What the March for Science Means for the Future of Medicine

The March for Science saw a tremendous participation in cities all over the world on April 22, making a powerful statement for science as a whole as well as the future of medicine. There are, after all, many different branches to science and clinical medicine, biomedical science, public health and many other components of medicine are all within that reach.

This helps to explain why there were so many doctors, physicians, medical researchers and others from the medical world in attendance at the March for Science. But what did that mean for the future of medicine? Taking place in over 500 locations worldwide, the event gave scientists the opportunity to celebrate their field, the diversity of science and to call for more evidence based policies in the public interest from those who have the power to implement those policies.

Science is, after all, what makes evidence based medicine possible. It is the component that allows solid determinations to be made and that helps to reduce the guesswork along the way. It makes it possible for medical professionals to gain a more thorough, accurate and unbiased understanding of the way things work. In this way, the future of medicine is astoundingly dependent on science.

Therefore, the medical community was very present at the March for Science. In fact, in the United States alone, there were at least 25 different large medical organizations represented. These included the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association for Cancer Research, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Society for Hematology, and even the American College of Physicians (ACP). At the same time, two of the march’s partner organizations were the Endocrine Society as well as the Society for Neuroscience.

According to Annals of Internal Medicine editor-in-chief, Christine Laine, MD, she marched on April 22 in with the goal of “hopefully motivating physicians to be advocates for evidence-based medicine and to advocate for research funding and for not politicizing decisions about health.”

Only four days before the march, she published an online editorial with Executive deputy Editor Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, titled “Alternative Facts Have no Place in Science.” In it, they pointed out some of the choices the Trump administration had made to speak out in direct opposition to solid scientific findings in various disciplines, using climate change as a specific example. They stated that “The politicization of science, in which parties select the knowledge they are willing to pursue and the data they are willing to promote or denigrate, is a peril we must face head-on.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *