We’ve talked a lot on the program about the Trump administration’s wars on science and education and why they’re doing as part of a larger far-right attack on the achievements of modernity.
This month, the president announced that a change to federal immunization guidance for infants to reduce the number of recommended shots. He cited no actual evidence, just his ludicrous belief that doctors were pumping infants with a liter of vaccine liquids. I wish I was joking.
In addition to the harms to public health and science that Trump and his Health and Human Services secretary Robert Kennedy Junior are creating, the destruction is wreaking havoc on real people’s lives at the scientific and government agencies.
My guests on this episode are two people who have been on the frontlines of these battles. Both are former employees at the National Institutes of Health, which has seen massive layoffs and its scientific recommendations ignored and censored by Kennedy and its director Jay Bhattacharya — after he made his career claiming to oppose censorship of science. They also have a great essay out about the Trump administration’s attacks on science and how to fight them.
Alexa Romberg was former deputy chief at the Prevention Research Branch at the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Sylvia Chou was program director in the Health Communication and Informatics Research Branch at the National Cancer Institute and is a scholar of linguistics and health communication. Both are members of 27 UNIHTED, an organization supporting employees who have been laid off or resigned from the National Institutes of Health.
Our conversation focuses on the how people have been impacted, the hypocrisy of Bhattacharya, and why scientists are having to learn to be more political with their livelihoods under attack.
If you’re interested in supporting Theory of Change, we are doing a fundraising drive for the show and for Flux on GoFundMe. I’d really appreciate your support. You can also become a paid supporter on Patreon or on Substack. Thank you so much for your help. I cannot do this work without you.
The video of this conversation is available. Access the episode page to get the full transcript. You can subscribe to Theory of Change and other Flux podcasts on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, Substack, and elsewhere.
Audio Chapters
00:00 — Introduction
08:12 — The people behind the worst Covid-19 ideas are running Trump’s health policies
14:39 — The gross hypocrisy of Jay Bhattacharya, Trump’s NIH director
19:37 “Wellness” advocates and the need to debate bad medical advice purveyors
28:47 — How tobacco companies set the template for today’s anti-science attacks
35:41 — The importance of community in helping people understand science
38:06 — Civic virtue and excellence as necessary for democracy and science
44:29 — Scientists have not been used to being political, but they must be now
51:14 — Science has always been linked to politics, even if you didn’t realize it
Audio Transcript
The following is a machine-generated transcript of the audio that has not been proofed. It is provided for convenience purposes only.
Matthew Sheffield: So we have a lot of ground to cover here today, but first I just want each [00:03:00] of you to give a little brief introduction to yourselves and your scientific work and then what, how you decided to get into more activist stuff in the present moment.
So let’s start with you, Silvia, and then I will go with you, Alexis.
Sylvia Chou: Sure. My path into NIH science and out of it is kind of, not very straightforward. I grew up in Taiwan was not particularly a good student, but I came to the US and had a chance to go to community college, and I th- later majored in music, played piano, then went into linguistics. Through that, I learned that I’m really interested in this whole idea of end-of-life conversations, this discourse between patients and, doctors.
And so I end up doing a dissertation in sociolinguistics not knowing where my next step would be. But then there was this postdoc opportunity at NCI, National Cancer Institute. [00:04:00] I really put all my, apples in one basket got this fellowship, and it was really a life-defining moment because then I got to then go into public health. And it, was through my MPH, Master in Public Health, at UC Berkeley that I discovered really my calling is to do science related to the public’s health. So then I became a program director at NCI, and that-- in that role, I served for 15 years. The last few years, the work is really focused on the intersection of social media and misinformation and the trust or the erosion of trust in science. Very I would say of practical work, but also a lot of deeper thinking about root causes of sort of society’s, challenges that have caused the sort of symptom of misinformation spread. So that was kind of my NIH role. But after 2025, after Trump 2.0 took over it was [00:05:00] immediately clear that this whole area of research would be either gutted or severely censored. So I worked very hard, both as a whistleblower but as someone who wanted to just keep talking about what’s happening to end up making a decision to resign in January of this year. So we can talk about kind of that decision a little bit later, but that’s kind of a story of my career.
Matthew Sheffield: yeah, that Was great, Sylvia. Thank you for that. Um, and Alexa, how about you?
Alexa Romberg: So like Silvia, I had a nonlinear career path where my undergraduate major was in molecular biophysics and biochemistry. But after graduating, that wasn’t what I wanted to do. And so, I spent time doing other things and and and eventually went back to graduate school in psychology.
And so I’m trained as a behavioral scientist and, my work in my early academic career was [00:06:00] really on learning and attention particularly first language acquisition, and cognitive mechanisms that support that. But over the past now 10 years, I moved into tobacco control really looking to have to be working in a space in which I-- that my work could be contributing more directly to the world.
So as opposed to really thinking about only what was happening in people’s minds, really looking to contribute to the, larger good through, through my work. And so I so I kind of shifted gears into tobacco control and working in tobacco use and nicotine use prevention. And that led me then to take a position at the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Drug Abuse in 2020 where I was then eventually the, deputy chief of the Prevention Research [00:07:00] branch. And one of the things that when I took the position in the government, it was 2020. I thought that a federal job was really, stable and that it-- there would be space really to over the long term to change systems, to really support diversity in science, to address the health disparities that we see related to tobacco and other substance use.
