Local Science Engagement Network Community

I've been a member of AAAS for about 40 years, and now, seeing some coalescence on the need for scientists to actively and firmly engage the public on science-social issues, I've taking that plunge.  Perhaps this communication will encourage others to more forcefully inject factual information into the zone of day-by-day public action and effective governmental policies.  

Upon reading "Strongmen," by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, I came to understand that, like it or not, we are now firmly under authoritarian rule. That's a shame, for I had come to appreciate life under a democracy, and I had hoped our elected officials would do so as well.  But with legislative and judicial complicity, it seems that we, as a country, are becoming far less attentive to the facts of climate change, and more willing to downplay events driven by climate change. Key disruptions in society driven by climate change include increasing frequencies of pandemics, droughts, crop failures, and floods.  Avian flu, for example, is hovering now on our doorstep, and this, or another pathogen, could easily transition effectively to become major societal problems.  We also routinely 'forget' about the dangers of nuclear weapons. Sam Bledso's new book, "Nukes: How to Survive a Nuclear War," re-educated me about this unhappy likelihood.  The Doomsday Clock now is at 89 seconds to midnight. Overall, it is imperative that we get very serious about climate change and its attending problems, and very serious about the likelihood of mutually assured destruction resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.  Else, we'll suffer steadily increasing societal and environmental damage as global warming continues, or come to grieve under nuclear war, or both.  This is it: we don't need to be distracted by Greenland, or Panama, or by "inefficiencies" in how we as a country do business.  This is our one chance to either make a global positive difference, or fall into years of divisive turmoil and foment designed to increase differences in societal power and economic status.  The stakes could not be higher.

I've been a member of AAAS for about 40 years, and now, seeing some coalescence on the need for scientists to actively and firmly engage the public on science-social issues, I've taking that plunge.  Perhaps this communication will encourage others to more forcefully inject factual information into the zone of day-by-day public action and effective governmental policies.  

Upon reading "Strongmen," by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, I came to understand that, like it or not, we are now firmly under authoritarian rule. That's a shame, for I had come to appreciate life under a democracy, and I had hoped our elected officials would do so as well.  But with legislative and judicial complicity, it seems that we, as a country, are becoming far less attentive to the facts of climate change, and more willing to downplay events driven by climate change. Key disruptions in society driven by climate change include increasing frequencies of pandemics, droughts, crop failures, and floods.  Avian flu, for example, is hovering now on our doorstep, and this, or another pathogen, could easily transition effectively to become major societal problems.  We also routinely 'forget' about the dangers of nuclear weapons. Sam Bledso's new book, "Nukes: How to Survive a Nuclear War," re-educated me about this unhappy likelihood.  The Doomsday Clock now is at 89 seconds to midnight. Overall, it is imperative that we get very serious about climate change and its attending problems, and very serious about the likelihood of mutually assured destruction resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.  Else, we'll suffer steadily increasing societal and environmental damage as global warming continues, or come to grieve under nuclear war, or both.  This is it: we don't need to be distracted by Greenland, or Panama, or by "inefficiencies" in how we as a country do business.  This is our one chance to either make a global positive difference, or fall into years of divisive turmoil and foment designed to increase differences in societal power and economic status.  The stakes could not be higher.

I have been a member of AAAS for 50+, and have been through scientific debates on continental drift, climate change, nuclear security and de tante.  I've watched the ephemeral nuclear fusion get closer, but never close enough, for practicality...and seen the efficiencies of solar cells grow from 12% to sustained 24%.  I now watch the change of our scientific and government institutions.  For example today's headline from EPA recommends rolling back the scientific emission studies that have been the basis for regulation.  Further, EPA is recommending it cut its staff by 65%.

There is enough scientific data for me to conclude that regardless of immediate actions on atmospheric mediation of CO₂ and methane, we are headed for a much warmer world with a far different atmosphere and ocean circulation.  I was reminded that these physical changes will result in changes of our food, where we live, and our political structures.

Whether current actions are wise or foolish, I'm struggling to know how I can become engaged as a retired scientist.  I suspect that the answer is "all politics are local", meaning that I should work with my city, county and state representatives to help guide their policies. 

I've been a member of AAAS for about 40 years, and now, seeing some coalescence on the need for scientists to actively and firmly engage the public on science-social issues, I've taking that plunge.  Perhaps this communication will encourage others to more forcefully inject factual information into the zone of day-by-day public action and effective governmental policies.  

Upon reading "Strongmen," by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, I came to understand that, like it or not, we are now firmly under authoritarian rule. That's a shame, for I had come to appreciate life under a democracy, and I had hoped our elected officials would do so as well.  But with legislative and judicial complicity, it seems that we, as a country, are becoming far less attentive to the facts of climate change, and more willing to downplay events driven by climate change. Key disruptions in society driven by climate change include increasing frequencies of pandemics, droughts, crop failures, and floods.  Avian flu, for example, is hovering now on our doorstep, and this, or another pathogen, could easily transition effectively to become major societal problems.  We also routinely 'forget' about the dangers of nuclear weapons. Sam Bledso's new book, "Nukes: How to Survive a Nuclear War," re-educated me about this unhappy likelihood.  The Doomsday Clock now is at 89 seconds to midnight. Overall, it is imperative that we get very serious about climate change and its attending problems, and very serious about the likelihood of mutually assured destruction resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.  Else, we'll suffer steadily increasing societal and environmental damage as global warming continues, or come to grieve under nuclear war, or both.  This is it: we don't need to be distracted by Greenland, or Panama, or by "inefficiencies" in how we as a country do business.  This is our one chance to either make a global positive difference, or fall into years of divisive turmoil and foment designed to increase differences in societal power and economic status.  The stakes could not be higher.

Hi Robert and all,

I very much relate to these sentiments and wanted to share some resources in the hopes that they are helpful. I've spent much of my career researching the science-society interface, how science is perceived by diverse publics, and also how scientists can engage to have impact for policy and practice. Here's a piece that gives some ideas for what researchers can do right now to counteract the attacks on science from the Trump administration: https://open.substack.com/pub/christinapagel/p/eight-things-scientists-can-do-right?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Kind regards,

Anne

Anne Toomey, PhD

Associate Professor

Environmental Studies and Science

Pace University, NYC 

Co-Founder of Participatory Science Solutions LLC

New book! Science with Impact: How to Engage People, Change Practice, and Influence Policy

20% off discount code: IMPACT

I have been a member of AAAS for 50+, and have been through scientific debates on continental drift, climate change, nuclear security and de tante.  I've watched the ephemeral nuclear fusion get closer, but never close enough, for practicality...and seen the efficiencies of solar cells grow from 12% to sustained 24%.  I now watch the change of our scientific and government institutions.  For example today's headline from EPA recommends rolling back the scientific emission studies that have been the basis for regulation.  Further, EPA is recommending it cut its staff by 65%.

There is enough scientific data for me to conclude that regardless of immediate actions on atmospheric mediation of CO₂ and methane, we are headed for a much warmer world with a far different atmosphere and ocean circulation.  I was reminded that these physical changes will result in changes of our food, where we live, and our political structures.

Whether current actions are wise or foolish, I'm struggling to know how I can become engaged as a retired scientist.  I suspect that the answer is "all politics are local", meaning that I should work with my city, county and state representatives to help guide their policies. 

I've been a member of AAAS for about 40 years, and now, seeing some coalescence on the need for scientists to actively and firmly engage the public on science-social issues, I've taking that plunge.  Perhaps this communication will encourage others to more forcefully inject factual information into the zone of day-by-day public action and effective governmental policies.  

Upon reading "Strongmen," by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, I came to understand that, like it or not, we are now firmly under authoritarian rule. That's a shame, for I had come to appreciate life under a democracy, and I had hoped our elected officials would do so as well.  But with legislative and judicial complicity, it seems that we, as a country, are becoming far less attentive to the facts of climate change, and more willing to downplay events driven by climate change. Key disruptions in society driven by climate change include increasing frequencies of pandemics, droughts, crop failures, and floods.  Avian flu, for example, is hovering now on our doorstep, and this, or another pathogen, could easily transition effectively to become major societal problems.  We also routinely 'forget' about the dangers of nuclear weapons. Sam Bledso's new book, "Nukes: How to Survive a Nuclear War," re-educated me about this unhappy likelihood.  The Doomsday Clock now is at 89 seconds to midnight. Overall, it is imperative that we get very serious about climate change and its attending problems, and very serious about the likelihood of mutually assured destruction resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.  Else, we'll suffer steadily increasing societal and environmental damage as global warming continues, or come to grieve under nuclear war, or both.  This is it: we don't need to be distracted by Greenland, or Panama, or by "inefficiencies" in how we as a country do business.  This is our one chance to either make a global positive difference, or fall into years of divisive turmoil and foment designed to increase differences in societal power and economic status.  The stakes could not be higher.

Hi Robert and all,

I very much relate to these sentiments and wanted to share some resources in the hopes that they are helpful. I've spent much of my career researching the science-society interface, how science is perceived by diverse publics, and also how scientists can engage to have impact for policy and practice. Here's a piece that gives some ideas for what researchers can do right now to counteract the attacks on science from the Trump administration: https://open.substack.com/pub/christinapagel/p/eight-things-scientists-can-do-right?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Kind regards,

Anne

Anne Toomey, PhD

Associate Professor

Environmental Studies and Science

Pace University, NYC 

Co-Founder of Participatory Science Solutions LLC

New book! Science with Impact: How to Engage People, Change Practice, and Influence Policy

20% off discount code: IMPACT

I have been a member of AAAS for 50+, and have been through scientific debates on continental drift, climate change, nuclear security and de tante.  I've watched the ephemeral nuclear fusion get closer, but never close enough, for practicality...and seen the efficiencies of solar cells grow from 12% to sustained 24%.  I now watch the change of our scientific and government institutions.  For example today's headline from EPA recommends rolling back the scientific emission studies that have been the basis for regulation.  Further, EPA is recommending it cut its staff by 65%.

There is enough scientific data for me to conclude that regardless of immediate actions on atmospheric mediation of CO₂ and methane, we are headed for a much warmer world with a far different atmosphere and ocean circulation.  I was reminded that these physical changes will result in changes of our food, where we live, and our political structures.

Whether current actions are wise or foolish, I'm struggling to know how I can become engaged as a retired scientist.  I suspect that the answer is "all politics are local", meaning that I should work with my city, county and state representatives to help guide their policies. 

I've been a member of AAAS for about 40 years, and now, seeing some coalescence on the need for scientists to actively and firmly engage the public on science-social issues, I've taking that plunge.  Perhaps this communication will encourage others to more forcefully inject factual information into the zone of day-by-day public action and effective governmental policies.  

Upon reading "Strongmen," by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, I came to understand that, like it or not, we are now firmly under authoritarian rule. That's a shame, for I had come to appreciate life under a democracy, and I had hoped our elected officials would do so as well.  But with legislative and judicial complicity, it seems that we, as a country, are becoming far less attentive to the facts of climate change, and more willing to downplay events driven by climate change. Key disruptions in society driven by climate change include increasing frequencies of pandemics, droughts, crop failures, and floods.  Avian flu, for example, is hovering now on our doorstep, and this, or another pathogen, could easily transition effectively to become major societal problems.  We also routinely 'forget' about the dangers of nuclear weapons. Sam Bledso's new book, "Nukes: How to Survive a Nuclear War," re-educated me about this unhappy likelihood.  The Doomsday Clock now is at 89 seconds to midnight. Overall, it is imperative that we get very serious about climate change and its attending problems, and very serious about the likelihood of mutually assured destruction resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.  Else, we'll suffer steadily increasing societal and environmental damage as global warming continues, or come to grieve under nuclear war, or both.  This is it: we don't need to be distracted by Greenland, or Panama, or by "inefficiencies" in how we as a country do business.  This is our one chance to either make a global positive difference, or fall into years of divisive turmoil and foment designed to increase differences in societal power and economic status.  The stakes could not be higher.

Thank you Anne, I shared this article with the local science and public engagement group I started. 

