I think the problem is that much of the 'science' that downplayed human influence on global warming turned out to be paid for by executives of coal companies (such as the Koch brothers). Corporate paid 'science' creates understandable suspicion in all fields of science.
This gets back to my earlier point that the march is really about the federal government cutting funds for research. The implication of your story is that if the government doesn't fund it, the research won't get done. So my question is how can we fund research without having to rely on government?
As current events point out, government funding can be fickle depending on who is in charge. As a taxpayer, I would personally prefer that the government have less of our money to throw around but that's a different issue.
I remember when he gave a "Golden Fleece" award for researchers working on, as he put it, "how radishes have sex."
The problem was, in this one case, I happened to have auxiliary expertise that this was indeed crucial research relevant to serious problems in agricultural production and in plant breeding of all the major staple crops. Trillions of dollars, billions of lives at stake, and the results of that one little study promised a revolution. But it was cut because a demagogue was able to twist the conversation to unfairly depict the topic in a misrepresentative way. I guess that's how demagogues work, how they get "points," and why we often miss opportunities of progress when these artful people politicize research.
Luckily, researchers, mostly in other countries, did explore the bases of heterosis and allogamic breeding, and maybe we didn't lose much time, but the whole attitude that unless there's a short-term payoff, research is useless, and making research risible ro rally opposition to it bothers me. After all, that guy Boole was laughed-at for his silly useless algebra.
Much of the science march discussion seems to center on climate change research.
As a scientist, I have found it alarming that scientists whose research centers on natural climate change often seem to be excluded or at a minimum meet more resistance at publishing and presenting their research. Some are even ostracized from academia.
Many of those scientists have interesting observations around the lack of empirical evidence towards man-made climate change. Whether or not they are correct, are we really following the scientific method by not listening?
The only thing marches accomplish is to make your feet hurt. Everyone knows the best thing that could happen to government reserach is to cut their funds so they would be forced to prioritize their topics. Here are some examples of topics that are a complete waste of money
As technology becomes more embedded in our lives it makes sense that technology is politicized. As an engineer I think it was more fun when technology was under the radar. What is interesting to me now is that standardization organizations are making more decisions with political implications, e.g., digital rights management, encryption, bio metrics, etc. The EU seems to recognize this and EU governments are active in EU standardization activities. The US government (including past governments) does not. So I see the US government as a technology denier not only about climate but almost everything.
Will I march for science? My wife wants to, so I will join her.