CFP: NCA Panel Discussion/Roundtable–state interest by 3/26

Hi, everyone,

The ARSTM officers are putting together a panel discussion for NCA this year, and we need participants. The proposed panel title is "The Rhetoric of Science, Technology, and Medicine in the Midst of Mass Censorship and Disinformation: A Panel Discussion," and both the description and rationale are below.

NCA proposals are due at the end of March, so the turnaround on this is tight. If you’re interested in being part of this roundtable, please email me, Kari Lundgren, by 3/26. Please share briefly explain (i.e., approximately 100-150 words) your interest in participating and how you are currently navigating the roundtable questions/issues. Email: kari.lundgren

Also, we’re having some trouble with the ARSTM listserv this week—apologies for the delay in getting this call out.

Thanks, everyone–I’m really looking forward to this discussion!

Kari Lundgren
ARSTM Public Health Officer

Title: The Rhetoric of Science, Technology, and Medicine in the Midst of Mass Censorship and Disinformation: A Panel Discussion

Panel Description (75 words max):
This panel offers an opportunity for rhetoricians of science, technology, and medicine to reflect on Trump 2.0’s devastating cuts to and disruption of research and higher education while considering what, if any, implications these changes have for how we imagine and conduct our rhetorical scholarship. What are our responsibilities as rhetoricians and academics in the wake of Trump 2.0’s “anti-woke” and “anti-waste” initiatives?

Presenters: TBD

Panel Rationale (500 words max):
In just the first two months of Trump 2.0, the Trump administration has put the higher-education and research communities squarely in the crosshairs of its so-called “anti-woke” and “anti-waste” initiatives. Through direct and indirect censorship, federal officials are blocking studies that mention vaccine hesitancy, disability, gender, race, LGBTQ people, climate change, and more, while simultaneously gutting, through a combination of policy changes and mass layoffs, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Education (DoE), and other key federal agencies.

As the editors of British scientific journal Nature state in their February 25, 2025, editorial, “It is hard to put into words the extent of the damage being done to the US research enterprise [by Trump 2.0], which is of almost incalculable value to both the nation itself and the wider world.” The editorial board goes on to ask others in “the global enterprise of education, health, science and engineering” to join them in “denounc[ing] this assault on science.” For Nature’s editorial board, the assault on science includes, as well, Trump 2.0’s assault on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives, the eroding of which weakens the quality of research.

In the face of this relentless undermining of research and higher education, what are our responsibilities as rhetoricians of science, technology, and medicine? This panel offers space for rhetoricians to reflect on these dystopic developments while considering what, if any, implications these changes have for how we imagine and conduct our rhetorical scholarship. Should we, like the editors of Nature (and groups like Stand up for Science, etc.), speak out publicly against Trump 2.0? Should we reframe our established critiques of supposed scientific neutrality to emphasize the differences between appropriate skepticism and politically motivated disinformation? Should we organize our campuses—through both internal and external advocacy—to defend our students and colleagues? What about other considerations that researchers make, such as reframing research to be able to continue it uninterrupted?

Participants will consider these and other questions, drawing on their varied experiences and research backgrounds.