Hi Robert and all,

I very much relate to these sentiments and wanted to share some resources in the hopes that they are helpful. I've spent much of my career researching the science-society interface, how science is perceived by diverse publics, and also how scientists can engage to have impact for policy and practice. Here's a piece that gives some ideas for what researchers can do right now to counteract the attacks on science from the Trump administration: https://open.substack.com/pub/christinapagel/p/eight-things-scientists-can-do-right?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Kind regards,

Anne

Anne Toomey, PhD

Associate Professor

Environmental Studies and Science

Pace University, NYC 

Co-Founder of Participatory Science Solutions LLC

New book! Science with Impact: How to Engage People, Change Practice, and Influence Policy

20% off discount code: IMPACT

I have been a member of AAAS for 50+, and have been through scientific debates on continental drift, climate change, nuclear security and de tante.  I've watched the ephemeral nuclear fusion get closer, but never close enough, for practicality...and seen the efficiencies of solar cells grow from 12% to sustained 24%.  I now watch the change of our scientific and government institutions.  For example today's headline from EPA recommends rolling back the scientific emission studies that have been the basis for regulation.  Further, EPA is recommending it cut its staff by 65%.

There is enough scientific data for me to conclude that regardless of immediate actions on atmospheric mediation of CO₂ and methane, we are headed for a much warmer world with a far different atmosphere and ocean circulation.  I was reminded that these physical changes will result in changes of our food, where we live, and our political structures.

Whether current actions are wise or foolish, I'm struggling to know how I can become engaged as a retired scientist.  I suspect that the answer is "all politics are local", meaning that I should work with my city, county and state representatives to help guide their policies. 

I've been a member of AAAS for about 40 years, and now, seeing some coalescence on the need for scientists to actively and firmly engage the public on science-social issues, I've taking that plunge.  Perhaps this communication will encourage others to more forcefully inject factual information into the zone of day-by-day public action and effective governmental policies.  

Upon reading "Strongmen," by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, I came to understand that, like it or not, we are now firmly under authoritarian rule. That's a shame, for I had come to appreciate life under a democracy, and I had hoped our elected officials would do so as well.  But with legislative and judicial complicity, it seems that we, as a country, are becoming far less attentive to the facts of climate change, and more willing to downplay events driven by climate change. Key disruptions in society driven by climate change include increasing frequencies of pandemics, droughts, crop failures, and floods.  Avian flu, for example, is hovering now on our doorstep, and this, or another pathogen, could easily transition effectively to become major societal problems.  We also routinely 'forget' about the dangers of nuclear weapons. Sam Bledso's new book, "Nukes: How to Survive a Nuclear War," re-educated me about this unhappy likelihood.  The Doomsday Clock now is at 89 seconds to midnight. Overall, it is imperative that we get very serious about climate change and its attending problems, and very serious about the likelihood of mutually assured destruction resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.  Else, we'll suffer steadily increasing societal and environmental damage as global warming continues, or come to grieve under nuclear war, or both.  This is it: we don't need to be distracted by Greenland, or Panama, or by "inefficiencies" in how we as a country do business.  This is our one chance to either make a global positive difference, or fall into years of divisive turmoil and foment designed to increase differences in societal power and economic status.  The stakes could not be higher.

Douglas Job, et al.:

Restoration of trust in Science is unwarranted until the public sees some retrospection and

some recognition of where Big/Elite Science has deservedly lost trust and 

some humility about how the Scientific Community can reform itself.

It might start with becoming familiar with Malcolm Gladwell's Revenge of the Tipping Point (2024).

1.  Gladwell describes how people in general respond to stating public preferences through 

a series of experiments in which paired people provide a name for the picture of a person 

that they both see.  Pairs are broken up & reformed randomly within a group of 20 to 100.  

Within a few rounds of this, everyone is using the same name.  People tend to be Sheeple.

If the experiment manager sets one or a few individuals to persist in choosing a particular name,

they do so without affecting the rest of the group until they are set at 25% or more of the group size.  

Then their choice becomes universal rapidly.  

2.  Gladwell illustrates group behavior on business or school boards of trustees by noting 

that if one of five members is female, she is treated as representing females in general.

If there are 2 of 5 females, they tend to be treated as individuals.  

3.  In communities in which the left/right divide becomes a minority of less than 30% or so,

the majority tends to view members of the minority as representing the most objectionable 

type of its side; they are not seen as individuals.

The more homogeneous a community becomes, the less it is able to be scientific or

modern thinking about new ideas.  Used to agreeing on everything,

people tend to thoughtlessly absorb floating ideas.

Some really bad ideas become majority opinions and anyone not obviously 

sharing them becomes a non-person.  

This is what has occurred within the Academic and the Scientific communities.

Free and open speech does not exist, so Science is crippled and Science has lost 

a great deal of public trust.  This definitely includes Medicine.  

Diversity of outlook is our strength.

Homogeneity (consensus, solidarity) is our weakness.  

Thank you Anne, I shared this article with the local science and public engagement group I started. 

Hi Robert and all,

I very much relate to these sentiments and wanted to share some resources in the hopes that they are helpful. I've spent much of my career researching the science-society interface, how science is perceived by diverse publics, and also how scientists can engage to have impact for policy and practice. Here's a piece that gives some ideas for what researchers can do right now to counteract the attacks on science from the Trump administration: https://open.substack.com/pub/christinapagel/p/eight-things-scientists-can-do-right?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Kind regards,

Anne

Anne Toomey, PhD

Associate Professor

Environmental Studies and Science

Pace University, NYC 

Co-Founder of Participatory Science Solutions LLC

New book! Science with Impact: How to Engage People, Change Practice, and Influence Policy

20% off discount code: IMPACT

I have been a member of AAAS for 50+, and have been through scientific debates on continental drift, climate change, nuclear security and de tante.  I've watched the ephemeral nuclear fusion get closer, but never close enough, for practicality...and seen the efficiencies of solar cells grow from 12% to sustained 24%.  I now watch the change of our scientific and government institutions.  For example today's headline from EPA recommends rolling back the scientific emission studies that have been the basis for regulation.  Further, EPA is recommending it cut its staff by 65%.

There is enough scientific data for me to conclude that regardless of immediate actions on atmospheric mediation of CO₂ and methane, we are headed for a much warmer world with a far different atmosphere and ocean circulation.  I was reminded that these physical changes will result in changes of our food, where we live, and our political structures.

Whether current actions are wise or foolish, I'm struggling to know how I can become engaged as a retired scientist.  I suspect that the answer is "all politics are local", meaning that I should work with my city, county and state representatives to help guide their policies. 

I've been a member of AAAS for about 40 years, and now, seeing some coalescence on the need for scientists to actively and firmly engage the public on science-social issues, I've taking that plunge.  Perhaps this communication will encourage others to more forcefully inject factual information into the zone of day-by-day public action and effective governmental policies.  