And one resolution that I made to myself was that I would bring my whole self to work, that I wasn’t going to perform for others. I was going to live my values in in the workplace. And what happened as the second Trump administration came, came in and started their kind of shock and awe campaign against government workers, is that the systems that were put in place within NIH really deeply conflicted with my values. So that so, so they, they-- the, situation just became untenable for me. [00:08:00] I signed the public the, Bethesda Declaration as Silvia did and then ultimately chose to resign in protest of the administration’s actions in December of 2025
The people behind the worst Covid-19 ideas are running Trump’s health policies
Matthew Sheffield: Okay. Yeah. And that’s a perfect segue, Alexa for the next thing I wanted to talk about, which is, so what, is the Bethesda Declaration for people who haven’t heard of it, and why, what is the, what does it signify?
Alexa Romberg: Yeah. The, and the, Bethesda Declaration a public letter of dissent from, NIH current and former employees to the director of the NIH Jayanta Bhattacharya. And I did not conceptualize it. That credit belongs to other people including Jenna Norton, who I know that you have spoken with before on your podcast. But the idea was [00:09:00] that the policies that were being pursued and are continuing to be pursued by the Trump administration within NIH was, we believe were truly undermining the mission of the NIH. So it’s not just there was a disagreement about where the emphasis should be or how implementation should go for particular ideas, but really that there’s a fundamental harm that was happening to the agency’s mission that merited speaking up in a very public way, right?
Which is obviously not typical for government employees who are often asked to implement programs or priorities that they may not really, believe in personally or have other ideas about. And so the Bethesda Declaration listed five areas that were causing harm to the NIH mission, including the politicization of research the interruption of global collaboration undermining [00:10:00] peer review the cap on indirect costs, and the firing of, essential staff. It was called the Bethesda Declaration kind of modeled after Dr. Bhattacharya’s own Great Barrington Declaration, right? In which he helped create and disseminate this declaration that was meant to be kind of a dissenting opinion about how public health during the COVID pandemic should, be handled. And he had made public statements about really wanting to foster civil dissent within wi- within the he has said. And so, so we thought that this might be a way to engage him, and and particularly since many of those initial policies were started before he, he started at NIH, right?
to be able to really engage him in the kind of dialogue that he had claimed that he really wanted to, have and encourage with with scientists broadly.
Matthew Sheffield: yeah, His alleged [00:11:00] values. Sylvia, yeah, what, do you think? You got anything to add?
Sylvia Chou: the only thing to add is it was much beyond a letter or a declaration. We really have started a movement and a community. I, think I didn’t even expect this part to be so salient. It literally kept me alive. I really felt like it kept me sane to be part of this community that was pointing out what’s clearly in front of us and understanding it as it is, because our workplace has turned into this very weird upside-down world,
Matthew Sheffield: Mm-hmm.
Alexa Romberg: Flux
Sylvia Chou: are scared.
They’re saying things that they know are not true but not seeing another way. It was very, bizarre and weird and
Alexa Romberg: Yes
Sylvia Chou: Soul-crushing. So having the Bethesda Declaration community and fellow colleagues that are both supporting each other, strategizing, having a [00:12:00] real discussion. I think it... Before we came on, you talked about just engaging in a discourse, in a conversation. I’m really appreciating how much just talking things out honestly, candidly can do, both for the world, our society, but for our individuals’ well-being. and to me, that’s what I got the most out of Bethe- Bethesda Declaration.
Our motto is, “Courage is contagious,” and we really have been leaning into each other’s bravery but skillfulness as well. How do we do this? How do we show up, every day in defense of the integrity of science and, truth?
Alexa Romberg: Yeah, if I could just follow up, I, I, really agree with with Sylvia on that point where to, One of the that, that Dr. Bhattacharya did do in response to the, declaration was invited some signers to [00:13:00] a roundtable to, to discuss some of the concerns. And during that time as we were preparing for to have that conversation the, the, group met to discuss, like, how...
What, how could we approach this? What are ways to advance equity in this process? And it was really a revelation working with people who were so diverse where, from those who were post-bacs having, working in labs in the Intramural Research Program, to those who were senior scientists in the Intramural Program, to those who were branch chiefs, and those who were analysts, to those that were admin, right?
All working together to create a shared vision of how to communicate about a-about this. And group really modeled a for each other, a sense of community and of listening. And I credit Jenna a lot with that because [00:14:00] she, really modeled that very well in, in running meetings.
And I think that participation in excuse me, in that community really changed the way that I think about working with people and building community over time, and I’ve been applying those lessons ever since
Matthew Sheffield: Yeah, that’s wonderful. and it is an, a, fortunate contrast to, what had happened before within the field of science, and we’ll get to that a bit later in the discussion.
The gross hypocrisy of Jay Bhattacharya, Trump’s NIH director
Matthew Sheffield: so but I think a lot of people, they might not know who Jay Bhattacharya is even though he has a very important job.
So, Syl- Sylvia, can you just give people a bit of a primer on his background before he got the NIH role, and then, and, why he got that [00:15:00] role?
Sylvia Chou: So Jayanta Bhattacharya was a health economist working at Stanford University. I think I mean, I don’t know his scholarship too well. I know he r- had received several federal research funding on various projects using, sort of economic analysis tools and so on. I think he came to be recognized as somebody who the administration looked upon very favorably because he was the leader of the Great Barrington Declaration, which during COVID time was a reaction against a lot of the COVID policies. They really felt like the guide- guidelines were too extreme, that they were seeding doubt in both the, policies like social distancing, but also, vaccine development and implementation. So, but I think one of his main kind of values or what he claims to be the important value is academic freedom and the freedom to [00:16:00] dissent, that we should be able to be disagreeing and still listen to each other. And we agree with that. That, part is 100% important. I think as a contrarian really coming into NIH, we expected him to shift a bit and stop being a contrarian and actually lead, and, and that has not been what we’ve observed. And we can go into kind of the policies at NIH if you want, but it, it was, I’ll, give one example of something that was
Matthew Sheffield: Yes, please
Sylvia Chou: We had a rule that we cannot use nicknames and pronouns or anything in our signatures or even on our Zoom calls. So you have a, Chipper becomes a David, a a Annette becomes a, Mary.
