The American Society for Microbiology, a well-respected professional organization, has recently come under fire for removing content about underrepresented groups of scientists from its website. This move was triggered by President Trump’s directives to federal agencies to cease activities that promote diversity and inclusion. The decision has sparked outrage among members of the society who feel unsupported during what they view as a significant assault on science by the current administration.
The removal of webpages featuring Black, female, LGBTQ+, and Indigenous scientists has left many researchers feeling abandoned by the ASM, which they financially support through membership dues. The abrupt action has been described as “anticipatory obedience” and “truly sickening cowardice” by members of the scientific community. The decision to comply with the executive orders has raised questions about the society’s commitment to diversity and inclusion, principles it has long championed.
Backlash and Frustration
The backlash from members of the scientific community, including virologist and assistant professor Kishana Taylor, highlights the importance of visibility for underrepresented groups within the field of microbiology. Taylor, who serves as president of the Black Microbiology Association, expressed disappointment in the ASM’s swift response to the directives, emphasizing the significance of representation within the organization.
The removal of articles, such as the spotlight piece on virologist Chelsey Spriggs, has further fueled the discontent among scientists. Spriggs, who co-founded the Black Microbiologists Association, expressed feeling erased and let down by the society’s actions. The removal of content related to women, LGBTQ+, and Indigenous scientists, as well as efforts to promote diversity in the field, has sparked concerns about the ASM’s commitment to inclusivity.
Legal Obligations and Ethical Dilemmas
ASM President Theresa Koehler stated that the content was not permanently removed but rather under review and being updated to comply with legal obligations. The society, which receives federal funding, emphasized the need to adhere to the new executive orders while maintaining its mission of supporting the microbial sciences for the benefit of all individuals.
Despite reassurances from the ASM, many members remain skeptical of the society’s actions. The removal of articles related to Juneteenth and Black microbiologists studying historical sites has raised questions about the society’s motives and commitment to supporting marginalized groups. The perception of performative allyship and selective promotion of diversity efforts has left many feeling disillusioned.
The response to the executive orders has also highlighted broader concerns within nonprofit organizations about the potential legal repercussions of promoting diversity and inclusion. While some scientists advocate for legal action to defend their rights, others call on scientific societies to take a stand and advocate for the values they claim to uphold. The lack of support from universities and professional organizations has left many scientists feeling vulnerable and unsupported in the face of political challenges.
In conclusion, the ASM’s decision to remove content about underrepresented groups of scientists has stirred controversy and raised questions about the society’s commitment to diversity and inclusion. The impact of these actions on trust and inclusivity within the scientific community may have lasting consequences, prompting calls for greater advocacy and support for marginalized scientists. As the debate continues, the need for transparency, accountability, and genuine allyship remains essential to fostering a more inclusive and equitable scientific community.