Upon reading "Strongmen," by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, I came to understand that, like it or not, we are now firmly under authoritarian rule. That's a shame, for I had come to appreciate life under a democracy, and I had hoped our elected officials would do so as well.  But with legislative and judicial complicity, it seems that we, as a country, are becoming far less attentive to the facts of climate change, and more willing to downplay events driven by climate change. Key disruptions in society driven by climate change include increasing frequencies of pandemics, droughts, crop failures, and floods.  Avian flu, for example, is hovering now on our doorstep, and this, or another pathogen, could easily transition effectively to become major societal problems.  We also routinely 'forget' about the dangers of nuclear weapons. Sam Bledso's new book, "Nukes: How to Survive a Nuclear War," re-educated me about this unhappy likelihood.  The Doomsday Clock now is at 89 seconds to midnight. Overall, it is imperative that we get very serious about climate change and its attending problems, and very serious about the likelihood of mutually assured destruction resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.  Else, we'll suffer steadily increasing societal and environmental damage as global warming continues, or come to grieve under nuclear war, or both.  This is it: we don't need to be distracted by Greenland, or Panama, or by "inefficiencies" in how we as a country do business.  This is our one chance to either make a global positive difference, or fall into years of divisive turmoil and foment designed to increase differences in societal power and economic status.  The stakes could not be higher.

Douglas Job, et al.:

Restoration of trust in Science is unwarranted until the public sees some retrospection and

some recognition of where Big/Elite Science has deservedly lost trust and 

some humility about how the Scientific Community can reform itself.

It might start with becoming familiar with Malcolm Gladwell's Revenge of the Tipping Point (2024).

1.  Gladwell describes how people in general respond to stating public preferences through 

a series of experiments in which paired people provide a name for the picture of a person 

that they both see.  Pairs are broken up & reformed randomly within a group of 20 to 100.  

Within a few rounds of this, everyone is using the same name.  People tend to be Sheeple.

If the experiment manager sets one or a few individuals to persist in choosing a particular name,

they do so without affecting the rest of the group until they are set at 25% or more of the group size.  

Then their choice becomes universal rapidly.  

2.  Gladwell illustrates group behavior on business or school boards of trustees by noting 

that if one of five members is female, she is treated as representing females in general.

If there are 2 of 5 females, they tend to be treated as individuals.  

3.  In communities in which the left/right divide becomes a minority of less than 30% or so,

the majority tends to view members of the minority as representing the most objectionable 

type of its side; they are not seen as individuals.

The more homogeneous a community becomes, the less it is able to be scientific or

modern thinking about new ideas.  Used to agreeing on everything,

people tend to thoughtlessly absorb floating ideas.

Some really bad ideas become majority opinions and anyone not obviously 

sharing them becomes a non-person.  

This is what has occurred within the Academic and the Scientific communities.

Free and open speech does not exist, so Science is crippled and Science has lost 

a great deal of public trust.  This definitely includes Medicine.  

Diversity of outlook is our strength.

Homogeneity (consensus, solidarity) is our weakness.  

Thank you Anne, I shared this article with the local science and public engagement group I started. 

Hi Robert and all,

I very much relate to these sentiments and wanted to share some resources in the hopes that they are helpful. I've spent much of my career researching the science-society interface, how science is perceived by diverse publics, and also how scientists can engage to have impact for policy and practice. Here's a piece that gives some ideas for what researchers can do right now to counteract the attacks on science from the Trump administration: https://open.substack.com/pub/christinapagel/p/eight-things-scientists-can-do-right?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

Kind regards,

Anne

Anne Toomey, PhD

Associate Professor

Environmental Studies and Science

Pace University, NYC 

Co-Founder of Participatory Science Solutions LLC

New book! Science with Impact: How to Engage People, Change Practice, and Influence Policy

20% off discount code: IMPACT

I have been a member of AAAS for 50+, and have been through scientific debates on continental drift, climate change, nuclear security and de tante.  I've watched the ephemeral nuclear fusion get closer, but never close enough, for practicality...and seen the efficiencies of solar cells grow from 12% to sustained 24%.  I now watch the change of our scientific and government institutions.  For example today's headline from EPA recommends rolling back the scientific emission studies that have been the basis for regulation.  Further, EPA is recommending it cut its staff by 65%.

There is enough scientific data for me to conclude that regardless of immediate actions on atmospheric mediation of CO₂ and methane, we are headed for a much warmer world with a far different atmosphere and ocean circulation.  I was reminded that these physical changes will result in changes of our food, where we live, and our political structures.

Whether current actions are wise or foolish, I'm struggling to know how I can become engaged as a retired scientist.  I suspect that the answer is "all politics are local", meaning that I should work with my city, county and state representatives to help guide their policies. 

I've been a member of AAAS for about 40 years, and now, seeing some coalescence on the need for scientists to actively and firmly engage the public on science-social issues, I've taking that plunge.  Perhaps this communication will encourage others to more forcefully inject factual information into the zone of day-by-day public action and effective governmental policies.  

Upon reading "Strongmen," by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, I came to understand that, like it or not, we are now firmly under authoritarian rule. That's a shame, for I had come to appreciate life under a democracy, and I had hoped our elected officials would do so as well.  But with legislative and judicial complicity, it seems that we, as a country, are becoming far less attentive to the facts of climate change, and more willing to downplay events driven by climate change. Key disruptions in society driven by climate change include increasing frequencies of pandemics, droughts, crop failures, and floods.  Avian flu, for example, is hovering now on our doorstep, and this, or another pathogen, could easily transition effectively to become major societal problems.  We also routinely 'forget' about the dangers of nuclear weapons. Sam Bledso's new book, "Nukes: How to Survive a Nuclear War," re-educated me about this unhappy likelihood.  The Doomsday Clock now is at 89 seconds to midnight. Overall, it is imperative that we get very serious about climate change and its attending problems, and very serious about the likelihood of mutually assured destruction resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.  Else, we'll suffer steadily increasing societal and environmental damage as global warming continues, or come to grieve under nuclear war, or both.  This is it: we don't need to be distracted by Greenland, or Panama, or by "inefficiencies" in how we as a country do business.  This is our one chance to either make a global positive difference, or fall into years of divisive turmoil and foment designed to increase differences in societal power and economic status.  The stakes could not be higher.

