Don't Move The Goalposts

Quinn: [00:00:00] One of the ways this Trump administration is different from the last is relatively, at least, how much more unconstitutional, how much more organized and comprehensive the attacks on our institutions, particularly the scaffolding we built for ourselves the most precious parts of our institutions, of our societies, immigration, agriculture, the VA, NIH, the CDC, the NSF and humanitarian work around the globe.

Do some of these need reform? Of course they do. Is this the way to do it? No, it is not. These institutions, the ones we built over the last century that, again, however imperfect, baseline keep us fed and safe, and on the other hand, help advance remarkable scientific progress.

They're at more risk than ever. Every [00:01:00] single day. To combat this onslaught, we need groups who are actually prepared to fight back. Every week, thousands of people ask us the most important question in the world. What can I do? This week, it was, what can I do about this attack on science? My job is to turn around and ask someone who actually knows what the hell they're talking about the very same question.

Someone who has answered it for themselves, who's already working on the front lines of the future. I find out why they're doing the work they're doing and what we, you and I, can do to support it. To join their work, to fund their work, to find our own way to the front lines of the future. I'm your host Quinn Emmett, and my guest today is Dr. Gretchen Goldman.

Dr. Goldman is the president of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Previously, she served almost two years in the Biden Harris White House as the Assistant Director for Environmental Science, Engineering, Policy, and Justice in the Climate and Environment Division of the Office of Science and [00:02:00] Technology Policy, and later as the Climate Change Research and Technology Director at the U.S. Department of Transportation, under Mayor Pete. While at the White House and in the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dr. Goldman led efforts to advance federal scientific integrity, environmental justice, air quality and health, indigenous knowledge in federal decision making, climate equity and transportation systems, decarbonation, and resilience.

She has provided science advice and thought leadership across the science and decision making ecosystem; she has testified before Congress and sat on the board of the nonprofit 500 Women Scientists. She is a prolific writer and speaker on science policy and her words and her voice have appeared in Science, Nature, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, NPR, and the BBC among others, and I'm honored to have her here today.

For questions or feedback, you can always email us at questions@importantnotimportant.com. [00:03:00]

Gretchen Goldman, welcome to the show. This is so exciting.

Gretchen Goldman: Thank you for having me.

Quinn: I'm really excited to have you here. Obviously. I mean, wish we didn't have to do this. I have a now good friend, Dr. Nahid Bhadelia was also in the White House, I just had her on the show recently about bird flu and it's like her third time and she's like, why do we only talk when there's pandemics?

Gretchen Goldman: I feel that way with my global security team that think about nuclear weapons and risk that way. If you're having an urgent conversation, it means there's something problematic happening.

Quinn: Yeah, great, would be so great if we just didn't talk. Well, this is wonderful. I really appreciate you taking time. Obviously your crew has a whole hell of a lot going on, boy. It's one thing to show up and hit the job running. You're in it. [00:04:00]Two part question for you to get us started. And yours is so unique because, again, same organization, different job. Gretchen, why do you have to do this job? So of everyone in the world they could have chosen, why you? And two, why do you have to do this work? So of all the ways that you could have answered the call, why is this an itch you have to scratch?

Why do you have to do this?

Gretchen Goldman: Yeah, I love that two part question. So the why [00:05:00] me part is that I'm a scientist that likes to communicate is probably the shortest answer.

I always liked science but the more that I learned about things, the more I started to get interested in the sort of policy and societal elements of that.

When I was a senior in undergrad, a professor wrote on my paper “An engineer that can write. You’re going places.” And I hadn't up until that point really thought about the communication sort of side of things. But I learned that was important. That turned out to be a really valuable skill set to be able to do the technical work and to be able to communicate it and so I wasn't ready to give up on the technical work but I did switch to environmental engineering which seemed more applied to me to the problems facing the world and I felt drawn to do that so I got a PhD in environmental engineering and always had sort of this mind of thinking about what could I do with that would be more applied.

So not just [00:06:00] being a practicing engineer or bench scientist, but what could I do with that and one sort of formative way that I determined that was in graduate school I at one point, went to observe a court hearing in, I was in Atlanta, so in downtown Atlanta, I went to the courthouse and there was a court case about it was a fight over a permit for a coal plant that they were gonna build in South Georgia.

And the lawyers were arguing about the air quality monitoring and modeling that they were using to issue the permit. And whether or not it was sort of the adequate number that you would apply to that estimate of pollution from that plant and it just was amazing to watch because it was that they were talking about my science, they were talking about the things that I was doing in my graduate work and that we would talk about in lab group, but they were talking about it in an entirely different way.

It was an entirely different frame [00:07:00] and the things that mattered and the points you'd emphasize were just entirely different. And it gave me this aha moment of, Oh, the way that science is used in the world is not how it's used in an academic context and sort of scientific context. And the way that translates really matters for outcomes, right?

Whether or not they issued that permit, whether or not that power plant got built, was dependent on how it was communicated. Which was something that the engineer was not determining for the most part. So that got me really interested in policy and advocacy and thinking about what can you really do with technical knowledge that is more impactful for and connected to real world outcomes. And so that sold me on going the policy route, so to speak, and thinking about what I could do with policy space. So I moved to Washington, D.C. without a job and looked around and got lucky to get a position at the [00:08:00] Union of Concerned Scientists a few months into my time here.

And the rest is history. I stayed a decade. I did that work through multiple administrations and then got called up to the Biden Harris administration to do a lot of the same kind of topics I was working on in science policy, but do it from the White House. And then I stayed in government another two years and then felt called to come back in this current moment that I'm sure we'll get into.

Quinn: That's amazing it's such a fascinating moment and I talk about this a lot, my sister's somewhat similar in that she's taught at schools in Tanzania and in Boston and affected the lives of 15 kids today, for sure, no question, but she's also worked on both Obama campaigns and in policy and data science knowing like, this is much broader, and it's you know, possibly not going to happen, but it could affect many more lives in the sense, right?

But you have to have that first hand experience like your lab experience. You know, you have to have a leg to stand on to really be as effective [00:09:00] as you probably hope that you could be.

Gretchen Goldman: Yeah. No, it's good. You need to have the real world context.

Quinn: So you're back just in time. I think for some folks, I mean, I'm sure our nerdy listeners are very aware of the Union of Concerned Scientists, but it really takes on a whole new meeting. Now at least from the outside. But the organization, besides your involvement, has actually been around for quite a while. I think it was founded in 67, 68, 69, something like that. Not like a banner time for the U.S. By any stretch. But tell us a little bit about, so folks can understand when we get to the end and say what can I do when we’re like, contribute to the union and show up at the protest and legal battles and all that kind of stuff. Help us understand sort of, why and how it started and really how it's evolved because it's not like it's been an easy fight for the past 50 years either. I mean, it's not great right now, but you walked back into this job knowing the history and knowing what it would take no matter what [00:10:00] happened. So tell me about how the organization started and how it is today.

Gretchen Goldman: Yeah, it certainly evolved. So, we were founded in 1969 by a group of scientists at MIT that were concerned about the militarization of science. So, at that point in time, one dynamic was that a lot of science funding was going towards military applications and they realized this was going to be problematic for the world and it wasn't the direction that science should be going.

So they founded the Union of Concerned Scientists to fight against that. And over time we've maintained elements of that work through our global security program, which thinks a lot and works on nuclear nonproliferation. There's also lots of work we do around climate now, food and agriculture, the Center for Science and Democracy, which is the part that I had worked in my previous tenure and lots of climate and energy [00:11:00] applications as well, and clean transportation. I knew I was missing one.

So to me, the through line through all of that time and all those programs is thinking about what is the role of science and technical information and technical experts in furthering policy conversations. So making sure that we are putting science to work to make the world safer and healthier and more secure.

So that's the general way that we think about how to do things. And one way that I always think about it is in the lobby of the D.C. office, there used to be this cartoon and it was a theater full of people and everyone in the theater is laughing except for this one guy with like a serious face. And the woman next to him says, can't you forget for one second that you're a concerned scientist?

And I always liked it because I thought like that's kind of the idea, right? That we are working on and thinking [00:12:00] about and worrying about the thing that's around the corner. So what's next? What should we be working on? What should we be trying to prevent happening that's bad? You know, how can we be sort of improving the world?

And so across our programs, we think about how to do that in different ways and really have this unique perspective of bringing science to the table and leading with the science lens as opposed to other groups that don't necessarily have that as the focal point.

Quinn: I love that so much. I think I need that cartoon. I mean, my professors did not write that on my paper when I was you know, a religious studies major at Colgate which applies to nothing I do except understanding how people in societies tick. But now that I've been doing this for so long and working on policy stuff and philanthropy stuff and investing stuff and all these different things and keeping abreast of the news and all that.

