addressed? Having a political view is one thing. Supporting a paid political or corporate agenda is another.



Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet, who says, “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”




“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” – Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal


wakingscience.com... er-reviewed-science-losing-credibility-large-amounts-research-shown-false/

At $20 trillion in debt, maybe we could allow other countries to answer some of the less pressing scientific inquiries;



What makes goldfish feel sexy? How many shakes does it take for a wet dog to dry off? And really -- how much does a bee sting on a penis hurt?


www.foxnew... s.com/politics/2016/05/10/govt-waste-report-researchers-paid-to-sting-genitals-study-wet-animals-and-more.html

Meanwhile there is useful research going unfunded, such as blockchain technology or the Superconducting Supercollider.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

From the infamous Ike speech:


In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.


I saw that one of the principles of the march organizers is "Funding for scientific research and its applications"

I disagree with them.
edit on 3-3-2017 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Byrd

I don't disagree with that you said, it's the stuff you didn't reply to that I have an issue with. It's the constant leftist droning against things that aren't happening the way they say it is.



It's not the topic of this thread, but as a "leftist", I will say that it appears to me Trump talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. Yes, he has spoken positively about the LGBT community, but he is also okay with states discriminating against gays and transgender people. That tells me he doesn't really care, he is just trying to play both sides. Disingenuous to say the least.


Or... it means he understands that it isn't the federal government's job to get involved in a state's rights issue.

Especially when what some people call 'discrimination' really isn't.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I say for every one new scientist hired, there has to be two fired.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join