I've been a member of AAAS for about 40 years, and now, seeing some coalescence on the need for scientists to actively and firmly engage the public on science-social issues, I've taking that plunge.  Perhaps this communication will encourage others to more forcefully inject factual information into the zone of day-by-day public action and effective governmental policies.  

Upon reading "Strongmen," by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, I came to understand that, like it or not, we are now firmly under authoritarian rule. That's a shame, for I had come to appreciate life under a democracy, and I had hoped our elected officials would do so as well.  But with legislative and judicial complicity, it seems that we, as a country, are becoming far less attentive to the facts of climate change, and more willing to downplay events driven by climate change. Key disruptions in society driven by climate change include increasing frequencies of pandemics, droughts, crop failures, and floods.  Avian flu, for example, is hovering now on our doorstep, and this, or another pathogen, could easily transition effectively to become major societal problems.  We also routinely 'forget' about the dangers of nuclear weapons. Sam Bledso's new book, "Nukes: How to Survive a Nuclear War," re-educated me about this unhappy likelihood.  The Doomsday Clock now is at 89 seconds to midnight. Overall, it is imperative that we get very serious about climate change and its attending problems, and very serious about the likelihood of mutually assured destruction resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.  Else, we'll suffer steadily increasing societal and environmental damage as global warming continues, or come to grieve under nuclear war, or both.  This is it: we don't need to be distracted by Greenland, or Panama, or by "inefficiencies" in how we as a country do business.  This is our one chance to either make a global positive difference, or fall into years of divisive turmoil and foment designed to increase differences in societal power and economic status.  The stakes could not be higher.

Hi Dr. Stewart, 

Thank you for sharing. I'm a Cell Therapy manager with a graduate degree in Molecular Biology, and currently live in NJ, where the governorship for Phil Murphy is approaching its term limit. Although we hold the Senate, I am worried for the future of NJ. Disinformation campaigns, whether instigated by foreign or domestic powers, have infiltrated far-right media sources and infected the minds of many of our residents. Although I am not experienced in policy or lobbying, I am looking to garner agency in speaking with policy-makers starting at the local level of government.

We cannot control the extremism in the media, nor what people choose to watch or listen to on their daily commutes, while at home, or while they work. The general pubic accepts "alternative facts" at face-value as the media continues to politicize (and demonize) health and environmental issues. A good deal of work, I predict, is open for the nonprofit sector as well as volunteer groups, to educate and communicate complex scientific evidence into layman's terms, ideally in bite-sized pieces, at the local level.

 I believe this requires close engagement with local advisory board commissions, and committees focused on community engagement. This is where I am at: I'm going to reach out, locally, to see what I can do. NJ is the pharma capital of the US (at least the Northeast), but I do not know how many scientists or industry professionals live in my town to help me drive engagement. I want to focus on "this is what science has to offer," rather than "this is why the current administration is destroying our country." The reason for this is that a platform cannot have its foundation supported on a negative. Trump won because he had a whole list, however destructive, of things he wanted to DO, although attacking the former administration continues to be a successful (?) component of his mission. 

So, how can we translate what science can do at the local level, to inform the general public, and present them with facts they buy, rather than the insane 'alternative facts'?

------------------------------
Douglas Job
Flemington NJ

Original Message:
Sent: 02-26-2025 09:18 AM
From: Arthur Stewart
Subject: Coalesence on public involement

I've been a member of AAAS for about 40 years, and now, seeing some coalescence on the need for scientists to actively and firmly engage the public on science-social issues, I've taking that plunge.  Perhaps this communication will encourage others to more forcefully inject factual information into the zone of day-by-day public action and effective governmental policies.  

Upon reading "Strongmen," by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, I came to understand that, like it or not, we are now firmly under authoritarian rule. That's a shame, for I had come to appreciate life under a democracy, and I had hoped our elected officials would do so as well.  But with legislative and judicial complicity, it seems that we, as a country, are becoming far less attentive to the facts of climate change, and more willing to downplay events driven by climate change. Key disruptions in society driven by climate change include increasing frequencies of pandemics, droughts, crop failures, and floods.  Avian flu, for example, is hovering now on our doorstep, and this, or another pathogen, could easily transition effectively to become major societal problems.  We also routinely 'forget' about the dangers of nuclear weapons. Sam Bledso's new book, "Nukes: How to Survive a Nuclear War," re-educated me about this unhappy likelihood.  The Doomsday Clock now is at 89 seconds to midnight. Overall, it is imperative that we get very serious about climate change and its attending problems, and very serious about the likelihood of mutually assured destruction resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.  Else, we'll suffer steadily increasing societal and environmental damage as global warming continues, or come to grieve under nuclear war, or both.  This is it: we don't need to be distracted by Greenland, or Panama, or by "inefficiencies" in how we as a country do business.  This is our one chance to either make a global positive difference, or fall into years of divisive turmoil and foment designed to increase differences in societal power and economic status.  The stakes could not be higher.

------------------------------
Arthur Stewart, PhD

------------------------------

As one of the presenters at the Detroit instance of the Stand Up For Science rally, I addresed this issue. I recommended:

  - Talk about the impact of science as a key driver of the American economy,

  - Work to build bridges between academia and industry

  - Tell people your personal stories of impact of science in our own lives. Some talk about how medical research saved their lives. Some people talk about how tech makes their job possible, like building robots. Sometimes older people who remember a world wihouit many of the vaccines we have today talk about sibliongs dying from measels or diabled or killed by polio. It needs to be a story, it needs to be personsal - something that happenned to you. It needs to show how having science changes people's lives for the better. 

So here's my own story, just as an example. I'm sure a lot of folks here have the same story. In 1960, I was born in poverty at Keifer Hospital in Detroit, which housed their indigent maternity ward at that time. Folks born at Keifer faced bleak future with many challenges and not a lot of opportunities. Science and technology made a huge difference in my life. Working my way through school all three times, the prospect of a career in science was my goal. My first day on the faculty at Wayne State University in Detroit, I went by the Kiefer Hospital site (it's closed now), and only then went to the university. It's only a distance of two and a half miles but oh such a long journey, from charity case to astrophysicist, university professor, and tech industry leader. I even became a section leader in AAAS, as the non-academic rep for Section U (statistcs). All because of the role science, technology, and mathematics had on my life. I have seen with my own eyes thye power of science to change the future of a city once facing so many hardship and create a better, brighter future for the people living there. 

