The question of how to effectively defend scientific integrity in the face of deliberate political disruption isn’t new, but the answer is rapidly evolving. A year ago, the “Stand Up For Science” protests – spontaneous demonstrations organized by early-career researchers – signaled a rising tide of frustration with policies perceived as undermining research and public health. While those initial protests garnered attention, their long-term impact felt uncertain. Now, that energy has coalesced into a formal organization, and it’s pursuing a markedly different strategy than simply marching in the streets. Stand Up For Science isn’t just reacting to policy; it’s actively attempting to reshape the political landscape surrounding science, employing tactics that range from direct action to targeted electoral engagement.
The initial March 7, 2025 protests, mirroring the scale of the 2017 March for Science, did not, in themselves, reverse course on grant terminations or staffing cuts within federal agencies. This realization prompted a shift in approach. Colette Delawalla, a Ph.D. candidate at Emory University and now executive director of Stand Up For Science, describes a critical assessment of the scientific community’s existing advocacy efforts. “The scientific ecosystem is really, really good at insider baseball,” she explained to STAT News, “fantastic at having experts in appropriations… But it’s absolutely lacking on anything direct action, or anything with strategic communications, or any outward-facing public engaging.” This diagnosis led to the creation of not only a more formalized Stand Up For Science, but also a sister nonprofit, Science for Good, focused on rebuilding public trust in scientific findings.
This piece references the STAT report.
This new iteration of advocacy isn’t shy about confrontation. Stand Up For Science has hosted letters from concerned federal scientists, supported impeachment efforts against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and even dispatched investigators to examine controversial international vaccine trials, briefing lawmakers on their findings. Their tactics, however, haven’t been universally welcomed. The group’s willingness to employ provocative imagery – like distributing rubber ducks to members of Congress while labeling Kennedy a “quack” – has reportedly caused friction with more established science advocacy groups, and they’ve notably declined donations from scientific societies. This suggests a tension within the scientific community itself: a debate over the appropriate level of political engagement and the potential risks of alienating key stakeholders.
Delawalla frames this approach as a necessary response to a coordinated political effort. She points to the well-funded and strategically organized network supporting policies she opposes – which she refers to as “MAHA” – and argues that science needs a comparable infrastructure to effectively counter it. “What we found was that number one, fascism is stopped successfully when everybody pulls every lever,” she stated. This isn’t simply about defending research funding; it’s about actively contesting a broader ideological battle over the role of science in public life. The organization’s strategy, as Delawalla describes it, is to “meet the moment in the streets,” recognizing that the “public square has expanded” to include social media, local communities, and even seemingly unrelated online spaces.
Stand Up For Science is actively monitoring the tactics of its opposition, analyzing their messaging and anticipating their moves. They’ve already tested their strategies in targeted elections, like the recent special election in Tennessee, and are now focusing on approximately 40 congressional districts identified as strategically vulnerable. Their rationale is simple: a significant portion of the U.S. workforce – roughly 34%, according to their estimates – is comprised of STEM professionals, a demographic they believe is currently under-mobilized and receptive to science-focused messaging. They are betting that concerns about issues like clean air, clean water, food safety, and disease prevention can resonate with voters across the political spectrum.
However, several limitations to consider temper the enthusiasm surrounding Stand Up For Science’s approach. The organization is still relatively young and lacks the established relationships and financial resources of larger advocacy groups. Its confrontational tactics, while energizing to some, could also prove counterproductive in certain political contexts. Furthermore, the assumption that a significant portion of the electorate is readily mobilized around science-based issues remains to be fully tested. While public opinion polls consistently demonstrate broad support for scientific research, translating that support into actual votes is a complex undertaking. The success of their strategy hinges on effectively framing scientific issues in ways that resonate with diverse communities and overcoming the pervasive influence of misinformation.
The next crucial step will be observing the impact of Stand Up For Science’s efforts in the 2026 midterm elections. Will their targeted outreach and grassroots mobilization translate into measurable electoral gains? More importantly, will their approach inspire other scientific organizations to adopt more proactive and politically engaged strategies? The future of science advocacy may well depend on whether this new model proves sustainable and effective, or whether the scientific community reverts to its traditional, more cautious approach. The question isn’t just about defending science; it’s about redefining its role in a deeply polarized political landscape.
