BY HANK REICHMAN
The Trump administration’s disregard for and assault on science have been well documented by the AAUP, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and others. Now President Trump himself and his FEMA administrator, Brock Long, have attacked the credibility of a study by George Washington University’s Milken Institute School of Public Health, which found some 2,975 excess deaths in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, which hit the island in September 2017. The study was commissioned by the government of Puerto Rico.
In a tweet, the president claimed falsely that the study was “done by the Democrats in order to make me look as bad as possible. . . . If a person died for any reason, like old age, just add them onto the list.” Speaking on Meet the Press on Sunday, Long complained that the GWU study’s conclusions varied from the conclusions of other researchers, to the point that “the numbers are all over the place,” suggesting without evidence that many casualties might be better explained by automobile accidents and spousal abuse, among other non-hurricane-related causes. He added, “I don’t know why the studies were done.”
Responding to the president’s charge, Lynn R. Goldman, Dean of the Milken Institute, wrote, “our study was carried out with no interference whatsoever from any political party or institution. It was based on a careful examination of all of the deaths officially reported to the government of Puerto Rico between September 2017 and February 2018. Our scientists, in collaboration with scientists at the University of Puerto Rico Graduate School of Public Health, used state-of-the-art mathematical modeling to compare the total number of deaths during that time to the expected number of deaths, based on historical patterns as well as age, sex, socioeconomic status and migration from the island.”
Goldman acknowledged that other studies did indeed reach different conclusions, most notably a study by Harvard researchers that suggested a significantly higher death toll. However, she explained that such inconsistencies are readily explained by adjustments for household size and out-migration. She concluded, “No one administration or political party is responsible for why we still don’t prioritize preparedness even though we are increasingly threatened by large hurricanes. By identifying the preventable causes of these deaths, we can save lives the next time a fierce storm hits.”
The AAUP takes no position on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the GWU study or, for that matter, of any other scientific research. But such research can be properly evaluated only by qualified experts through open channels of review and debate. Studies of this sort must not become political footballs. For the president of the United States to accuse scholars of political bias, without a shred of evidence, is an unacceptable assault on independent research and the academic freedom of scientists. As the American Geophysical Union affirmed in 2016, “Advances in science and the benefits of science to policy, technological progress, and society as a whole depend upon the free exchange of scientific data and information as well as on open debate. The ability of scientists to present their findings to the scientific community, policy makers, the media, and the public without censorship, intimidation, or political interference is imperative.”
A condensed version of this post was issued earlier today as a statement by the AAUP.
For a variety of reasons it is useful for Canadian researchers to have regard for experiences in the U.S. This is one such instance, even setting aside the incongruity one is confronted by upon seeing the words “Trump” and “science” in the same sentence. Specifically, during my time teaching research methods courses for almost 30 years in U.S. (Kansas) and Canadian (University of Ottawa) universities, I do not recall encountering even one student at the graduate or undergraduate levels who would not have been able to fully understand the objectives of the Puerto Rico study and yet, and yet, FEMA administrator, Brock Long is quoted as saying, “I don’t know why the studies were done.” I do not know if this admission falls within the scope of the adage, “Ignorance is bliss”, but Canadian researchers are advised to recall that similar sentiments were expressed not that long ago when the Harper government also dissed scientific inquiry. The Long comment may be more than an admission by the FEMA administrator that he is a scientific lightweight, and could point to a larger and scarier anti-evidence collective which bridges our adjoining countries.