A few days ago I expressed some doubt about the effectiveness of the March for Science, now scheduled for April 22 (Earth Day) in Washington D.C. I was worried mostly about dividing both scientists and the public by over-politicization of the march based on identity politics. This was expressed on the march organizers’ social media emissions, including Twitter and a now-removed and misguided statement of aims that indicted science for racism and sexism.
I wasn’t the only person to worry about this; as a new piece in The Scientist reports, others were concerned about the ideological problems as well; these included Steve Pinker and Jonathan Haidt. Others weren’t concerned despite the political overtones, and the article gives a good summary of the pros and cons, with quotes by several scientists—including me.
The March for Science website now has a new statement of aims (below; click screenshot to enlarge or go to site), and one that Pinker now endorses. I do, too. The diversity is still there, but in a good way, for one strength of science can be said to be its diversity insofar as the tools of science are employed the same way by people of all genders, ethnicities, and religions. But I think the real strength of science is its toolkit: the reliance on evidence that’s now a prominent part of this statement: