On Gratitude & Collective Action

Reflections on collective action and our SCIMaP effort's recognition as a "Public Health Hero of 2025" in The Nation

This has been a challenging year for science, scientists, and institutions - marked by White House policy changes that have diminished the size and scope of America’s research ecosystem. The cumulative effect of program cuts, lost science, layoffs, isolationism, and replacement of expert review panelists with ideologues is changing the trajectory of American leadership in science.

But it could have been worse.

Last week, The Nation released a 2025 List of Public Health Heroes curated by Gregg Gonsalves. I am humbled, grateful, and surprised that our Science and Community Impacts Mapping Project (SCIMaP) made this list. It is good company to keep.

SCIMaP: scienceimpacts.org

Jointly founded with Allie Sinclair as a collaborative effort spanning U of Maryland, U of Pennsylvania, Georgia Tech, Oregon State, and the University of Utah, our SCIMaP team includes epidemic modelers, data analysts, GIS experts, comms experts, behavioral psychologists, and cognitive neuroscientists, united in a common mission: assessing, mapping, and communicating the local community impacts of federal cuts to science & medical research.

In reviewing The Nation’s list of heroes, it is apparent that they share a common theme. By and large these heroes are groups.

Groups comprised of individuals who decided to speak out and take action.

Individuals with constraints and pressures.

And, who found that courage is contagious.

For my part, working with the SCIMaP team has made it possible to connect policy changes with direct impacts on local communities all across the United States. Our original choice to focus on the economic impacts of cuts to research infrastructure was itself an exercise in re-framing – focusing less on how the policy would impact individual institutions or researchers and more on how the policy would lead to economic loss in communities nationwide.

Over time, our work has expanded. We have mapped out the economic impacts of research infrastructure cuts and grant terminations to NIH and assessed what will happen if Congress adopts the White House vision of deep cuts to both NIH and NSF in FY2026, extending our initial analysis from counties to Congressional Districts. We have also assessed the extent to which interactive quizzes and personalization tied to an economic message can lead to changes in attitudes and willingness to take action. This work has come with broader lessons.

Action is the antidote to despair: It can be hard to remain hopeful, especially when the room for action-taking appears to be narrowing. In practice, there is far more space to operate; a point that The Nation’s list makes self-evident. For our part, we have remained an academic project with a point of view. The wide visibility of our maps reinforced our hypothesis (backed by nationally representative demographic surveys) that a different framing of federal cuts to science/medical research was possible. Through intentional messaging, we have brought a different perspective to NIH and NSF funding cuts, but we have also kept ourselves going.

Collective action is a force multiplier: The SCIMaP effort would not have been possible without the combined talents and commitment of a team of researchers that span early to mid to established investigators, including folks inside and outside of academia – Mallory Harris, Emily Falk, Ellen Peters, Angie Fagerlin, Clio Andris, Colin Cooke, and Aroon Chande – supported by talented and committed administrative team members and critical support from Coefficient Giving. None of us could have accomplished project goals alone. Working collaboratively takes time, requires a willingness to bridge cultures in many senses, but it is worth the effort.

Acting locally matters: Our initial choice to launch the site with a county-level impact map was informed by our experiences in developing risk tools for Covid response (more here). Focusing on the local helps personalize experiences and increases self-relevance. The same holds for research funding. America is large and complex; as are states. It is relatively easy to imagine that economic loss will go somewhere else (and perhaps even in a place that an individual holds in some disdain), but it is becomes harder to ignore when the economic impacts hit home or next door.

We have much to do in the year to come. Our SCIMaP team is expanding, bring in new talent that will help us try and narrow the gap between what scientists do and how it matters to local communities. Knowing that so many other groups have stepped up to meet the moment gives me hope that we can continue to break through and work throughout the US to shed light on what will happen if America steps away from our investments in science and medical research.

A final note of gratitude.

Science Matters is now more than 10 months old and 24,000+ subscribers strong. Many thanks to all who receive, read, and engage with posts. Each and every post will continue to be free & I am deeply grateful for the support and feedback.

This newsletter will be taking a short hiatus until early 2026. In the meantime, if you would like to read more about our team’s work on Quantitative Viral Dynamics – consider getting a copy of my book ‘Asymptomatic’. It addresses the roots of Covid grievances (hint: never the flu) & how to realign preparedness to control silent spread.

What’s next? Continued analysis and perspectives on efforts to dismantle American leadership in science and how networks of researchers, advocacy groups, professional organizations, and the public are fighting back. I am also working on longer projects, including sharing more takes on the human and environmental health impacts of bacteriophage — globally abundant viruses that exclusively infect microbes.

Stay tuned & Happy Holidays to all.