McGill platform becomes safe space for conserving U.S. climate research under threat
MONTREAL - Academics at McGill University in Montreal are providing the U.S. scientific community a platform to protect climate research under attack.
Six months ago, researchers at McGill University's Desautels Faculty of Management launched
SUSANHub.com
, a database that centralizes climate research and data.
'We initially created this platform to connect researchers and professionals in sustainable development and climate change,' said Juan Serpa, a professor at the Desautels Faculty of Management, describing the platform as a kind of 'LinkedIn' for the field.
But at a time when the administration of United States President Donald Trump is firing climate researchers, banning certain words from scientific articles, cutting funding for environmental research, threatening to withdraw financial support from universities, and deleting scientific reports from government websites, the McGill platform has taken on a different significance.
'The goal is to protect scientific data against threats from the U.S. government,' Serpa said.
The platform has been logging 39,000 weekly visits from academics and researchers. Scientific data that is on the chopping block south of the border is downloaded and uploaded to the platform.
Scientific data on wildfires, protecting forests from insects and diseases, the impact of climate change on agriculture, flood risks, ocean plastic pollution, and the industries that emit the most greenhouse gases are just a few examples of data that can be accessed on
SUSANHub.com
and that would otherwise be at risk of being lost.
'We want to be proactive, not reactive, because once data disappears, there's nothing we can do,' Serpa said.
The thousands of data sets his team has saved are freely accessible and categorized according to 65 themes related to sustainable development. The platform also provides access to a directory of 60,000 researchers and 25,000 research institutes.
'It's an international network, but mainly American researchers,' Serpa said, adding he is very worried for colleagues in the United States.
'I feel compassion and empathy for all these researchers,' he said. 'It is a very difficult time for them, many people are afraid right now.'
Serpa fears he will no longer be able to travel to the United States because of his involvement in the
SUSANHub.com
platform.
Since the beginning of Trump's second term in office, U.S. federal agencies have removed information on climate change from more than 200 government websites, according to the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative, a network that seeks to save scientific research.
The Trump administration also laid off thousands of employees at the U.S. Forest Service and hundreds of workers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an agency that studies climate change.
Last week, the Trump administration fired hundreds of researchers working on the Sixth National Climate Assessment, a major report on climate change published every five years.
Layoffs, budget cuts, funding cuts, and what many researchers describe as censorship have given rise to the 'Stand Up for Science' movement in the United States.
Abroad, Trump's revolt against science is also galvanizing initiatives that would have been considered improbable just a few years ago.
In France, for instance, former president-turned-parliamentarian François Hollande introduced a bill on April 14 to create a 'scientific refugee' status to make it easier for France to welcome scientists threatened by the American president's policies.
'Researchers, forced into exile by the Trump administration, must be recognized as full-fledged refugees,' wrote the former French president in an op-ed in the newspaper Libération, a few days before introducing his bill.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 4, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump's palace coup leaves NASA in limbo
When President-elect Donald Trump nominated Jared Isaacman to become NASA administrator, it seemed like a brilliant choice. Business entrepreneur, private astronaut, Isaacman was just the man to revamp NASA and make it into a catalyst for taking humanity to the moon, Mars and beyond. Isaacman sailed through the confirmation process in the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), by a vote of 19 to 9. He was poised to be confirmed by the full Senate when something so bizarre happened that it beggars the imagination. The White House suddenly and with no clear reason why, pulled Isaacman's nomination. After months of a confirmation process, NASA was back to square one for getting a new leader. Ars Technica's Eric Berger offered an explanation as to why. 'One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats,' he wrote. 'He also indicated opposition to some of the White House's proposed cuts to NASA's science budget.' But these facts were well known even before Trump nominated Isaacman. Trump himself, before he ran for president as a Republican, donated to Democrats and was close friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Berger goes on to say that a source told the publication that, 'with Musk's exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman's nomination.' The idea that Isaacman's nomination is being deep-sixed because of Musk runs contrary to the public praise that the president has given the billionaire rocket and electric car entrepreneur. Trump was uncharacteristically terse in his own social media post. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA,' he wrote. 'I will soon announce a new nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America First in Space. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' CNN reports that Isaacman's ouster was the result of a palace coup, noting that a source said, 'Musk's exit left room for a faction of people in Trump's inner circle, particularly Sergio Gor, the longtime Trump supporter and director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, to advocate for installing a different nominee.' The motive seems to be discontent about the outsized influence that Musk has had on the White House and a desire to take him down a peg or two. Isaacman was profoundly gracious, stating in part, 'I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry.' The idea that a man like Isaacman, well respected by the aerospace community, who was predicted to sail through a confirmation vote in the full Senate, could be taken down by an obscure bureaucrat in White House intrigue, motivated by petty spite, is mind boggling. Even Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has not been fond of Trump's space policy, was appalled. He posted on his X account that Isaacman 'ran into the kind of politics that is damaging our country.' 'Republicans and Democrats supported him as the right guy at the right time for the top job at NASA, but it wasn't enough.' NASA is in for months more of turmoil and uncertainty as the nomination process gets reset and starts grinding its way through the Senate. The draconian, truncated budget proposal is certainly not helpful, either. Congress, which had been supportive of Trump's space policy, is not likely to be pleased by the president's high-handed shivving of his own nominee. Whoever Trump chooses to replace Isaacman as NASA administrator nominee, no matter how qualified, should face some very direct questioning. Trump's NASA budget proposal should be dead on arrival, which, considering the cuts in science and technology, is not necessarily a bad thing. China must be looking at the spectacle of NASA being mired in political wrangling, a leadership vacuum and budget uncertainty with glee. Beijing has its own space ambitions, with a planned crewed lunar landing by 2030. It's possible that the Chinese will steal a march on NASA, with all the damage that will do to America's standing in the world. It didn't have to be this way. Isaacman could be settling in as NASA administrator, deploying his business acumen and vision to lead the space agency to its greatest achievements. Instead, America's space effort has received a self-inflicted blow from which it will be long in recovering, Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
Endangered species deserve a home, too
The elusive Northern Spotted Owl. The majestic Whooping Crane. Charismatic Florida panthers and beloved Monarch butterflies. These and many other endangered species now face even graver threats in the wake of two recent developments in the world of conservation. On Apr. 7, the billion-dollar biotech firm Colossal announced the 'de-extinction' of the dire wolf, a canine species that vanished in the Late Pleistocene (approximately 13,000 years ago). And on Apr. 17, the Trump administration revealed its intention to weaken decades-old endangered species protections by redefining a key word: harm. This narrower definition effectively rescinds protection of an endangered species' habitat, limiting harm to actions that 'directly' harass, injure or kill organisms. What these two developments have in common is a disregard for the vital connection that exists between species and the places they call home. Habitat refers to the place where an organism naturally or normally lives. Removal of habitat protection opens the door to logging, development and extraction of oil and minerals. The proposed definition of harm could convert fragile wetlands into farmland, migration corridors into freeways and nesting sites into beachfront property — and none of this would qualify as harm to the creatures who live there. A habitat includes the specific resources and conditions that a given species needs to survive — the plants or animals it feeds on, and particular features of topography, soil, climate and water. Some species are especially vulnerable to extinction because they require a very rare or specific type of habitat. Others are at risk because they range across several. Many butterfly species, for example, are reliant on a single host plant for every stage of their life cycle — mating, laying eggs and feeding their young. Even plants closely related to the host plant cannot replace these vital functions, however indistinguishable they may appear to the human eye. Migratory creatures, meanwhile, depend upon many habitats in far-flung geographic locations. A recent study found that approximately half of all migratory species are in decline. Annually, billions of migratory birds crisscross state and national boundaries, with varying degrees of legal protections for the places where they nest, feed or rest. Further erosion of habitat protection could be the death knell for these and other vulnerable species. Were species not so intimately tied to their environments, it might make sense to regard lab-created or genetically engineered organisms, like the recently unveiled dire wolves, as suitable replacements for endangered or extinct species. Conservation would be akin to curating museum or zoo specimens, with living representatives of endangered species, or mere samples of their genetic material, maintained in artificial environments. Disregard for the importance of habitat is evident in the fanfare over Colossal's so-called dire wolves — more accurately, grey wolves with dire wolf DNA spliced into their genome. Consider that in their original Pleistocene environments, true dire wolves preyed upon large herbivorous megafauna that are now extinct: sloths, mastodons, giant bison and camels. By contrast, Remus, Romulus and Khaleesi, the telegenic trio of fluffy white wolves created by Colossal, will live their entire lives in a highly secured, undisclosed site, subsisting on a hand-fed diet of ground meats and kibble. In short, the same flawed logic lies behind the dire wolf 'de-extinction' and the Trump proposal to redefine harm: Both treat species as if they live in a vacuum. Doug Burgum, the Trump-appointed secretary of the Interior, exemplified this sort of thinking when he took to social media to hail de-extinction as the 'bedrock' of future conservation, arguing simultaneously for re-think of endangered species protections: 'It has been innovation—not regulation—that has spawned American greatness,' he said. Citing Colossal's breakthrough, Burgum questioned the need for an endangered species list. Ten days later, the administration moved to weaken endangered species regulation by excluding habitat from the definition of harm. Yet, habitat loss remains the primary culprit of species endangerment and extinction. While these losses can occur naturally through periodic events like fires or earthquakes, the vast majority of habitat degradation, fragmentation and loss stems from human activity: land development, deforestation, large-scale agriculture, air and water pollution, and human-caused climate change, among other factors. Even amid intensified political polarization, endangered species protection is wildly popular, with 84 percent of Americans supporting the Endangered Species Act. In the past month, some 350,000 members of the public weighed in to protest changes to the act. Many offered the commonsense argument that destroying the home of any living being, human or nonhuman, clearly constitutes harm, as surely as a gun pointed to the head. Innovation in conservation science, including cutting-edge genetic techniques aimed at saving species on the brink of extinction, is welcome and should be encouraged. But innovation is no substitute for regulation, any more than a laboratory or zoo is a substitute for the places where animals naturally live. Endangered species face a barrage of threats from human activities. We owe them a place to call home. Lisa H. Sideris is a Public Voices fellow of The OpEd Project and the University of California. Santa Barbara, where she is professor and vice-chair of the Environmental Studies Program.
Washington Post
6 hours ago
- Washington Post
The NASA science missions that would be axed in Trump's 2026 budget
President Donald Trump's fiscal 2026 budget request, if approved by Congress, would kill many of NASA's plans for robotic exploration of the solar system. Gone, too, would be multiple space-based missions to study Earth, the sun and the rest of the universe. Among the planets that would get less attention are Venus, Mars and Jupiter. But the planet facing the biggest drop in scrutiny from space is our own. The Trump budget proposal calls for reducing Earth science funding by 53 percent.