Again: tell a story. Make it personal - something you have expereinced yourself. Tell the story of the impact science has had on your life and the lives of those around you. These stories of the power of science to change lives will take you far beyond politics and political arguments to become a driver of real change. 

Hi Dr. Stewart, 

Thank you for sharing. I'm a Cell Therapy manager with a graduate degree in Molecular Biology, and currently live in NJ, where the governorship for Phil Murphy is approaching its term limit. Although we hold the Senate, I am worried for the future of NJ. Disinformation campaigns, whether instigated by foreign or domestic powers, have infiltrated far-right media sources and infected the minds of many of our residents. Although I am not experienced in policy or lobbying, I am looking to garner agency in speaking with policy-makers starting at the local level of government.

We cannot control the extremism in the media, nor what people choose to watch or listen to on their daily commutes, while at home, or while they work. The general pubic accepts "alternative facts" at face-value as the media continues to politicize (and demonize) health and environmental issues. A good deal of work, I predict, is open for the nonprofit sector as well as volunteer groups, to educate and communicate complex scientific evidence into layman's terms, ideally in bite-sized pieces, at the local level.

 I believe this requires close engagement with local advisory board commissions, and committees focused on community engagement. This is where I am at: I'm going to reach out, locally, to see what I can do. NJ is the pharma capital of the US (at least the Northeast), but I do not know how many scientists or industry professionals live in my town to help me drive engagement. I want to focus on "this is what science has to offer," rather than "this is why the current administration is destroying our country." The reason for this is that a platform cannot have its foundation supported on a negative. Trump won because he had a whole list, however destructive, of things he wanted to DO, although attacking the former administration continues to be a successful (?) component of his mission. 

So, how can we translate what science can do at the local level, to inform the general public, and present them with facts they buy, rather than the insane 'alternative facts'?

I've been a member of AAAS for about 40 years, and now, seeing some coalescence on the need for scientists to actively and firmly engage the public on science-social issues, I've taking that plunge.  Perhaps this communication will encourage others to more forcefully inject factual information into the zone of day-by-day public action and effective governmental policies.  

Upon reading "Strongmen," by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, I came to understand that, like it or not, we are now firmly under authoritarian rule. That's a shame, for I had come to appreciate life under a democracy, and I had hoped our elected officials would do so as well.  But with legislative and judicial complicity, it seems that we, as a country, are becoming far less attentive to the facts of climate change, and more willing to downplay events driven by climate change. Key disruptions in society driven by climate change include increasing frequencies of pandemics, droughts, crop failures, and floods.  Avian flu, for example, is hovering now on our doorstep, and this, or another pathogen, could easily transition effectively to become major societal problems.  We also routinely 'forget' about the dangers of nuclear weapons. Sam Bledso's new book, "Nukes: How to Survive a Nuclear War," re-educated me about this unhappy likelihood.  The Doomsday Clock now is at 89 seconds to midnight. Overall, it is imperative that we get very serious about climate change and its attending problems, and very serious about the likelihood of mutually assured destruction resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.  Else, we'll suffer steadily increasing societal and environmental damage as global warming continues, or come to grieve under nuclear war, or both.  This is it: we don't need to be distracted by Greenland, or Panama, or by "inefficiencies" in how we as a country do business.  This is our one chance to either make a global positive difference, or fall into years of divisive turmoil and foment designed to increase differences in societal power and economic status.  The stakes could not be higher.

Hi Dr. Stewart, 

Thank you for sharing. I'm a Cell Therapy manager with a graduate degree in Molecular Biology, and currently live in NJ, where the governorship for Phil Murphy is approaching its term limit. Although we hold the Senate, I am worried for the future of NJ. Disinformation campaigns, whether instigated by foreign or domestic powers, have infiltrated far-right media sources and infected the minds of many of our residents. Although I am not experienced in policy or lobbying, I am looking to garner agency in speaking with policy-makers starting at the local level of government.

We cannot control the extremism in the media, nor what people choose to watch or listen to on their daily commutes, while at home, or while they work. The general pubic accepts "alternative facts" at face-value as the media continues to politicize (and demonize) health and environmental issues. A good deal of work, I predict, is open for the nonprofit sector as well as volunteer groups, to educate and communicate complex scientific evidence into layman's terms, ideally in bite-sized pieces, at the local level.

 I believe this requires close engagement with local advisory board commissions, and committees focused on community engagement. This is where I am at: I'm going to reach out, locally, to see what I can do. NJ is the pharma capital of the US (at least the Northeast), but I do not know how many scientists or industry professionals live in my town to help me drive engagement. I want to focus on "this is what science has to offer," rather than "this is why the current administration is destroying our country." The reason for this is that a platform cannot have its foundation supported on a negative. Trump won because he had a whole list, however destructive, of things he wanted to DO, although attacking the former administration continues to be a successful (?) component of his mission. 

So, how can we translate what science can do at the local level, to inform the general public, and present them with facts they buy, rather than the insane 'alternative facts'?

I've been a member of AAAS for about 40 years, and now, seeing some coalescence on the need for scientists to actively and firmly engage the public on science-social issues, I've taking that plunge.  Perhaps this communication will encourage others to more forcefully inject factual information into the zone of day-by-day public action and effective governmental policies.  

Upon reading "Strongmen," by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, I came to understand that, like it or not, we are now firmly under authoritarian rule. That's a shame, for I had come to appreciate life under a democracy, and I had hoped our elected officials would do so as well.  But with legislative and judicial complicity, it seems that we, as a country, are becoming far less attentive to the facts of climate change, and more willing to downplay events driven by climate change. Key disruptions in society driven by climate change include increasing frequencies of pandemics, droughts, crop failures, and floods.  Avian flu, for example, is hovering now on our doorstep, and this, or another pathogen, could easily transition effectively to become major societal problems.  We also routinely 'forget' about the dangers of nuclear weapons. Sam Bledso's new book, "Nukes: How to Survive a Nuclear War," re-educated me about this unhappy likelihood.  The Doomsday Clock now is at 89 seconds to midnight. Overall, it is imperative that we get very serious about climate change and its attending problems, and very serious about the likelihood of mutually assured destruction resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.  Else, we'll suffer steadily increasing societal and environmental damage as global warming continues, or come to grieve under nuclear war, or both.  This is it: we don't need to be distracted by Greenland, or Panama, or by "inefficiencies" in how we as a country do business.  This is our one chance to either make a global positive difference, or fall into years of divisive turmoil and foment designed to increase differences in societal power and economic status.  The stakes could not be higher.