It’s just weird overnight. And we also couldn’t put anything else in our signature block. And then the next day he showed up, and he sent a message to the entire NIH, and he [00:17:00] signed Jay. And we-- I have a, passport name, which is Chinese, and my nickname is Sylvia. I could not have Sylvia in my signature, even though I, go by Sylvia. And so I think a lot of people were just,
Alexa Romberg: Flux
Sylvia Chou: it’s, a little bit too much on the nose that the hypocrisy, like you make a rule but that some people don’t have to follow. so that’s one example of kinda either you can see that as kinda being tone deaf to the morale problems, or that there are rules that apply to some but not others.
Alexa Romberg: Yes
Matthew Sheffield: Yeah. Yeah, and just for the record his, actual legal name is Jayanta not, Jay. So just for, so people can get your, j- your joke there.
Sylvia Chou: you for that.
Matthew Sheffield: Yeah, and, COVID really did unfortunately, empower a lot of people like this because, the, I mean, the political history [00:18:00] of, this movement, if you will, it was, people, they had, kind of coordinated actually around Stanford University unfortunately for Stanford and been associated with other groups there, some of which, many of which were funded by Peter Thiel.
And, it was... COVID, though, was a, moment where I think there, the, most heartless aspects of libertarianism really did come out there because you had... I mean, they were at just saying it. “We should let people die. People should die so we can go shopping.” That was what they were saying.
And or, and of course they would deny that. they would say, “Well, because we didn’t think anything bad would happen.” And, the, results are clear that their, the ideas that they got, which, they got a lot of what they wanted, contrary to the claims that they were some [00:19:00] persecuted, endangered censored minority.
these people were on Fox News every day. They were, making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year off of Substacks and other things like that. No one was censoring them, especially the government. So it’s, worth saying that, I think. So, but, and but the, it does kind of, th- that’s one half of the, Kennedy, Robert Kennedy Jr., the, and Health and Human Services secretary who we’ve talked about a lot on this program, so we don’t have to, go into him too much here today though.
“Wellness” advocates and the need to debate bad medical advice purveyors
Matthew Sheffield: But, one person who was kind of exemplifying his personal views of things, ‘cause he wasn’t, as far as I know, that in connected to Bhattacharya before the pandemic.
But he was connected to the woman who he had nominated to be the surgeon general Casey Means, who came out of the w- the wellness [00:20:00] movement. So Alexa just g- c- like I think to some extent, maybe some people who, are not into all of that, they just see it as harmless consumer fads. That they’re like, “Well, it wastes people’s money and it’s kind of not something I’m interested in, but what harm can it do?”
And I that’s unfortunately not the right attitude for a lot of this, I think. Not, it’s not all bad, but some of it is.
Alexa Romberg: Sure. I think that’s that’s very true. And, we have the, wellness industry is really focused on unregulated supplements or treatments or postures that are not outs- that, that are outside the pharmaceutical industry, right? Because the pharmaceutical industry is tightly regulated by the FDA for good reason, right? But the, supplement, the wellness industry is is outside of all that. And I think [00:21:00] that people like RFK Jr., people like Casey Means have been using that posture to say, “Well, we’re anti-industry. We’re anti-pharma. We’re, we are looking to pursue health in these other ways,” when really what they’re doing is they’re rejecting the evidence base that underlies our understanding of human health and doing so for profit. So it is rare that these folks are not involved in selling something directly to consumers as part of their wellness advocacy, including we, see this for the new the, new person nominated for surgeon general as well. And so this really that they’re outside of, the pharmaceutical industry and talking about the corruption that’s involved in in industry is they’re, very conveniently saying, “We’re not a part of that,” even though they experience the same conflicts of interest [00:22:00] in in, in, in the way that they are approaching health.
Sylvia Chou: I mean, I, think another bigger goal of them is to sow doubt, and to sow doubt in evidence, in establishment. I think healthy skepticism is important. I think we should not take every piece of information that comes our way without thinking critically. I think this is a whole ‘nother level.
It’s really leveraging fear. Some of it is fear-mongering. Other, others, is really tapping into anger and frustration in the, community. So I, just worry sort of from a perspective of public health of this distrust in science and scientific evidence that all of this current drama can create for our future, and I think about how do we restore trust, and it can’t just be that we do better messaging.
We have to earn it. We have to [00:23:00] trustworthy. So how do we do that? That’s, what I think a lot about.
Matthew Sheffield: Yeah. Well, and, it is such an important question. And a lot of it has to be conversations and debates. A lot-- I think there, there are people that I know who work in science that they absolutely cringe at the idea of debating a creationist or debating an anti-vaxxer. But they have to. And, may- well, they personally, if you don’t wanna do it, like I, I wouldn’t, force it on anyone who didn’t wanna do it, but somebody needs to because, these arguments are like weeds.
If you don’t pull them up, they’ll grow bigger and take over your whole garden. And look, you have the facts on your side. So, if you don’t, feel comfortable doing that in public, you’re not a good public speaker or whatever, that’s fine, but you need to encourage people who are, and you need to find them and elevate them and support them.
Sylvia Chou: yeah, [00:24:00] in order for a debate to be a true debate, there has to be, fair rules and like you said, there are facts and then there are fiction or there are lies. That has to, there has to be room, and I think the reason, you initially, thought we could have this conversation was based on our app a- op-ed, which is focused on this topic of communication about science. And what we’re seeing right now the government side is a lot of heavy-handed muzzling or censorship of communication science, of science. Some of it is in talking point being vetted. Others are telling you can’t say this word. And I, just worry that we can’t really have a discourse if there is so much over what can and cannot be said. So I, I guess the question is who sets the rule and where, on what platform, what, space can we have a genuine [00:25:00] conversation and disagreement? I think setting the boundaries and the parameters and forums for that is, is really an important priority. And you know better than anybody, I mean, the media landscape is filled with echo chambers and silos that don’t cross, so there are rabbit holes that are hard to get out of, or people who have gotten so used to only hearing like-minded comments that they take anything that’s contrary to their worldview as either misinformation or threatening. that’s kind of a bigger,
Matthew Sheffield: Yeah. Well, yeah, they, view science as misinformation. That is actually what they think. And it, until, scientists accept that and what it, that it has massive implications for them, because the reality is the ivory tower exists within the world, and somebody can burn it down, and some people [00:26:00] want to, and they are right now.
Alexa Romberg: Yeah, I would, I mean, I would be just a little bit careful about this argument, I guess. I think that of course, we all are charged with engaging responsibly with the public. But people have also been debating creationists for decades, right? And that is not what, has led to our current crisis. Right? What has led to our current crisis is people making enormous profit off of sowing misinformation and disinformation. And so I don’t think that we’re going to arrive at solutions by simply having
Sylvia Chou: A debate.
Alexa Romberg: conversations. We are going to arrive at solutions by creating structures that enable us to thrive and enable people to thrive in our society. And so, I think that’s where we need to be thinking as opposed to thinking about changing individuals’ behaviors.
Matthew Sheffield: Yeah, that’s a good point. And I, I [00:27:00] guess in my own defense, if I may, I would-- I said that it, has to include debating. But yeah, it’s absolutely 100%. yeah, the institutions the, unfortunate thing I think that, really it like, after the Cold War, there was this great consensus that developed against reactionary extremism, and in favor of science, in favor of education, in favor of competent governance.
This was, that is why the 1950s and 1960s were what people envision as the glory days. It was because we had such a great people running the government. That’s why things were so good, And also, of course, that we were the only un- undamaged, um, economic area in the world. But, the fact that, that, both parties had a commitment to good governance and science and education was so important.
But one of [00:28:00] the bad things about that it was, what they had learned in, from fighting Nazis, which is that you cannot trust reactionaries. You must stop them in every way when you see them, politically. It was not something that was really kind of formally known, in an abstract sense.
Nobody wrote a book. I mean, to some extent there were books like Hannah Arendt and, some other people like that, but it was more about “Oh, well, what is the psychology of fascism?” And not, “Well, how do we stop people from listening to that, and why would they want to?” Um, just regular people.
Like there was some part of, there was some good stuff in that, I should say. but it, didn’t really hit the political mainstream as much as it should, because I think people didn’t see a need for it,.
How tobacco companies set the template for today’s anti-science attacks
Matthew Sheffield: And the mentality that now is, running the administration in the US, it started with the tobacco industry.
And, it started with the [00:29:00] idea infamously in the memos that they sent that, “Doubt is our product.” And because the, they knew that they did not have the evidence. They knew it. But they knew also that didn’t matter. If you could convince people that evidence didn’t matter and that alternative facts were real and obviously you Alexa this is something you have a lot to say about, I imagine.
Alexa Romberg: Yes. I, do. And, and I will say that as someone, I, I was obviously highly educated, had a PhD but y- didn’t even realize before I started to work in tobacco control how harmful tobacco really is, like the bodily harm that it causes, and that this was still a huge ongoing problem right?
That this is, that we have f- about 480,000 people in the United States who die every year from [00:30:00] tobacco-related causes, right? And those those deaths are not evenly distributed across the population. Rather, they are tend to be concentrated in in specific populations that experience disparate outcomes related to their use.
For example Black Americans don’t smoke at higher rates than white Americans, but they experience worse health outcomes related to, tobacco. And partly that is due to the tobacco industry’s playbook in really targeting specifically Black communities to to, come onside. The marketing of menthol cigarettes in particular to, to Black communities that we have a lot of evidence are harder to give up smoking than non-menthol cigarettes. But but also engaging in different marketing campaigns across different populations, in, in, the US. always looking to i- to, similar to today’s situation, embrace freedom, [00:31:00] like a freedom to choose to smoke. And that’s something that the, that tobacco controls had to, push back on in terms of other people’s freedoms in or-- to, to be free of a smoky environment, for example, while they’re working at a bar or restaurant, right?
And we see that same tension between, in COVID vaccines between I wanna have the freedom to decline a vaccine but, we ... But in choosing that, you are increasing the opportunity of harm for those around you as well. And we see the current administration is quite pro-tobacco. And this was something that really is mind-boggling when you think of the Make America Healthy Again movement. of all the things, right, tobacco is a, it’s, a huge profit-driven industry. It can’t be anything else, right? It’s like public [00:32:00] shareholders.
They’ve gotta maximize profit.
Matthew Sheffield: And they’re filled with all-- cigarettes are filled with all kinds of terrible chemicals that Kennedy allegedly hates
Alexa Romberg: and it’s, you, and you, right, you have folks who, you have so many who are dying, and it’s, and it is preventable. So you would think this would be, like, a clear, win for tobacco control that we have people ascendant, but it’s turned out to be quite the opposite. So even when I when I was a program official, I held projects in tobacco control and including large centers for the, Tobacco Regulatory Science Program that uses FDA funding at NIH to fund original research to inform regulation. And one of those those centers that I held in my portfolio was terminated last summer. Right? And just, the, hypocrisy that we are trying to make America healthy again, while at the same time undermining research that’s [00:33:00] intended to benefit the people who are most harmed by tobacco really hits, the, conflicts of interest in, in, in this administration, right, right in the heart.
Matthew Sheffield: Yeah. Sylvia, did you wanna weigh in there?
Sylvia Chou: No, I think that was well covered. I mean, there’s just a lot of hy- hypocrisy all
Matthew Sheffield: There really is
Alexa Romberg: if, we could just return for a moment to the kind of this post-war glory days of of American science, I would like to push back on that a bit because if we the ‘50s and ‘60s in the United States was one of deep and institutionalized racial inequity, right? We have Jim Crow,
Matthew Sheffield: For sure
Alexa Romberg: a academic space, that specifically excludes non-white males, right? So women, people of color, indigenous peoples non-English speakers, [00:34:00] everyone. And that space is what created the foundation for our current scientific infrastructure. And so yes, that infrastructure has certainly yielded incredible dividends for our country and has advanced health overall. However, it has done so by persistently and systematically excluding that weren’t there at the beginning. And so I think that there’s a lot of rethinking that we need to do about how we can best create a scientific infrastructure that actually advances the interests of all peoples, and not those that are just most have the most privilege in our society
Matthew Sheffield: Yeah, that’s a, great point. And yeah, and, that exclusion, I do think it did serve as the kernel of the zombie Socratic method. The zombie I can’t even say my own point. The zombie Socratic method this skepticism without a [00:35:00] brain that, it’s pervasive in, in, in lots of communities.
And, in some cases that skepticism it, is caused by things that government did. So whether that’s, the government experimenting on Black people, various drugs or not, drugs not giving people medical treatments. Yeah, so and then and then of, there’s a long record unfortunately of medical professionals not giving adequate treatment to women particularly Black women.
And even now that persists to this day that Black women have m- significantly higher mortality rates in pregnancy just as one example.
The importance of community in helping people understand science
Sylvia Chou: we’ve been talking a lot at the level of, what is ri- right evidence and exchanging of ideas. But I also wondered if a big part of it is human, like a fractured social fabric. It’s a relationship, the way people are failing to [00:36:00] re- build new relationships, or that we are there’s an isolation either efforts to isolate people or people finding themselves isolated by happenstance. I, think about it, one study which was looking at vaccine tweets, Twitter it was published in American Journal of Public Health. I can give you a reference later. But basically, they were mining data on vaccine-related c- contents, and what they found was there was a large effort on behalf of Russia and the Russian trolls and bots that were seeding contents that were both pro and anti-vaccine. It was really an attempt to build up a fight. So this is why I call these engineered controversies. They really wanna... It’s a, it’s kinda like a classic colonialist effort to get two groups to dislike each other. [00:37:00] So there are actually efforts to get people to really n- hate each other. And I think that’s something that creates this idea that sometimes people would call it false equivalency.
We need to hear there are good people on both sides, that kind of argument, or both-sideism. These were all ideas that there were just different, differing opinions, and we need to hear them all. But they actually came from attempts to create divisions. And maybe it’s a human instinct. I know you have a background in philosophy, and I, do think, we like to be around people we like and we agree with.
I know that it’s a bias of me. Sometimes I cannot stand, I mean, to socialize in certain settings or even hearing some news because it’s just too painful to have to hear things that are diff- that challenges you, your, worldviews. So, but I think that’s important to kind of bring into this conversation in terms of how [00:38:00] to build healthy and thriving relationships or relations.
Civic virtue and excellence as necessary for democracy and science
Matthew Sheffield: Yeah. Well, that is a perfect tee off of me, thank you, Silvia, to talk about that in the philosophical context because I, always love bringing Aristotle into my science episodes because Aristotle, was one of the earliest scientists of whose, achievements that we actually have written evidence for.
And, but he was also a philosopher. And, he integrated both of those things into everything that he did. And, two of his core concepts in, in the ancient Greeks generally, and we have these, we have equivalents for these words in English but as a civic practice, w- the it’s fallen away.
so the, in, in Greek philosophy, there, there’s the concept of eudaimonia, which is civic excellence and [00:39:00] thriving. And then there is the individual counterpart to that and that is arete. and it’s often translated as virtue in English, but virtue for the ancient Greeks and Romans didn’t mean like chastity.
What it meant was excellence, the belief and the pursuit of excellence in your life and in your society. and that I, think has, that’s has gone missing in certainly in our politics. And some school systems actually are good about putting some of this in, into their curricula.
But yeah, we could use a lot more of these two ideas and, getting people to think about them. And it’s important also, I think, for, people as, traditional religion has become less popular over time in the US and around the world the, this, the [00:40:00] necessity of talking about what is, truth, what is knowledge, what is ethics, what do we owe each other?
Like these are things that still matter. And even if you’re not religious, you need to have answers for these questions, or at least you need to ask the question a lot, I think.
Sylvia Chou: That’s a great-- I mean, I, think about the two things that we’re here to talk about in terms of what’s most under threat, m- under attack. One is science, which is the pursuit of excellence, truth. There’s a methodological sort of processes and a level of humility accept, findings that are, may not be what you’re looking for.
And so that’s sort of one thing that’s, I think, under a lot of challenge, right? In integrity. Another is public health, which is about the social good, kinda like the societal. It’s not about just enriching the wealthiest or the smartest or whatever it [00:41:00] is. It’s about, looking out for everybody, because if everybody’s treated well, then we all benefit.
Or if, you know-- And I think those two c- two values, science, especially public health research, research that’s trying to actually, is kind of, good reasons, I think, for some of the people in charge right now, that they find it threatening. so, so I, do feel like as an individual, we have to find, re-re-redefine kind of where we are in this world.