I feel like Homer Simpson sometimes, you know, out with friends and everyone's like, Oh, what a warm winter day. And I'm like, don't [00:13:00] fucking say it. Don't ruin this for them.

They're having a nice day. Be somebody different right now, basically.

Gretchen Goldman: Oh yeah, that is the funniest part when someone just thinks they're doing small talk and you're like, did you really want to talk about it? Because we can.

Quinn: Yeah. No, no, No. I truly will offer that primer about most things. The other day, dead bird on our deck, and my kids are like, oh, there's a dead bird. I'm like, don't fucking touch it! And they're like, why? I'm like, ugh, how much time do you have?

Gretchen Goldman: Oh my gosh, yeah, our kids just immediately roll their eyes or leave the room because we're like, well actually go into whatever science and they're like, please stop.

Quinn: So anyways, super fun at cocktail parties. That's all really helpful. So, you know, it's one of those things where you're like, it would be nice. If the Union of Concerned Scientists could just cheer for scientific advances like, hey, we've established this really great baseline and these institutions that work for us and obviously everything is imperfect, but we're doing our best and where it's measurable and we're helping the [00:14:00] greatest number of people. And now let's like, let's really reach for stuff instead of being on the defensive all the time.

But like you said. All you have to do is show up at one court case to understand like whoa, like this can be spun any which way right? It's like when you see the thing online and some guy is lecturing a woman about you know, a book and she's like I wrote the book. That's my book. I wrote it. Yeah, you know, thank you so much.

Gretchen Goldman: Yeah. I mean, I will say it's not all defensive work. There is the need to also do the positive vision, sort of what would we do if given the opportunity? And that is a really critical role you could play in NGOs, because often, you know, the people in decision making power either don't have time to think about it, or it's something that's really moving and you don't have time to develop some new policy and talk to stakeholders, and so you really need something that's ready to go.

And actually, one example of this that I really liked is in my UCS tenure, I worked on the Air [00:15:00] Quality Public Health Act, which was, it was a proposed bill. It was like, it was a really neat idea. It was like looking at putting monitors at the fence line of facilities because one sort of challenge with the Clean Air Act is that there's not a provision of it that very well covers communities living next to sources.

Quinn: You mean Cancer Alley?

Gretchen Goldman: Yeah exactly. Exactly. So it's kind of, you know, we just place monitors. We want the center city. We want to know what the average person is exposed to. So we're sort of intentionally by design, not trying to find out what people in Cancel Rally are exposed to.

And so that's sort of this legal limitation of the Clean Air Act. And so this bill was to specifically add monitoring at the fence line of facilities, monitors in communities, and then specifically give that the regulatory teeth. So put it into the Clean Air Act so that you could actually address the problem because it would have the teeth to do something about it.

And you know, at the time, it wasn't really going to [00:16:00] move quickly in Congress. But then the Inflation Reduction Act happens and that was you might remember it was sort of, no one really knew it was moving, they sort of, it was kind of like quiet talks, and then they just suddenly said, surprise, we have this giant bill, or law, and that Air Quality Public Health Act had been pulled in because it was already this nice, beautiful idea that was already developed.

And so when that was moving quick they could pick it up. And so, you know, you don't know when those kind of opportunities will come up. So it's good to do the positive visioning even if you don't see the pathway yet.

Quinn: Well, and that's the thing you know, if you've never even been adjacent to policy at any level, you don't totally understand, you know, the version of that is like, how many policy wonks, it's like me with fantasy baseball statistics, who live to understand like a pocketful of pay fors at any given moment, right?

And having your ready to go printed, like laminated on the front, right? Slip it in, like, sure, fuck it. We'll do that one, too. [00:17:00] It's amazing, you know, because somebody somewhere was like, hold on a minute. I've got exactly this.

So 13 years ago, you gave a speech at Georgia Tech graduation, and you talked about how easy it would have been for your class to focus exclusively on the grades, but how, in addition, they fronted more student organizations than ever before and found time and really measurable ways to contribute hyper locally around campus. And you talked about how important it is to learn how to solve problems to identify areas of need and to react. In the last 10 days, you've led a Stand Up For Science March, you’re suing the so called Department of Government Efficiency and it's, you know, Monday at 4:30. So how have you taken those lessons in that mindset of it can't just be about knocking out papers left and right.

It's got to really apply that. How do you see that now as the leader of this organization who is [00:18:00] hiring new folks, deciding we're going to apply this lawsuit here, we're going to front this march. We're going to do these two certain things. Where do you identify need and react when there's need everywhere?

Gretchen Goldman: Yeah. Yeah. It's such a good question because I'm not in danger of being bored in this moment. Right? Yeah, so, to bring it back to the Georgia Tech days for a second. I think one thing I sort of learned there is that you sort of have to sit with problems, which of course you kind of learn that in any PhD program where you just got to sit within it because it's not going to be obvious and it's not some silver bullet on anything you're working on.

And my advisor did a good job of modeling that for me. Like he would let me sort of see him think basically, work through something and figure something out. Like he didn't just say, come back when I figured it out, you know, he could have, but he allowed me to sort of see him be vulnerable and work on things.

It was great for sort of me understanding that it's not that people are geniuses. It's that you sit with a problem and you work on it and you think through what possibilities could be. And so, that sort of set me on that journey of sort of thinking [00:19:00] about you just got to work through it.

And it's just the only way through is the hard work of thinking about possibilities. And now yeah, I mean, there's a lot of different things that we could do. And so the one way that I'm thinking about it is sort of, I mean, one, just where can we play a unique role, given there's various people in various capacities on this challenge. And what is our expertise? And what are our skill sets? And what are we sort of set up to do? So that's certainly a huge factor. And I would say at the same time, we're, of course, in this really unique moment with the Trump administration not following the rules, right? Whether those are formal rules, i.e. laws or you know, processes, norms, ways of doing policy that since the founding of the country, we've adhered to, right?

And so given that environment, we do need to think differently, think bigger, look at what's in front of us and try different [00:20:00] tactics because it's not, we can't apply the same playbook to this new context in lots of ways because it is just a different game.

And I think that's both because of the actions that they're taking and also because of wanting to really be thoughtful about what's useful for the scientific community to do. And we often work with fellow scientists including federal scientists and also scientific societies and other leaders in the science community and thinking about how can we work together, bring science specifically to that.

And so it's sort of a different question in this era where, you know, things that we might have done in the past, like driving a lot of technical experts to give a public comment on a rulemaking, for example, is something that is usually historically a very good action to take and it can be really impactful and value add to have a bunch of experts weigh in on the technical merits of a rule, but in this environment right now, right?

It's sort of unclear. Are [00:21:00] they even going to follow the rulemaking process? We'll see, right? But you got to think outside the box.

Quinn: It is a weird thing to take charge of this organization that's been around for so long, seen so much turmoil, fought for baseline policies and standards and processes and reached for better and more science, you know, existed 20 years before Exxon knew, all these different things. Like iit's been around the block.

Like you said, it's so much more complicated to look at and go okay, we have evolved. This is what we do now. I'm in charge. I worked on this. I worked in the White House, this and this. But what if no one's playing by the same rules anymore?

Gretchen Goldman: Right, and scientists are really good at the rules, right? You really like rules. So I feel like I've been trying to really make sure we're not stuck in that frame, right? Because it's so ingrained, right? And I mean, I guess another way to think about it, too, is think back to our founding and the fact that we were standing up to the military industrial complex and they were trying to really organize and get in their power [00:22:00] to challenge that and, you know, we have different forces today, but it's that same principle of where can we be brave, where can we keep in mind what the vision is and not back down, even against odds and challenges that seem much bigger than us. And I think about that tradition a lot and that even though it looks different, like that's our role. That's what we should be adhering to is speaking that truth to power.

Quinn: And obviously you're not the only ones in the fight. I mean part of being a leader is recognizing like you can't do all of the things. Have there been, I mean you've had the job for 48 hours, have you had moments where you realized, Well, can we not play by the rules on this specific thing?

Is there a version of us becoming you know, Gretchen Unchained here and doing things a little differently?

Gretchen Goldman: Yeah, I mean, I think that is the kind of thing I think we need to just be asking questions of what's effective in this moment because it might look different. I [00:23:00] think it's also where people are that you have to look at because. If you look at the last Trump administration, there were people in the streets every day, there was a huge protest and we're starting to see that a little bit more now. For the most part, it's been a little quieter, right?

It's a little bit different. overall vibe in the world. And so it's also this question of what are people willing to do? What are people positioned to do in a world where it just feels different?

Quinn: There's this idea, and I think it mostly holds true, certainly having children, I realize I see this in them, and I certainly see it in myself, which is, the unknown is often scarier than the result, right, you think about it like a diagnosis from a doctor or whatever it might be, or a grade.

Gretchen Goldman: Or don't they show that in studies, right? That people are, people take a lower prize that's certain than an uncertain bigger prize. Yeah.

Quinn: Right, you had the first administration come in and all these horrific things he had said and done to women and people and [00:24:00] fired and all this, and what's he gonna do, right? And like you said, marching all the time, marching all the time. We watched what he did, but, you know, we had the House for part of that, so it was kind of held back.

We didn't this, they didn't have a plan, they didn't expect to win. Now, years and years of planning, it's much more, I mean, relatively organized, comprehensive, considered, right? The people that are being put in. Also, we don't have a House or a Senate or a court. You know, you still have to come back to, how do you keep fighting for things like climate equity and environmental justice and Cancer Alley? When you have to fight for everything, right? How do you keep those most basic fundamental fights on the radar while you're having to sue this department that's not a department, when you have to stage marches and all that? Because like you said, we need people in the streets, but also we can't stop these things that we're doing. You know, the kids that can't breathe in L.A. because there's still oil drags every ten blocks.

Gretchen Goldman: Yeah, no, exactly. I've thought a lot about that. And that's [00:25:00] why I keep saying it's keep the vision is how I've been saying like, don't move the goalposts, because we're now in this world where everything where you feel like, even if you get any little concession, it feels good, right?

The point is still that we need to address those big systemic inequities that exist and the kids in Cancer Alley, as you said. And so that's one way that I'm trying to think about it and make sure we don't lose that. And so, I mean, one way that I do that is also just to think about what is our responsibility in this moment, right?

I could say, oh, we're just not going to work on that now, but I cannot abandon the people and the places and the issues that we purport to care about, right? So and you know, it would be with all the layers of privilege involved, right? It would be easy for me relatively to say, okay, we're going to just work on AI technology or, you know, something that's more politically palatable in the current environment, but that's not what you can do if [00:26:00] you are a community that has been fighting this fight for decades. And we owe it to them to stay with them, to continue to fight, to be loud and insist on that goal. And so I think a lot about my role in that now, especially as the administration is targeting many people, right?

There's a lot of people that just don't, they don't feel safe speaking up because of the targeting that's happening. And so I think a lot about what is the responsibility of me and my organization in this moment where, you know, we are in a position to speak up in lots of ways that others aren't. And so we have to do that in order to live our values and continue to work toward that goal, even if it's not going to happen today or tomorrow.

Quinn: What has been, and this feels like a particularly insane question considering everything and everything we just discussed, but coming back into this role, what has been your biggest obstacle so far that [00:27:00] maybe you didn't see coming? And again, I realize in context that's hilarious and asinine but what didn't you see coming that maybe you're wrestling with while you do everything else?

Gretchen Goldman: Yeah, it's a good question. I think I didn't expect it to look so different than the last time because my previous role, I was the Research Director in the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. And so my job was tracking federal science, basically, like what is the use and misuse of science that is occurring under the Trump administration.

So that was a lot of tracking anytime they had scientific integrity violations or anything that happened where they just messed with the science and then communicating that to the Hill, to the media, to agencies and that it was a lot, but you had, it was more than 200 times we had tracked their attacks on science and that kept us busy.

It was essentially once I forget the math. I think it was like at least one a week for the four years. [00:28:00] And that was a lot, but now it's sort of, you almost can't even track it that way because the scale is just so extreme, right? Eliminating or attempting to eliminate an entire science based agency, you know, that's like a hundred attacks or what, I don't know.

Quinn: Right. We're going to fire 80, 000 people from the VA. And you're like, where do I put that in the fucking spreadsheet? Like what?

Gretchen Goldman: It's just not, you can't like even measure things in the same way. And it's funny, like lately I've just been calling it an all out assault because it just feels more like it's just like, which, you know, we felt like that was happening in the first term too, but now it really is happening. It just feels different.

Quinn: How do you respond to that? Are you like, what have I done?

Gretchen Goldman: It does feel like my comfort zone. Cause that was like a lot of my career building was around fighting the Trump administration. So it feels, it feels fine. It's just in terms of the specific tactics, it's just a little different because [00:29:00] you're not as reliant on, or last time we did more just following processes, right?

We'd submit scientific integrity violations. We'd sort of try to get GAO reports. Like I'm trying to think of some examples of things that were like not on the scale that now would matter. Like you wouldn't bother to like do things that are going to be, well, in nine months there might be a strongly worded letter out of this authority on something.

