From Shawna Williams at The Scientist:
TS: Do you think last year’s march, or other activism associated with it, have yielded results?
RH: Some. The biggest effect was that scientists reminded themselves and each other that this is appropriate to do, that it’s important to do. I think many of the marchers last year were pleasantly surprised at the buoyant effect of being with thousands of other like-minded people to talk about the beauty of science, the relevance of science, the important place of science in society. . . . Maybe scientists shouldn’t need a reminder that it’s appropriate to go public, and in fact there’s an obligation to go public, but I think scientists do need that reminder, and the march serves as a reminder.
It’s hard to know whether the march is turning anything around with respect to the concerns that scientists have about scientific advisory councils or appointed science advisors or evidence-based policymaking. . . . But over time, I’m pretty sure that this newfound willingness to go public will produce benefits in those areas, in policymaking and legislation and environmental regulation and so forth. More.
In short, it was a big, irrelevant flop. Because the problems today are not principally being created by government but by, for example, ongoing failures in peer review.
Keep up to date with Retraction Watch
See also: Marchin’, marchin’ for Science (Hint: the problems are back at your desk, not out in the streets)