How do we contribute? I heard this one colleague who’s c- from an evangelical background and I think struggled a lot growing up. He said when he found science, it felt like finding his safety, I mean, his comfort place. And it’s a shelter, it’s a refuge there is a process. It’s not to say religion is [00:42:00] not that, but he didn’t have a language or a mechanism to pursue excellence in the same way. So it’s not contrasting each, but I think there are different ways one arrive at what is good and true to oneself.
Matthew Sheffield: Mm-hmm. Alexa, did you wanna, weigh in there? I, have thoughts, but I wanna let you go first.
Alexa Romberg: yeah, I think that this is really relevant to the process that Sylvia and I went through over the past year in thinking about how to respond to, to the attacks on the integrity of NIH, right? Where we, Well, I’ll, speak for myself that, for me it was clear that the actions of terminating grants without notice, regardless of the topic or whether you think it was a good thing to study, is unethical and harmful. [00:43:00] I don’t need a religious framework to make that judgment. I can rely on my own judgment and that of scientific best practices, right? And so I know that the people who are deciding to do that do not intend to prevent harm, right? And being in an environment in which that is expected, in which people will lose their jobs if they don’t comply, this creates a lot of moral injury and, and a lot of dissonance in terms of what we know to be best practices where we can have room for dissent, we can have room to discuss what is, what is the right way to, to pursue these questions?
What are the right ways to, broaden participation in science? What are the right ways to address health disparities, right? But none of those involve, [00:44:00] behaving unethically in ways that completely break trust with the people who consented to participate in science, who consented to participate in a study for the public good, right? And and so I think that’s in just thinking about what the administration is willing to engage in i- whether it’s illegal or not, I’m not a, legal expert, but I know that is unscientific and it is unethical.
Scientists have not been used to being political, but they must be now
Matthew Sheffield: Mm-hmm. Yeah, that’s right. and, that, and it goes to something that we hit on very briefly, which is, despite all the rhetoric from Bhattacharya or Kennedy earlier about, “Well, I, support free speech,” “You guys are censoring me. I-- Everyone should be able to say what they want.”
A- and the reality is they want the exact opposite of that. They want them to be able to say whatever they want, and you to say what they want. [00:45:00] that’s how they, want things to be. And but I think it, it’s hard though for a lot of people who work in science to have to accept that they must stand up at this moment.
This is a difficult realization for a lot of people, I think, and obviously you guys, know this better than I do from your personal experiences. But, it seems to me that a lot of people, they thought that they were getting away from politics, that they were getting away from the, the scrum of debate and, the dirtiness of discourse.
And of course, science has its own many debates irrespective of that. But still, there, there is an, a commitment overall to extrinsic exchange within science generally speaking. And so it’s, hard for people who had... That’s what they were looking [00:46:00] for with their career path.
Like I’m sorry, I have a friend who, works in a federal agency who, you know, i- in pub- in communications, and they always have problems getting scientists to participate in their public communications because they, the scientist will say, “Ah, that’s just a waste of time for me to talk about this.”
Sylvia Chou: I, bet they don’t feel that way now probably, hopefully.
Matthew Sheffield: Yeah. Well, I haven’t checked in with, them, but I should. I should. ‘
Sylvia Chou: Cause I think it’s really been a reckoning. I mean, a wake, wake-- people are waking up to the fact that you don’t have any necessarily guaranteed public sort of acceptance or understanding or appreciation of the work you do if you don’t engage and articulate and really assert your role in civil society. I, think that’s a really important next step, is for scientists and researchers to [00:47:00] at least think about opportunities to communicate their work with their non-scientist, fellow human beings. But I, do think a lot of people in leadership, even to this day in science, are unprepared for this moment. There has been a traditionally fairly insular and well-regarded kinda structure for doing our work, and there was this idea that we stay in our lane, keep our heads down, and we just do good science, and that’s, all we’re called to do. So when the attack comes at such a musk- muscular and fast rate, it left most people, confused, scared. I think I see a lot of duck and take cover if we just let the storm blow through, if we just stay quiet. I don’t personally think that’s gonna work. I don’t necessarily have a [00:48:00] perfect sort of solution, but I think it starts with actually engaging and looking at the truth for what it is. And that even takes courage, to look at what’s happening to the scientific enterprise. But I, think it’s a start. It’s a start.
Matthew Sheffield: Mm-hmm.
Alexa Romberg: I have a number of thoughts on this. One, I think that the idea I agree it’s often prevalent among scholars that science is apolitical is both foundationally incorrect and also out of the white supremacist origins of modern science, right? And so if you bring in Indigenous scholars, if you bring in scholars minoritized scholars, they will be able to, document and explain very clearly how participation in science at any level, as the scientist, as the participant, as the funder, as the institution receiving funding, has always been a deeply political process, [00:49:00] right? And so it is a place of privilege and insulation or to say that this is separate from the political world, right? I-- and I couldn’t agree more with, Sylvia about the lack of preparation therefore, right? Because we have elevated people in science who have enjoyed that privilege and who have enjoyed being a, being able to benefit from these structures. And that with, the fact that institutions right, their goal is to protect the institution often, right, rather than some larger ideal, right? And so we see this really playing out in a lot of conflict in o-o-over the past 18 months as institutions have really by and large, right, the majority of them, certainly not all of them, but the majority of them have looked to how can we comply, how can we...
or how can we, not make noise, or how can we survive this, as [00:50:00] opposed to thinking about what does survival mean? What does my position as someone leading a high-profile scientific organization right now require of me in order to protect scientific principles, right? And so that’s why one of the reasons why I signed the Bethesda Declaration, I took the leap, putting my name out in public a year ago, right?
