Heleen de Coninck is a professor of socio-technical innovation and climate change at TU/e. Within the Technology, Innovation and Society research group, she focuses on national and international climate policy, with a special emphasis on heavy industry, such as the steel and chemical sectors. “Together with colleagues, I investigate where those industries get their energy from, for example, or how much hydrogen they use – and where that hydrogen comes from, and what that means in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and, for instance, socio-economic conditions,” she says.

Through her involvement in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC), De Coninck is part of a broad international network, including American colleagues. She also has strong personal ties to the US: during a research stay at Princeton, she met her American husband. Their daughter is half-American, and all of her in-laws live there.

What signals are you hearing from the US scientific community about the impact of the current policy?

“I’ve noticed that the community’s concerns run deep. American colleagues, with whom I’m working on an IPCC report on climate change in cities, no longer receive funding for their trips. The government can’t always fire them just like that, but they can cut their funding. The consequences of this are still uncertain.”

“Another researcher had received a grant to support first-generation students in a poor area of North Carolina. She had already hired people, but since the project falls under ‘diversity,’ it can’t go ahead now. And it wasn’t even about race or gender, but purely about inequality of opportunity. The majority of the families those students come from are Trump voters. Still, no one gets to enjoy special treatment under Trump’s policy.”

“The censorship that is happening there right now is unimaginable. My brother-in-law worked at a university in the Republican state of Florida, where he was conducting PhD research on ecosystem restoration, but the state government prohibited the use of the term ‘climate change.’ This has been going on for a while now, even under Trump I. And meanwhile, Florida is already suffering the effects of climate change: from rising sea levels to hurricanes. The fact that you can’t even talk about this as a scientist is truly bizarre. Cutting science funding is one thing, but when the goal is to silence the voice of truth, the voice of science, that’s deeply disturbing.”

“We shouldn’t think that this won’t affect us. Just like how we initially thought that COVID wouldn’t reach the Netherlands. I don’t want to be a prophet of doom, but as scientists, we must prepare and strengthen our resilience before it’s too late.”

What does the US policy mean for international cooperation and data sharing in science?

“The first impact is on the IPCC. IPCC is an international organization in which countries make decisions together. The US no longer attends the plenary meetings and is therefore no longer involved in the decision-making process. For now, that is manageable, but one of the key leadership positions within the IPCC is held by Kate Calvin. She and her team of technical support staff used to work at NASA, but have now been fired – Kate was appointed by the IPCC member countries, so she’s still co-chair. However, it does mean that IPCC’s entire mitigation working group can’t function properly at the moment. I still hope that another government will step up and say they want to take over that team.”

“In addition, a lot of relevant work comes out of the US, of course – it’s a major funder of scientific research – so these resources will be missed. Fortunately, not everything is funded by government money, but making cuts to institutions like NASA and NOAA is harmful. In terms of data sharing, colleagues working on weather models, for example, are also feeling the effects – and this data is important for making reliable forecasts about the weather or water levels, among other things.”

“But the biggest losers are the ordinary Americans, in particular the more vulnerable groups. They will be even less prepared for the effects of climate change.”

Do you personally notice the effects of the measures in your work?

“My own research is not affected directly, but the effects are being felt in my field. Researchers are being obstructed, sometimes conferences are canceled, and important data are disappearing. For example, there’s a well-known measurement series of atmospheric CO₂ levels known as the ‘Keeling curve,’ which comes from Mauna Loa, a monitoring station in Hawaii. That site has been used for decades because of its remote location with no factories in the surrounding area. Now, the lease on the building has been terminated. These kinds of things really concern me, because it’s just so fundamentally wrong.”

Do you also see opportunities?

“Hopefully, we can learn from this and gain a better understanding of what we need to do ourselves. But for science and the IPCC, it’s mostly bad news.”

“As for attracting American researchers to Europe, I think this is only justified if their research is actually under threat – and it’s not just to profit from it ourselves. Otherwise, we’re guilty of the same kind of opportunism we accuse Trump of.”

What do you think TU/e could or should do to protect its own research and education?

“We need to collaborate much more. If something happens, we should be able to form a united front. Not get stuck in endless meetings until everyone agrees, but take action now. Especially in times of crisis, it’s important to act quickly, and to trust one another. And we need to be prepared for that now.”

“We should also invest – preferably at the European level – in increasing public awareness of how science works and why the scientific method benefits society.”