logo
Scientists can't stay in their ivory tower

Scientists can't stay in their ivory tower

Japan Times4 days ago
For decades, scientists were told to stay neutral, stay professional — and stay in the lab. But today, as U.S. researchers rally in the streets and lawmakers slash science budgets, one thing is clear: science can't stay in its ivory tower anymore.
In March, over 2,000 researchers, students and supporters gathered across the United States to protest sweeping science and technology budget cuts. The Trump administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 2026 — dubbed by some as a 'skinny' or 'beautiful' budget — proposes a 47% cut to NASA's science budget and a staggering 56% cut to the National Science Foundation (NSF). Funding for climate change research has been virtually eliminated. Unless Congress intervenes, the U.S. faces the most severe science and technology budget cuts in modern history.
In response, scientists across the country are beginning to speak out. NASA employees held peaceful protests opposing the proposed cuts, while nearly 2,000 leading U.S. scientists — including over 30 Nobel laureates and numerous members of the National Academies — signed an open letter warning that the nation's scientific enterprise is being 'decimated' and issued an 'SOS' to the public. The American Association for the Advancement of Science — the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific society — also urged scientists to speak publicly and engage policymakers. As its CEO Sudip Parikh warned, 'If enacted, the FY2026 budget request would end America's global scientific leadership.'
This level of public mobilization by scientists is rare in the U.S., where most academics were trained to stay 'above politics.' But in this moment, they realized something critical: Silence can't protect science.
As a Japanese scientist who has lived in the United States for over two decades, I'm watching this unfold with deep concern — and a sense of deja vu. While Japan's science funding hasn't yet faced cuts on the scale of the U.S., the underlying threats are already present: public disengagement, institutional invisibility and a shrinking voice in policymaking.
In Japan, researchers are often taught that engaging in public debate or policy will jeopardize their credibility. We pride ourselves on being impartial and apolitical. These are admirable traits in scholarship — but dangerous in the public sphere. If scientists don't tell our story — of discovery, impact and public benefit — others will tell it for us. And not everyone has science's best interest in mind.
Already, we see mounting political and societal pressure around AI ethics, environmental policy and gender equity in STEM. These are areas where science should guide the conversation — not respond after the fact.
In the U.S., we're seeing a cultural shift. Scientists are not just publishing papers — they're writing op-eds, organizing briefings with lawmakers and speaking directly to the public. Their message is clear: Science is not separate from society — it serves society.
Japan, too, has ambitions to globalize its research base. Last month, the Cabinet Office launched J-RISE (Japan Research & Innovation for Scientific Excellence) — a ¥100 billion ($673 million) initiative to make Japan the world's most attractive destination for researchers. While the U.S. faces historic cuts to science and technology funding, Japan is signaling its commitment to global scientific leadership.
But there's a paradox: While the Japanese government actively seeks foreign talent, many domestic researchers still hesitate to engage with their own communities or shape the future of science policy.
One institutional tool the U.S. has embraced is the idea of 'Broader Impacts.' Every NSF proposal requires researchers to explain how their work will benefit society — whether through education, outreach or broader societal impacts. Outreach is not a side project; it is baked into the mission of science. This expectation reflects a core reality: Most scientific research is publicly funded and scientists have a responsibility to give back to society. Japan has no such requirement, and as a result, science communication and community connection are often seen as optional — or even overlooked — in Japanese academic culture.
Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to visit Capitol Hill shortly after the Trump administration took office, as a member of the U.S.–Japan Network for the Future, a policy fellowship organized by the Mansfield Foundation and the Japan Foundation. I am honored to be the first scientist ever selected for this program.
Our cohort of scholars and policy practitioners engaged directly with congressional staff and U.S. agencies, gaining insight into how science and policy intersect — and often collide. We recently traveled to Tokyo and Kyushu, where cities like Fukuoka and Kumamoto are transforming into "Japan's Silicon Valley,' driven by the semiconductor industry, government-backed startup accelerators and progressive immigration initiatives. These experiences underscored a critical truth: Science, diplomacy and innovation are inseparable — yet scientists remain largely absent from policymaking circles.
Now is the time for scientists to return to society — not just as experts, but as engaged members of the public we serve. We must listen, communicate and collaborate. In a divided information landscape, science alone will not speak for itself. We must.
Yuko Kakazu, an astrophysicist, is a cohort member of the Mansfield Foundation's U.S.-Japan Network for the Future.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Amid Epstein furor, Ghislaine Maxwell seeks relief from U.S. Supreme Court
Amid Epstein furor, Ghislaine Maxwell seeks relief from U.S. Supreme Court

Japan Times

time5 hours ago

  • Japan Times

Amid Epstein furor, Ghislaine Maxwell seeks relief from U.S. Supreme Court

Even as an uproar over files relating to Jeffrey Epstein engulfs President Donald Trump and Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to wade into the controversy and decide whether to hear a bid by an associate of the late financier and convicted sex offender to overturn her criminal conviction. The justices, now on their summer recess, are expected in late September to consider whether to take up an appeal by British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence after being found guilty in 2021 by a jury in New York of helping Epstein sexually abuse teenage girls. Maxwell's lawyers have told the Supreme Court that her conviction was invalid because a non-prosecution and plea agreement that federal prosecutors had made with Epstein in Florida in 2007 also shielded his associates and should have barred her criminal prosecution in New York. Her lawyers have a Monday deadline for filing their final written brief in their appeal to the court. Some legal experts see merit in Maxwell's claim, noting that it touches on an unsettled matter of U.S. law that has divided some of the nation's regional federal appeals courts, known as circuit courts. Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, said there is a chance that the Supreme Court takes up the case, and noted the disagreement among appeals courts. Such a split among circuit courts can be a factor when the nation's top judicial body considers whether or not to hear a case. "The question of whether a plea agreement from one U.S. Attorney's Office binds other federal prosecution as a whole is a serious issue that has split the circuits," Epner said. While uncommon, "there have been several cases presenting the issue over the years," Epner added. Trump's Justice Department appeared to acknowledge the circuit split in a brief filed to the justices this month, but urged them to reject the appeal. Any disparity among lower court rulings "is of limited importance," Solicitor-General D. John Sauer wrote in the brief, "because the scope of a plea or similar agreement is under the control of the parties to the agreement." If the Supreme Court opts to grant Maxwell's appeal, it would hear arguments during its new term that begins in October, with a ruling then expected by the end of next June. Trump and his administration have been facing mounting pressure from his supporters to release additional information about the Justice Department's investigation into Epstein, who hanged himself in 2019 in a Manhattan jail cell, an autopsy concluded, while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges. Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, a former personal lawyer to Trump, met with Maxwell in Florida on Thursday in what her lawyer called "a very productive day." The administration reversed course this month on its pledge to release more documents about Epstein, prompting fury among some of Trump's most loyal followers. The Epstein case has long been the subject of conspiracy theories, considering his rich and powerful friends and the circumstances of his death. The Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term in office. Whether the court would want to take on such a case that represents a political landmine is an open question. The justices hear relatively few cases — about 70 out of more than 4,000 appeals filed at the court each year — and have broad discretion to choose which ones will be on their docket. At least four of the justices must agree in order for the court to take up a case. Maxwell's appeal focuses on a deal Epstein struck in 2007 to avoid federal prosecution in part by pleading guilty to state criminal offenses in Florida of soliciting prostitution and soliciting minors to engage in prostitution. Epstein then served 13 months in a minimum-security state facility. In 2019, during Trump's first term as president, the U.S. Justice Department charged Epstein in Manhattan with sex trafficking of minors. Epstein pleaded not guilty, but died by suicide before the trial at age 66. Maxwell was arrested in 2020 and convicted the following year after being accused by federal prosecutors of recruiting and grooming girls to have sexual encounters with Epstein between 1994 and 2004. Maxwell failed to convince a trial judge and the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to throw out her conviction based on the 2007 non-prosecution agreement, which stated that "the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." In the appeal to the Supreme Court, Maxwell's lawyer David Markus said that in its reference to co-conspirators, the Epstein agreement had no geographic limit on where the non-prosecution agreement could be enforced. "If the government can promise one thing and deliver another — and courts let it happen — that erodes the integrity of the justice system," Markus said. "This isn't just about Ghislaine Maxwell. It's about whether the government is held to its word," Markus said. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has urged the Supreme Court to hear Maxwell's appeal given the prevalence of plea agreements in the U.S. criminal justice system and to ensure that the government keeps its promises. The group represents thousands of private lawyers, public defenders, law professors and judges nationwide. It said in a filing to the justices that the lack of a geographic limitation means "no part of the Department of Justice may institute criminal charges against any co-conspirator in any district." Columbia Law School professor Daniel Richman, an expert in criminal law, said it was unusual for the U.S. attorney in Florida to include protection for co-conspirators in the agreement to not prosecute Epstein. That peculiarity might be reason enough for the Supreme Court to avoid the matter, Richman said, as it renders the case a poor vehicle for resolving whether pleas in one court district bind actions in all other court districts. "There were many strange things about this deal," Richman said, which will cut against the Supreme Court's interest in taking up Maxwell's appeal. Richman said he hoped the political fallout would not play into the Supreme Court's decision on whether to hear Maxwell's appeal. If it does, Richman said, taking up the case could allow Maxwell to avoid cooperating with the government and dodge responsibility. "A decision that would allow Maxwell to protect herself probably would not be something they would be interested in," Richman said of the Supreme Court justices.

‘Unprecedented' ocean heat waves in 2023 suggest climate tipping point
‘Unprecedented' ocean heat waves in 2023 suggest climate tipping point

Japan Times

time7 hours ago

  • Japan Times

‘Unprecedented' ocean heat waves in 2023 suggest climate tipping point

The world's oceans experienced a staggering amount of warming in 2023, as vast marine heat waves affected 96% of their surface, breaking records for intensity, longevity and scale, according to a new study. That could mark a turning point in the way the oceans behave, potentially signaling a tipping point after which average sea temperatures will be reset higher and some ecosystems may not recover, say the authors of the study, which was published Thursday in the journal Science. "The ocean going to a new normal — that controls everything,' said Zhenzhong Zeng, an Earth systems scientist at China's Southern University of Science and Technology, who led the work. "Once we destroy it, then maybe it cannot go back.' Ninety percent of the 2023 oceanic heating anomalies occurred in the North Atlantic, tropical Eastern Pacific, North Pacific and Southwest Pacific. The average length of the heat waves was 120 days — four times the average length between 1980 and 2023, according to Tianyun Dong, lead author on the paper and an Earth systems scientist at China's Eastern Institute of Technology. The North Atlantic marine heat wave, which began in 2022, stretched for 525 days. "The ocean has a long memory,' Dong said. It plays a key role regulating global temperatures by storing and gradually releasing large amounts of heat, but because it is slower to react than the atmosphere, the impact of long-term heat changes can be both delayed and enormous. The researchers used a combination of real-world measurements from the ocean, satellite data and computer modeling to determine the scope and causes of the heating. The highest temperature spike was seen in the Tropical Eastern Pacific, which was 1.63 degrees Celsius hotter than normal. While the onset of the El Nino weather phase likely contributed to that, a key finding of the paper is the extent to which different drivers played a role in marine heat waves in different locations. Other factors include increased solar radiation from reduced cloud cover; weaker winds; and changes in ocean currents — factors which can themselves be caused by global warming. Taken together, they show climate change is having an intensifying impact on the oceans. What the paper doesn't explain is why so many drivers came together in 2023, resulting in so many smashed records, said Zeng. It may be that these changes are beginning to reinforce each other in ways that are not yet understood. Identifying such feedback loops, and figuring out their mechanics, is critical to understanding future heat events, he said. In the near term, a marine heat wave can be devastating for humans who depend on the ocean for their livelihood, like fishing communities. "It can also fuel stronger hurricanes and storms along the coast,' said Yuntian Chen, a researcher in mechanics at China's Eastern Institute of Technology and one of the study's authors. And if ocean heat reaches a tipping point, some species won't recover. There are already concerns this could be the case for some of the world's largest coral reefs. That has other ramifications: The loss of coral and kelp, for example, reduces the ocean's ability to sequester carbon, which leads to more heating. The hottest year on record was 2023 — until 2024, when the Earth's average temperature reached 1.55 C above the pre-industrial average, according to the World Meteorological Organization, and when the average ocean temperatures hit a new high. This year is unlikely to break the annual record again, but is expected to come close. June 2025 was the third-warmest June in 176 years, after 2024 and 2023, according to a recent report by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The WMO tracks global temperatures based on six international datasets, including one run by NOAA, whose NCEI Coastal Water Temperature Guide was decommissioned by the U.S. government in May. Zeng's team relied on NOAA data for its work, some of which is no longer available. The cutbacks are "a disaster,' he said. "We are all living on the same planet. The climate is really changing.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store