It was June of last year that it came out, was because I too sit in this position of privilege, right? I was someone-- I, am someone who has benefited tr-tremendously from my status. am currently, right, I am married. My spouse carries our-- can carry our health insurance for our family. We have enough support that losing my job if I should speak up is is something that, that our family could weather without it completely overturning our lives, right?
And that is definitely not the case for every single person out there. It probably is the case, though, for [00:51:00] every leader of a scientific institution, right? And so I think that it’s incumbent upon us who have really benefited from the privilege, particularly in the scientific infrastructure, to be the ones raising our voices at this time.
Science has always been linked to politics, even if you didn’t realize it
Matthew Sheffield: Yeah, that’s really good. Yeah, the, people who, say that they’re non-political, they make two fundamental errors. Number one is that saying you are non-political is a political act, and the only people who can say that are people who have the privilege to say that. Because, politics, it will come for you even if you don’t want it.
and in science, in a lot of ways it-- some, many scientists were living in denial about that, I think. Um, and, and you’re right that, to, go back into the, um, the history there, Alexa, that [00:52:00] the other thing is that w- of why it’s so important to encourage diversity in science is that science is about the world as it is, and if you’ve excluded people who are in the world, and especially within the realm of medicine and biology, if you exclude people, then your science is wrong.
It’s incomplete. It’s filled with lacunae, and it’s not good science. Even if it has, the conclusions that might match, a, more well-sourced science, it’s still the methods are wrong and you have failed
So
Alexa Romberg: I, I would extend that to all areas of science, including, for example, cognitive psychology,
Matthew Sheffield: Appreciate you
Alexa Romberg: when you have theories that are born out of a very homogenous then they’re not meant to capture the diversity of human cognition, for [00:53:00] example and lead to pathologizing what the white privileged class views as non-normative
Sylvia Chou: Mm-hmm. and I just wanna add, I think we’ve made a lot of strides. I mean, I know this always looking back, we see so many holes or problems, feel like over the last years, we’ve really increased participation. We’ve diversified the workforce. It’s far from over, but I think what we’re seeing now is a severe backlash.
We’re taking a cou- many steps backwards. But I think sometimes it’s hard to-- it’s, easy to lose sight of the progress that we’ve made. So to sort of hold both realities of sort of a progress even to be here having this open conversation, uncensored, and yet watching the threat that people felt very nervous about this.
I mean, this is a threatening [00:54:00] to have a conversation like this where we connect science and democracy and politics in one, I think is perceived as threatening to some. and that, I would say is I even underestimated how quickly politicization of science took place and how complete the destruction, has been
Matthew Sheffield: Yeah. Yeah, that’s a great point, Sylvia. And and one of the things that has been a big part of that destruction, though, has been a thought a- across many institutions not just those of science. We saw this with law firms and universities in general, of this idea of “Well, if I just put my head down and, they’re only asking me to fill out forms, or I’ll, just pay off the settlement then they’ll leave me alone.”
And, let this preemptive obedience. It’s been [00:55:00] so destructive. And it was, wrong from day one, and a lot of people were saying that from day one that they shouldn’t do it. And, universities that have thought that if they could placate the Trump regime, like Columbia University, big one in particular, and some of these law firms, they, one- once you have bent the knee, they will never take their boot off of your neck, I think
Sylvia Chou: Yeah. There’s a, really distinction between people who are like in the Bethesda Declaration, seeing the bigger picture, to this idea that these are all just series of nuisances. “Get me-- get out of my back. Stop asking more questions.” And these are inconvenient workpl- workplace drama. I mean, there are still people who felt like they, that’s how they can survive this, is to think of each thing as a small hurdle that passes. But I, disagree with [00:56:00] that perspective. Empathize with it. I think for some people it’s a survival mechanism. but that’s not my stance. Yeah.
Alexa Romberg: And I think this is what we were looking to engage people with in the recent op-ed in, inside Higher Ed in which we really, brought people some actions that they can the first is exercising your rights while you have them, right? If you give up your freedom of speech just because, then you’ve given it up and, th- and, there isn’t recovering it, right?
You are setting a norm in which there is less, allowed speech. And obviously, there’s a lot of conflict there in terms of, the, personal and a- and, the ideological. But I think in really grappling with that and and engaging [00:57:00] with it deeply is really key. And, another tenet that, we put forth is really that every bit of fighting and pushback matters.
And for some folks, this may be really personal. Maybe, right, like keeping your mind free, having your eyes open understanding the harms that, that, we’re seeing, right? For others, it’s going to be a lot of direct action, right? And actions can be small, and actions can be big. They can be visible or less, or invisible to, to, to the public.
But it’s thinking about that, of “What’s in, what’s possible for me in terms of action, visible or invisible?” the, third part was really about growing a community of support that sees the truth and understands the need for speaking up and action at, this time.
And I think that, as Silvia and I both spoke about kind of becoming part of the larger community [00:58:00] of Bethesda declaration signers and the support that afforded us as we really thought about how to navigate the current attacks on the NIH and on our democracy. It was like I, I certainly couldn’t be doing the things that I am now without that support.
And actually, it grew for me out of really meeting with it and even with, a smaller group of just folks who I worked really closely with at NIH, starting and talking with them. And so it’s really those small actions, that talking to someone, understanding, growing your sense of connection in the world that can lead to, to, larger things in the future.
Matthew Sheffield: Yeah, absolutely. It really can. And yeah, and I think that does bring me to one of the things that, you know, a lot of people, maybe not a lot, I, guess it’s hard to know how many, but, [00:59:00] some people who have long-term science projects, they have decided that, given Trump and all these other people, that the United States is not going to be a safe home for their research.
And so they’ve left, and I understand why they would do that. I but, I would say to them that, if you’re going to leave, then you, need to keep fighting for the people you left behind because n- not everybody has that luxury. that’s, one of the best privileges you could possibly have, is the ability to take up your research shop and port it over to another country and have them pay you to do it.