It would be interesting for us to see what examples of misinformation Douglas Job is encountering and see details providing corrective information.  

What I see emerging from growing transparency of "scientific" grants is a parade of abuse:

a contract to produce transgender mice

studies of menstruation in XY males 

promotion of "affirming" surgeries for trans people in federal prisons (NEJM Jan 23, 2025)

A California mandate ordering each public school to place menstrual products in at least one male-only restroom.

What I don't see is a robust discussion of issues that the scientific elite has accepted in solidarity, by consensus and in opposition to scientific evidence, thus in error.

Hi Dr. Stewart, 

Thank you for sharing. I'm a Cell Therapy manager with a graduate degree in Molecular Biology, and currently live in NJ, where the governorship for Phil Murphy is approaching its term limit. Although we hold the Senate, I am worried for the future of NJ. Disinformation campaigns, whether instigated by foreign or domestic powers, have infiltrated far-right media sources and infected the minds of many of our residents. Although I am not experienced in policy or lobbying, I am looking to garner agency in speaking with policy-makers starting at the local level of government.

We cannot control the extremism in the media, nor what people choose to watch or listen to on their daily commutes, while at home, or while they work. The general pubic accepts "alternative facts" at face-value as the media continues to politicize (and demonize) health and environmental issues. A good deal of work, I predict, is open for the nonprofit sector as well as volunteer groups, to educate and communicate complex scientific evidence into layman's terms, ideally in bite-sized pieces, at the local level.

 I believe this requires close engagement with local advisory board commissions, and committees focused on community engagement. This is where I am at: I'm going to reach out, locally, to see what I can do. NJ is the pharma capital of the US (at least the Northeast), but I do not know how many scientists or industry professionals live in my town to help me drive engagement. I want to focus on "this is what science has to offer," rather than "this is why the current administration is destroying our country." The reason for this is that a platform cannot have its foundation supported on a negative. Trump won because he had a whole list, however destructive, of things he wanted to DO, although attacking the former administration continues to be a successful (?) component of his mission. 

So, how can we translate what science can do at the local level, to inform the general public, and present them with facts they buy, rather than the insane 'alternative facts'?

I've been a member of AAAS for about 40 years, and now, seeing some coalescence on the need for scientists to actively and firmly engage the public on science-social issues, I've taking that plunge.  Perhaps this communication will encourage others to more forcefully inject factual information into the zone of day-by-day public action and effective governmental policies.  

Upon reading "Strongmen," by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, I came to understand that, like it or not, we are now firmly under authoritarian rule. That's a shame, for I had come to appreciate life under a democracy, and I had hoped our elected officials would do so as well.  But with legislative and judicial complicity, it seems that we, as a country, are becoming far less attentive to the facts of climate change, and more willing to downplay events driven by climate change. Key disruptions in society driven by climate change include increasing frequencies of pandemics, droughts, crop failures, and floods.  Avian flu, for example, is hovering now on our doorstep, and this, or another pathogen, could easily transition effectively to become major societal problems.  We also routinely 'forget' about the dangers of nuclear weapons. Sam Bledso's new book, "Nukes: How to Survive a Nuclear War," re-educated me about this unhappy likelihood.  The Doomsday Clock now is at 89 seconds to midnight. Overall, it is imperative that we get very serious about climate change and its attending problems, and very serious about the likelihood of mutually assured destruction resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.  Else, we'll suffer steadily increasing societal and environmental damage as global warming continues, or come to grieve under nuclear war, or both.  This is it: we don't need to be distracted by Greenland, or Panama, or by "inefficiencies" in how we as a country do business.  This is our one chance to either make a global positive difference, or fall into years of divisive turmoil and foment designed to increase differences in societal power and economic status.  The stakes could not be higher.

Hi Mr. White, 

Thank you for sharing your point of view and some things you have heard or read. In my effort to become more engaged, I took the time to research some of the issues you shared and provide some resources:

1. a contract to produce transgender mice

• From https://www.amprogress.org/research-news/2025/03/clarifying-misinformation-about-transgender-mice-in-research/
  • "To clarify, these mice are not 'transgender' in any human or social context. Research in this field helps scientists understand how sex hormones function and their effect when things go wrong, particularly in diseases and conditions like endometriosis, infertility, breast cancer, and prostate cancer. This work provides hope to countless individuals, whether in growing their families or enabling people to live longer, healthier lives when faced with a cancer diagnosis.

    For instance, one of the research grants recently mischaracterized examines how male hormones, known as "androgens," affect female hormone levels in women using genetic, molecular, and neurological techniques. Funding for this research is crucial and has already provided valuable insights into treatment options for women with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS), a common hormone disorder in women of reproductive age that causes severe pain and fertility complications."

  • Read this article as well: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8115503/. 
    • this paper studies the effects of leuprolide, a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa), in mice. GnRHa's suppress testosterone production during puberty for transgender women. This is done because, " In order to alleviate dysphoria, an increasing number of adolescents and their families seek medical and social interventions to affirm a gender expression more congruent with their experienced gender." 
    • In addition, "The clinical purpose of GnRHa administration to transgender youth in early adolescence is: (1) to prevent further development of secondary sex characteristics consistent with sex assigned at birth, which risks increasing or perpetuating anatomic dysphoria and related social stigma; and (2) to gain time for (therapist-assisted) consideration of the transgender identity before starting hormone treatments that lead to irreversible development of secondary sex characteristics consistent with the individual's gender identity."

2. studies of menstruation in XY males 

• Read this article: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3696142/
  • There is a specific disorder called Swyer Syndrome where despite having XY chromosomes in each cell, males present with female genitalia. 

3. promotion of "affirming" surgeries for trans people in federal prisons

• please read this article for a different point of view: https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/gender-affirming-care-incarceration-and-eighth-amendment/2023-06
  • 18-45% of transgender individuals are estimated to have attempted suicide, which is higher than triple than the average at the minimum estimate (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5649411/). Statistics like these cannot be ignored on grounds of an absolute morality. 

4. A California mandate ordering each public school to place menstrual products in at least one male-only restroom

• I struggle to understand what the issue is with this. Boiled down to its core, at least for someone who was raised Catholic, the issue I see stems from moral absolutism. Speaking from industry experience, I see the issue stems from a disruptive policy and the human response to change. However, gender-affirming care and gender equity are important to reduce suicidal ideation and suicide attempts. I have personally worked with brilliant engineers who identify as nonbinary - they are not a problem to get rid of, they are a population to encourage and made to feel like they belong to society. 

The issues you raised are related: transgender and non-binary individuals, and the science involved. The current administration, in promoting anti-transgender press releases, is not building towards a solution: it is attempting to suppress something that cannot be supressed.This is the opposite of what science sets out to accomplish. All of the links I shared demonstrate the scientists' goals in performing those studies, as well as the drivers behind the research. I encourage you to keep an open mind, and read the articles to see the science for yourself. 

It would be interesting for us to see what examples of misinformation Douglas Job is encountering and see details providing corrective information.  

What I see emerging from growing transparency of "scientific" grants is a parade of abuse:

a contract to produce transgender mice

studies of menstruation in XY males 

promotion of "affirming" surgeries for trans people in federal prisons (NEJM Jan 23, 2025)

A California mandate ordering each public school to place menstrual products in at least one male-only restroom.

What I don't see is a robust discussion of issues that the scientific elite has accepted in solidarity, by consensus and in opposition to scientific evidence, thus in error.

Hi Dr. Stewart, 

Thank you for sharing. I'm a Cell Therapy manager with a graduate degree in Molecular Biology, and currently live in NJ, where the governorship for Phil Murphy is approaching its term limit. Although we hold the Senate, I am worried for the future of NJ. Disinformation campaigns, whether instigated by foreign or domestic powers, have infiltrated far-right media sources and infected the minds of many of our residents. Although I am not experienced in policy or lobbying, I am looking to garner agency in speaking with policy-makers starting at the local level of government.

We cannot control the extremism in the media, nor what people choose to watch or listen to on their daily commutes, while at home, or while they work. The general pubic accepts "alternative facts" at face-value as the media continues to politicize (and demonize) health and environmental issues. A good deal of work, I predict, is open for the nonprofit sector as well as volunteer groups, to educate and communicate complex scientific evidence into layman's terms, ideally in bite-sized pieces, at the local level.

 I believe this requires close engagement with local advisory board commissions, and committees focused on community engagement. This is where I am at: I'm going to reach out, locally, to see what I can do. NJ is the pharma capital of the US (at least the Northeast), but I do not know how many scientists or industry professionals live in my town to help me drive engagement. I want to focus on "this is what science has to offer," rather than "this is why the current administration is destroying our country." The reason for this is that a platform cannot have its foundation supported on a negative. Trump won because he had a whole list, however destructive, of things he wanted to DO, although attacking the former administration continues to be a successful (?) component of his mission. 

So, how can we translate what science can do at the local level, to inform the general public, and present them with facts they buy, rather than the insane 'alternative facts'?

I've been a member of AAAS for about 40 years, and now, seeing some coalescence on the need for scientists to actively and firmly engage the public on science-social issues, I've taking that plunge.  Perhaps this communication will encourage others to more forcefully inject factual information into the zone of day-by-day public action and effective governmental policies.  

Upon reading "Strongmen," by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, I came to understand that, like it or not, we are now firmly under authoritarian rule. That's a shame, for I had come to appreciate life under a democracy, and I had hoped our elected officials would do so as well.  But with legislative and judicial complicity, it seems that we, as a country, are becoming far less attentive to the facts of climate change, and more willing to downplay events driven by climate change. Key disruptions in society driven by climate change include increasing frequencies of pandemics, droughts, crop failures, and floods.  Avian flu, for example, is hovering now on our doorstep, and this, or another pathogen, could easily transition effectively to become major societal problems.  We also routinely 'forget' about the dangers of nuclear weapons. Sam Bledso's new book, "Nukes: How to Survive a Nuclear War," re-educated me about this unhappy likelihood.  The Doomsday Clock now is at 89 seconds to midnight. Overall, it is imperative that we get very serious about climate change and its attending problems, and very serious about the likelihood of mutually assured destruction resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.  Else, we'll suffer steadily increasing societal and environmental damage as global warming continues, or come to grieve under nuclear war, or both.  This is it: we don't need to be distracted by Greenland, or Panama, or by "inefficiencies" in how we as a country do business.  This is our one chance to either make a global positive difference, or fall into years of divisive turmoil and foment designed to increase differences in societal power and economic status.  The stakes could not be higher.

I've been a member of AAAS for about 40 years, and now, seeing some coalescence on the need for scientists to actively and firmly engage the public on science-social issues, I've taking that plunge.  Perhaps this communication will encourage others to more forcefully inject factual information into the zone of day-by-day public action and effective governmental policies.  

Upon reading "Strongmen," by Ruth Ben-Ghiat, I came to understand that, like it or not, we are now firmly under authoritarian rule. That's a shame, for I had come to appreciate life under a democracy, and I had hoped our elected officials would do so as well.  But with legislative and judicial complicity, it seems that we, as a country, are becoming far less attentive to the facts of climate change, and more willing to downplay events driven by climate change. Key disruptions in society driven by climate change include increasing frequencies of pandemics, droughts, crop failures, and floods.  Avian flu, for example, is hovering now on our doorstep, and this, or another pathogen, could easily transition effectively to become major societal problems.  We also routinely 'forget' about the dangers of nuclear weapons. Sam Bledso's new book, "Nukes: How to Survive a Nuclear War," re-educated me about this unhappy likelihood.  The Doomsday Clock now is at 89 seconds to midnight. Overall, it is imperative that we get very serious about climate change and its attending problems, and very serious about the likelihood of mutually assured destruction resulting from the use of nuclear weapons.  Else, we'll suffer steadily increasing societal and environmental damage as global warming continues, or come to grieve under nuclear war, or both.  This is it: we don't need to be distracted by Greenland, or Panama, or by "inefficiencies" in how we as a country do business.  This is our one chance to either make a global positive difference, or fall into years of divisive turmoil and foment designed to increase differences in societal power and economic status.  The stakes could not be higher.