Quinn: Well, that's the thing. It's the whole it's like emperor has no clothes. You're looking around and going so you're telling me none of this shit matters anymore?

Gretchen Goldman: I hope a lot of it does.

Quinn: It does, but not to them.

Gretchen Goldman: Yeah, I mean, we'll see. It is a little more dramatic, I think, right now, because the early days, they're just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks, and we're sort of seeing the court stuff. So I think it could actually, the equilibrium could get closer to what it was the first time, but at least in this current moment, it feels like you got to deal with the more immediate elements, and I mean, I guess the other thing I'd say, and then this part might still be the same is that there's a ton [00:30:00] of work that can and does happen to prevent bad things from happening in the first place.

And we did a lot of this in the first term. And I think this will happen again now where we learn through the grapevine, something's happening or is going to happen. And then you can take different strategies to push back on it. Whether that's going to the media, going to members of Congress, working with people within agencies and a couple of times there were big things like that, that we got them to walk back and then they never happened.

So there's a lot that ends up being sort of less seen but it's really critical because it's way easier to stop something from happening than it is to repair it after it happens.

Quinn: On that note, I've been really focused on infrastructure a lot the past year or so and how we don't appreciate these, someone called them cathedrals. These institutions that we spent the past hundred years building from hey, it turns out [00:31:00] washing your hands and penicillin and we built health agencies and CDC and all these different things on top of it, right? And microchips and look, we can predict the weather you know, two days out and five days out and seven days and all these things. And then you've got USAID's work on the famine system, right? Or the NOAA they're like, well, we're gonna we're just we're gonna sell that building. A lot of what's being decapitated or they're trying to, are those things that help us as a society get ahead of things that can hurt us, right? Seeing hurricanes coming, seeing famine coming, it's easy to be like, well, Ebola didn't really bother us in 2014. It's like, well, would you like to know why? You know, because we did that work to help the people who deserved it there because one life is not more than another.

But also, it's called public health. Infectious disease. That's how it works. And we're dismantling that. And so, like you said, it's so much easier to prevent these than to repair them. We are going to have some repairing to do. We are going to be affected by some of these things and you don't wish that on [00:32:00] anyone. But you can't fire half of the VA. You can't stop tracking storms and things like that without there being repercussions and eventually, you would hope despite all the disinformation that people would understand who and what is actually being done? Does that make sense?

Gretchen Goldman: To me, that's the opportunity right now, because, you know, we have always talked about sort of the impacts and connections to why science and especially federal government science is valuable in your daily lives. But now it's a little easier to get people's attention in talking about that because of the attacks on NOAA and other places where it's pretty intuitive that, oh, if I don't have the app on my phone that tells me the weather, if we aren't collecting that data, you sort of see the impact more.

And that's one thing that I think, even though I think for people like you and me, you know, that's probably pretty obvious how science is creating a better day [00:33:00] to day life for us. But I think for people that aren't thinking about that every day, or, you know, deep in the weeds of this stuff, it's not something they really thought about.

And you'd think it might have been broken through by now, but I think now we're sort of seeing it reach new audiences because of the severity of what the administration's doing. And so, you know, I've always thought in the scientific community, right, there's always like this perennial conversation about effective science communication and how can we be better about that. And this is the best science communication challenge an opportunity that we've ever had because now that people are seeing the impact of what happens if you cut federal science efforts. We can explain that to people, and we have the ear of more decision makers, more people around the country, and so, you know, it's our shot now as a scientific community to really spell out why this affects our public health, our safety, our security, our well being, our U.S. science leadership in the technology development [00:34:00] space, you know, all kinds of things.

Quinn: And I know you all are very non-partisan but when like farm subsidies are ripped away and again, like health benefits for the VA and you go back to, I mean, I'm dating myself. I'm 1,000, but you know, the 2009 Obamacare arguments and people saying get your government hands off my Medicare. And when this enormous chunk of, you know, military is a version of public servants, has their health care affected in some way.

And all these farmers where the margins are not great at this point are having those subsidies taken away when there's already not heat protections for workers and they're coming for your workers, most of which are immigrants of some version. You're going to have the ear of more of those folks, because more people are being directly affected than really ever before. There's not a lot of gray area at this point, right?

And that makes our job easier. If the Democrats, and again, that's not you, have failed to meet people where they are in their everyday lives in a lot of versions, people are going to be hurt, and some people are going to die [00:35:00] and suffer.

But this is like, here you go. Here's your chance.

Gretchen Goldman: Yeah, no, exactly, and those things aren't split by party lines, right? Like the way that the federal science supports people, right? Everyone can get cancer and benefits from cancer research.

Quinn: Well, what does Medicaid cover? Medicaid covers, I think, half of births in the U.S. So, you can strip that way and cancel it. That is not along party lines.

Gretchen Goldman: Right. And the health stuff too. It's, you don't know when you're going to need to benefit from that research or opportunity to have access to doctors and whoever else.

Quinn: So let's work towards a two version of what we call, you know, what can I do? So we've got this whole app. It's sort of the apex, the tip of the sword for what we do. It's what can I do dot Earth. It's this whole app we built. Turns out I didn't know why we were really building it besides it fit a niche.

And it turns out, you know, I, my best friend died of cancer about 15 years ago, this is what came of it, but I know what it feels like in the middle of the night to be like, what the fuck am I supposed to do about this, how [00:36:00] do I do, what do I do, I feel impotent, I'm not a scientist, you know, this and that. There's a lot of ways to help. There's a lot of measurable ways to help. But there's also a lot of cruft out there. One thing we're doing, which we actually just launched, which is slightly separate from that, is we just launched a new project with a couple awesome guest editors called Unfinished and we're soliciting and publishing 500 to 800 word first person accounts from fired or defunded scientists, humanitarian workers, et cetera, et cetera. And then the second thing is, yeah, what can people do with their voice, their body, their dollar? What is most measurable to you, the newfound leader of this chaotic moment?

Gretchen Goldman: Yeah. The first thing I would say is that there are things you could do. So don't if people take away nothing else from this hour that there are things we can do that are actionable, that are working. I think it is easy to sort of throw your hands up because it's so chaotic in this moment, and it's just hard to see the pathway, [00:37:00] but I think that will become clear over time.

And I think there are things we can do now that are effective. So, first work with us, support us whether that's with dollars or time to the Union of Concerned Scientists, we are ucs.org and we have ways you can join email lists, whether there's actions you can take, then we'll send you, we also have a separate pathway specifically for technical experts, so if you have a technical degree, if you are a scientist, engineer, et cetera, we also offer opportunities where expertise is relevant to that action.

So sometimes there's more specific things you can do if you have expertise in a certain area. And that is a way to get plugged in at the sort of the base level. Right now, anything we can do to explain the harms, so explain what's happening and how it affects people in your life, how it affects your community, how it affects your city, your state, just getting the word out on that, we know it's a challenging [00:38:00] media environment right now.

And a lot of people are not, it's not breaking through. And this is the biggest opportunity we have for it to break through because we're getting closer. It's a little clearer how it's affecting people. And so the more we can all be in our communities and explaining that and especially scientists, I think are really good at understanding how their science and how technical information affects the world. So one is just communicating the challenges, and that goes a long way. Make sure you're communicating that to your decision makers, so to Congress. It is, of course, a Congress is oriented a certain way now, that is, they're all not inclined to necessarily push back in major ways.

But we're seeing that start to crack. We're seeing some members start to push back on individual things, especially as it pertains to their specific district or place. So anytime there's an opportunity to tell your member how it affects you, your school, your community in some way, [00:39:00] that gets a lot further and it gets attention a lot better if you're able to tell those more individualized stories.

And at the federal level, there's a couple, we're working on a few things that are bipartisan, believe it or not. There's a few things that are bipartisan right now in Congress.

Quinn: Sorry, what?

Gretchen Goldman:Do you recall what that word means?

Quinn: It's vague memory.

Gretchen Goldman: Yeah, and so, one of them is the Scientific Integrity Act, which would codify a lot of the scientific integrity protections that were put in over the past couple decades, most recently by the last administration. But that one is you know, if you read it, you would say this is all very, bread and butter, obvious things like maybe we shouldn't tamper with science. But right now, in this moment, how important it has been to have things written in law as opposed to policies that don't have the same weight.

And so that's something that is a big opportunity if we can get traction on that one. So that's a congressional piece that's happening right now. And, yeah. And so those are some of the big [00:40:00] things that we're thinking about right now. The other thing I would say is we also do a ton of state level and community work.

And so a lot of that is continuing and in some areas might even be ramping up in this current environment. And so, the more that we can support those efforts. Some people like the feel of that better than the sort of federal defense work. And so, there we're continuing to work on that.

