This article is reprinted from National Review with the permission of the author.

Yesterday [March 7] was “Stand Up for Science 2025” day, which featured rallies around the country to “defend science as a public good and pillar of social, political, and economic progress.” But that isn’t what it was really all about.

From the “Stand Up for Science” website’s listed policy goals:

1. End Censorship and Political Interference in Science

Science thrives on open inquiry and evidence-based decision-making. We demand:

An end to government censorship: Prohibit all forms of political censorship in scientific research, including restrictions on the topics of scientific research that are eligible for federal funding…

A commitment to freedom of scientific expression: Protect scientists’ rights to communicate their findings freely, without fear of retaliation or suppression.

Well, that’s ironically rich. Former NIH head Francis Collins spoke (and sang) at the D.C. rally, and he was the champion censor of heterodox views during Covid, such as trying to marginalize the reputations of Drs. Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorrff, and Sunetra Gupta for having the temerity to publicly disagree with lockdowns and keeping children out of school in the Great Barrington Declaration. He even urged that purveyors of “misinformation” be “identified” and “brought to justice.”

The protests also demand that old funding formulas be restored and all laid-off staff rehired:

2. Secure and Expand Scientific Funding

Publicly funded science drives innovation, strengthens the economy, and improves lives. We demand:

Restoration of federal research funding: Reinstate federal funding for scientific research across all disciplines to FY 2024 levels and commit a 20% increase in federal scientific funding over the next three years followed by annual increases indexed to inflation to ensure sustained scientific advancement.

Reinstatement of wrongfully dismissed federal employees: Rehire all unlawfully terminated scientists and administrators at federal agencies (including, but not limited to, the NSF, NIH, CDC, EPA, NOAA, NPS, NWS, NASA, FWS, and FDA) with full back pay and benefits.

Removal of the 15% cap on indirect funding for NIH-funded grants and reinstatement of indirect funding policies as they existed prior to January 1, 2025.

The level of research funding and the methodology for determining grant recipients are legitimate policy issues. So is the percentage of (indirect) funding institutions receive that host researcher grant recipients. But why universities should receive more than 50 percent of grant funds is beyond me, particularly those universities with many billions in their endowment funds.

And here comes the naked ideology:

3. Defend Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in Science

Science is strongest when it includes everyone. Attacks on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility are attacks on science itself. We demand:

Preservation of equitable access to STEM: Maintain and expand federal programs that broaden participation in STEM training and careers.

Protection for minoritized scientists: Enforce anti-discrimination protections for minoritized scientists to ensure equitable participation and impact.

Reinstatement of DEIA initiatives: Restore all DEIA programming within federal agencies to pre-January 1, 2025 status, ensuring continued progress toward equity.

The term “minoritized” says it all. No one should be excluded from full participation in science, of course. But DEI isn’t about that. It seeks to create equality of outcomes (equity) instead of opportunity. Under a DEI regime, invidious distinctions based on personal characteristics count as much — or more — than merit in receiving or being rejected from receiving grants. That hurts science.

“Stand Up for Science 2025” protests were clearly aimed at reaffirming control by the now discredited science establishment as it existed before the election and promoting woke ideology as the governing ethic of the scientific endeavor. Sorry. Trust in the science sector ebbed precisely because the establishment became intolerant of dissent and pushed ideology in the guise of pursuing knowledge. Trump voters believed the status quo was in dire need of a thorough shaking up, so now, there’s a new administration in charge. The protestors should have rallied against themselves.