Overview
#MarchForScience was a global series of rallies on April 22, 2017 (Earth Day), defending science’s role in policy, opposing censorship of scientists, and advocating for evidence-based governance. The movement emerged in response to Trump administration policies perceived as anti-science, particularly on climate change, environmental regulation, and research funding.
Origins & Organizing
The March for Science originated on Reddit in January 2017, shortly after Trump’s inauguration. Scientists and science advocates, alarmed by proposed budget cuts to EPA and NIH, gag orders on climate scientists, and climate denial rhetoric, organized protests.
The main march in Washington, D.C., drew 100,000+ participants, with 600+ satellite marches worldwide (including Antarctica) totaling over 1 million participants.
Key Demands & Issues
Climate change: Defending climate science, opposing denial and fossil fuel interests
Research funding: Protecting NIH, NSF, EPA, and NOAA budgets
Scientific integrity: Opposing political interference in research, data suppression, and censorship of government scientists
Evidence-based policy: Demanding that policy decisions be informed by scientific consensus
Diversity in STEM: Addressing underrepresentation of women, people of color, and marginalized communities in science
Protests & Atmosphere
The march blended serious advocacy with playful protest signs:
- “Science: It’s Not a Liberal Conspiracy”
- “There Is No Planet B”
- “Peer Review, Not Rulers’ Truths”
- “What Do We Want? Evidence-Based Science! When Do We Want It? After Peer Review!”
The creativity reflected scientists’ attempt to engage public interest while defending their work.
Criticism & Debates
Politicizing science: Critics, including some scientists, worried the march politicized science, framing it as partisan rather than objective. Organizers countered that defending science from political attacks is defending objectivity.
Privilege & access: Some noted the march was predominantly white and middle-class, failing to address how marginalized communities face disproportionate harms from anti-science policies (e.g., environmental racism, healthcare access).
Effectiveness questions: Skeptics doubted whether marches change policy. Supporters argued the march raised visibility, emboldened scientists to speak out, and mobilized grassroots organizing.
Policy Context: Trump Administration
The march responded to specific Trump-era actions:
- EPA budget cuts: Proposed 31% reduction
- Climate data removal: Scrubbing climate change references from government websites
- Paris Agreement withdrawal: Announced June 2017
- Gag orders: Restricting EPA and USDA scientists from speaking publicly
- “Alternative facts”: Kellyanne Conway’s phrase epitomized administration’s relationship with truth
Legacy & Continued Advocacy
The March for Science became an annual event, though with declining turnout after 2017. The organization shifted toward sustained advocacy, lobbying, and grassroots organizing. The movement inspired scientists to engage politically, run for office, and communicate research to the public.
Scientists in politics: The march contributed to a wave of scientists running for office in 2018 (e.g., Representative Bill Foster, who holds a PhD in physics).
COVID-19 & Renewed Relevance
The pandemic renewed debates about science’s role in policy, with battles over masks, vaccines, and public health measures. #MarchForScience advocates emphasized the consequences of ignoring scientific expertise.