We have a lot of clean energy grid things happening at the state level, state and regions, a lot of sort of, transportation, transit, focus on at the community level and a few other efforts around there and some work in the Midwest around farms and food systems and public health.

So there's lots of things in that realm too. And so don't forget about your state and local communities as well.

Quinn: Yeah, we're really, not with rose colored glasses, but we're really, not pivoting, but really shunting people towards state and local, you know, as much as is applicable. I mean, your dollar goes much farther. It's change, if not [00:41:00] progress that you can see and feel much more suddenly, much more acutely, certainly. And, you know, as long as whatever that state and local program is not entirely dependent on federal funding. It has a chance to actually keep going in some way. That is all super helpful. I'm going to ask you one last question, then I'm going to let you get out of here.

What is a book you've read in the past year? That's either opened your mind to maybe a perspective on something you're aware of, but you hadn't considered before, changed your thinking. Or just open up a whole new thing. Or it could literally just be like a coloring book or a book about dragons because Lord knows.,

Gretchen Goldman: Yes, I really appreciate that expansion of the question because it is with small kids. It's not, I'm not doing a lot of uninterrupted lengthy reading because that is not often a possibility. But actually the thing I will give you is an actual adult book.

Quinn: Adult book?

Gretchen Goldman: Not, not a, not for children. Yeah, so I will say Braiding Sweetgrass, which is about indigenous ways of knowing, [00:42:00] which I don't know if that's come up on your show, but when I was in the White House, one of the topics I covered was indigenous knowledge in federal decision making.

And so thinking about how the federal government should recognize and consider indigenous ways of knowing in federal activities and that had never been done before. It was a completely new idea to think about. And I had a team at the Science Office at the White House to figure out what that would mean.

And I took that very seriously of thinking about what does that mean? What is my role? What is the role of the federal government in this context to figure out what that would look like? And that book is really well written. It's really thoughtful. And it's the thing that I like to say, it's really concrete between Western academic science and indigenous knowledge.

And how do they compare on specific things. So it makes it a little more concrete, which I found a lot more [00:43:00] accessible when you're first getting into it and trying to understand what we're talking about and how you think about it and relative to the way that I was trained as a scientist.

And so just really reading that and then thinking about how that applies and how therefore I should think about applying it in a federal government context was really expansive and I don't know if I figured it out entirely, but I think it's a really important thing for us all to wrestle with. And the idea that science as we understand it in Western society is just one way of knowing.

Quinn: I love that. It's a wonderful book, certainly. And you're right, it does, it's a little more pragmatic, isn't the word for it. It is a little easier, I guess? Yeah, it's a little more tangible. It's a little more tangible. I'll give you that. On your grown up book versus adult book this is a ridiculous side thing, but as a parent, I think you'll find this funny.

So my wife, this is gonna sound insane, co-wrote the new Wicked movie that came out this year.

I know, very exciting. And one of the few awards that she and the other screenwriter won was the [00:44:00] AARP award. We just got done with all the stuff and she brought it home and it's in a box and it says AARP 2025 Screenwriting Award, and they call it Movies for Grownups and my 12 year old, he goes, Oh, you got the adult movie award and she's like, nope, nope. That's why they call movies for grown ups. He's like, what's the difference? It's adult movies. She's like, nope, we're not doing it. Very different. Very different.

So, anyways. Well, no one will fault you for also just reading, truly the fluffiest of the fluff at night. I just literally read whatever my nine year old reads at this point, as long as it's not too stressful. I can't do it. I got enough of that.

Gretchen Goldman: Yeah, mostly I'm reading Dragons Love Tacos.

Quinn: By the way! Fuckin stressful! Just stop, like, where is the quality control?

Gretchen Goldman: Also as someone with a food allergy, the idea of that is so stressful. The idea that they'd be like, oh p.s. there's this other ingredient, yeah.

Quinn: Is this funny to you? [00:45:00] Nightmare.

Gretchen Goldman: For one of my kids, we did a Dragons Love Tacos birthday party and we did the whole thing in the backyard and we buried the salsa. We had a whole thing and all the kids buried the salsa.

Quinn: You're such a better parent than I am. That's incredible. I was just like, here's a bowling ball. Best wishes. That's amazing. Good for you. Good for you. Hopefully there was no one with a salsa allergy. Amazing. Thank you so much for this. Really appreciate the time. This is awesome.

Gretchen Goldman: Yeah, thank you, Quinn.