The stages of grief for scientists and academic leaders

A lot of us are stuck in the Bargaining stage.

I swear I want to be about far more than the fascism, I promise. It’s coming, and soon! But first: There’s a phrase that I’ve been hearing way too much of lately:

“When it’s coming back…”

It’s driving me bananas. If I know I’m talking with a generous person, I might respond, “Well, if it’s coming back.”

I love positivity about what we might do if the widescale federal disinvenstment in scientific research and higher education in general gets reversed. But. This puts the proverbial cart before the proverbial horse. The only way this stuff gets reversed is if we make it happen.

The statement “When it’s coming back….” a passive construction. If we write this in the active voice, then who is the subject? Who is bringing it back if not us?

I’ve heard too many high-level administrators and scientists talking as if we are passengers on this train. While there have been a bevy of court rulings to slow down the devastation, as they make their way though appeals and the Supreme Court, we see that the malfeasance of the Trump admin has consistently won. It’s clear we can’t count on the current batch of lawmakers in Congress to exercise their powers of checks and balances guaranteed in Article I of the Constitution. It’s on us. A lot of us feel powerless, but that doesn’t change the reality that is is up to us.

It might be useful to conceive of the Election of 2024 as a traumatic event, which it was of course, and we are experiencing grief. I imagine some experts in this stuff might have an issue with this theory of grief, but anyhow the Kübler-Ross framework is widely used, so how about we look at it like this:

We’ve got to get to the acceptance stage faster than we have been, if we’re going to be effective at changing the situation for the better.

Planning for “When it comes back” is a classic situation of Bargaining.

I understand that everybody experiences grief differently and I am not positioned to judge anybody who is dealing with these horrors at a different rate than myself. Nonetheless, we need our leaders to manage this grief effectively enough so that they can plan for actions in the world we are in at the moment. The more we get stuck in what might be or what could be, the less we are investing in planning for working in the current moment and engaging in activities that will take us to that better place.

When I say “acceptance,” this is not to say we should adopt a neutral view of all of the horrible things happening now. Genocide is evil; cutting international development funds suddenly is tantamount to mass murder; stopping cancer clinical trials and defunding scientific research is evil and misguided. And the rest of it. It’s morally wrong, and that clarity is important. What they are doing comes from hate and is harming everybody, including themselves. They somehow are okay with the collapse of civil society as long as Others have to suffer more. It’s pathological.

Acceptance means that we see clearly what has already happened, and have adopted an evidence-based understanding of how events may play out in the future. If we listen to the historians, anthropologists, and political scientists, we can know what is in the realm of possibility. It is possible for us to take down this authoritarian regime and restore the rule of law, and reinvest in science, healthcare, and education. But it’s clear that it won’t happen overnight. These mass protests and acts of resistance of all types and sizes are essential, but it’s about the cumulative effect. These regimes, such as the one we are currently living under, aren’t toppled overnight. We need to be in it for the long game.

We are investing a lot of hope that elections next year and three years from now might fix things and “bring it back,” and that might be possible, but that also means we’ve got to continue to organize and resist if those moments will be effective. If we manage to get positive change out of these elections, it’s only if we work our butts off to make it happen. I’m afraid that the leaders of my institutions are so mired in the “when it comes back,” that they’re not adequately planning for the prospect that it might not come back, and also that they’re not doing the work to bring it back.

I just wanted to provide this reality check that it’s a long haul in front of us. Recovery — IF IT HAPPENS — will take decades. Planning for that recovery under new leadership in this country shouldn’t be at the top of our priorities. Sure a plan for that is nice. Insofar as we can make things better right now, we should! At the top of our priorities needs to be a) protecting those of us who are vulnerable; b) keeping our organizations and our science thriving as much as possible; and c) taking power away from these monsters.