So please don’t leave the rest of us behind. and, and the fact that you’re leaving, that’s... You should tell people that and stay, connected.
Sylvia Chou: Yeah, I try to emphasize when people hear that I resigned, and like [01:00:00] I’m giving up, but really it’s the opposite. I just decided that I needed to uphold my oath of office by fighting from the outside. I really think it’s a big distinction that I’m not just retrieving, to the mountains, at least not yet. I, remember growing up in, Chinese literature in Taiwan, you would hear these scholars that have seen it all, and they move to the mountain to play zither and drink tea invite the moon to a, some liquor. And I always wondered, who are these people? Why would they do that? But now I appreciate where that idea comes from. But I’m not there. I wanna give my good faith every bit of effort I can to assert my right and engage in conversations. So I mean, I really thank you for engaging us in this conversation because I think it’s been a tremendous learning time for all of us and it’s very humbling. But I’m seeing [01:01:00] even growth in our community of both individually and as a group of
Alexa Romberg: Yes
Sylvia Chou: how to do this, how to with the situation. But I did hear a joke not a joke, but in China, they call Trump the true patriot. Meaning they-- Trump must love China so much to give up science and let China, take it o-on.
I mean, a, colleague was given a position where they are able to hire, 50 f-faculty lines and they’re ready to go. it, is really astounding the in-infrastructure that’s growing almost reacting to what’s happening in the US elsewhere in the world. So, I think brain drains and sort of, issues of scientists moving is happening, and it-- we, won’t understand the extent of its impact until later.
But I like your c- idea that, we, this country, this structure [01:02:00] belongs to us, and we need to be an active participating participant in effecting change, positive change even in dire times.
Matthew Sheffield: Yeah, absolutely. Well, and, I think one of the other things that just regular people can do is make sure to support politicians who will invest in, institutions of science, institutions of education, and institutions of public awareness. that’s that’s has been s- unfortunate to see, like the, They went after the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, for instance, which funds PBS and lots of great programming and NPR stuff as well. And like I, there, there, is a real opportunity though for blue states and other countries. I mean, I, it’s my personal view, I, that there [01:03:00] has to be a reverse Marshall Plan from Europe and other countries.
because if we, go rogue in this country, like it’s gon- it’s gonna affect you guys, and you know that. So maybe you should help us out, the people that are fighting for democracy here, a lot more than you are doing now. That’s what I would think. So if you guys are listening,
France, if you’re listening
Sylvia Chou: we can say science and health, they don’t know passport, holders who, which from which, right? It’s we’re all in this together. Discoveries are not bound by nationalities. So you’re right. mean, maybe that is my kind of more Buddhist direction of sort of interbeing.
Like this is all gonna be, we’re all in this together
Matthew Sheffield: Yeah
Sylvia Chou: Yeah
Matthew Sheffield: All right. Well, did you wanna weigh in, Alexa? Or I was gonna wrap it up here if you... And w- when you’re ready
Alexa Romberg: That was covered [01:04:00] nicely
Matthew Sheffield: Oh, okay. Great. Well, it, so if people want to join you guys in your fight what’s your advice for them?
Sylvia Chou: We definitely welcome them, and we have a group, 27 United. It’s 27 U-N-I-H-T-E-D United, but H is... Basically, this was born out of people who were originally fired from the NIH, but now really we wanna be an advocacy organization that connects researchers and federal scientists together. So that’s one idea.
Another is really just, join your communities, whatever community it is in your local area. And if you’re a scientist, really get involved because you can’t really afford to just stay in your lab and focus on your inquiry. You really need to see how your work fits into the larger current political system. So I, definitely [01:05:00] encourage people to not lose faith and not stay in the place of despair, but getting involved. I have found that I’m more hopeful when I’m enacting in action and being part of a community and having a conversation like this. It gives me hope that
we, can figure this out if we really keep talking and learning.
Matthew Sheffield: Excellent
Alexa Romberg: And I think really coming back to, to, to building that community, finding people to, to talk with, and that every action matters. Actions may be really small. It may be talking with a person down the hall from you at work, or talking with your department head or a... or, something about folks can be best supported, how researchers can be best supported at this time, acknowledging what is happening.
It could be working with your neighbors. It could be working in areas that are completely separate [01:06:00] from science or largely separate from science, right? I think that it’s like finding a voice and finding actions that are, that you can, that, that you can really do, right? So if, calling your senator, calling your congressman, you’re like, “I just-- I, I don’t wanna do that,” right?
find something else that that you can do because the, communities that we build, they’re going to last regardless of how the next few years turn out, right? They don’t hinge on a specific win or a specific shift in the tides. Rather they create the space for us to support one another and live the best lives we can.
Matthew Sheffield: Exactly. All right. Well, I think I will let you have the last word there, Alexa. Thank you so much, Sylvia Chou and Alexa Romberg for being here today
Sylvia Chou: Thank you for having us. It’s great.
Alexa Romberg: Appreciate it.
Matthew Sheffield: All [01:07:00] right, so that is the program for today. I appreciate you joining us for the conversation. And you can always get more if you go to theoryofchange.show, where we have the video, audio, and transcript of all the episodes.
And if you are a paid subscribing member, you have unlimited access to the archives, and I thank you very much for your support. You can become a paid or free subscriber if you go to patreon.com/discoverflux, or you can go to flux.community to subscribe on Substack. And there’s also a GoFundMe for the show as well if you are not interested in either of those platforms.
And of course, you can watch the show on YouTube or, get it anywhere you’re on your favorite podcast player. So thanks a lot for your support and I’ll see you next time.
