{"id":170166,"date":"2020-10-12T12:00:52","date_gmt":"2020-10-12T11:00:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=170166"},"modified":"2020-10-09T05:33:31","modified_gmt":"2020-10-09T04:33:31","slug":"how-trump-damaged-science-and-why-it-could-take-decades-to-recover","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2020\/10\/how-trump-damaged-science-and-why-it-could-take-decades-to-recover\/","title":{"rendered":"How Trump Damaged Science \u2014 and Why It Could Take Decades to Recover"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
The US president\u2019s actions have exacerbated the pandemic that has killed more than 200,000 people in the United States, rolled back environmental and public-health regulations and undermined science and scientific institutions. Some of the harm could be permanent.<\/em><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>

Illustration by Se\u00f1or Salme<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
5 Oct 2020 – <\/em>People packed in by the thousands, many dressed in red, white and blue and carrying signs reading \u201cFour more years\u201d and \u201cMake America Great Again\u201d. They came out during a global pandemic to make a statement, and that\u2019s precisely why they assembled shoulder-to-shoulder without masks in a windowless warehouse, creating an ideal environment for the coronavirus to spread.<\/p>\n
\n

US President Donald Trump\u2019s rally in Henderson, Nevada, on 13 September contravened state health rules, which limit public gatherings to 50 people and require proper social distancing. Trump knew it, and later flaunted the fact that the state authorities failed to stop him. Since the beginning of the pandemic, the president has behaved the same way and refused to follow basic health guidelines at the White House, which is now at the centre of an ongoing outbreak. The president spent 3 days in a hospital after testing positive for COVID-19, and was released on 5 October.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s actions \u2014 and those of his staff and supporters \u2014 should come as no surprise. Over the past eight months, the president of the United States has lied about the dangers posed by the coronavirus and undermined efforts to contain it<\/a>; he even admitted in an interview to purposefully misrepresenting the viral threat early in the pandemic. Trump has belittled masks and social-distancing requirements while encouraging people to protest against lockdown rules aimed at stopping disease transmission. His administration has undermined, suppressed and censored government scientists working to study the virus and reduce its harm. And his appointees have made political tools out of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), ordering the agencies to put out inaccurate information, issue ill-advised health guidance, and tout unproven and potentially harmful treatments for COVID-19.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is not just ineptitude, it\u2019s sabotage,\u201d says Jeffrey Shaman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University in New York City, who has modelled the evolution of the pandemic and how earlier interventions might have saved lives in the United States. \u201cHe has sabotaged efforts to keep people safe.\u201d<\/p>\n

The statistics are stark. The United States, an international powerhouse with vast scientific and economic resources, has experienced more than 7 million COVID-19 cases, and its death toll has passed 200,000 \u2014 more than any other nation and more than one-fifth of the global total, even though the United States accounts for just 4% of world population.<\/p>\n

Quantifying Trump\u2019s responsibility for deaths and disease across the country is difficult, and other wealthy countries have struggled to contain the virus; the United Kingdom has experienced a similar number of deaths as the United States, after adjusting for population size.<\/p>\n

But Shaman and others suggest that the majority of the lives lost in the United States could have been saved had the country stepped up to the challenge earlier. Many experts blame Trump for the country\u2019s failure to contain the outbreak, a charge also levelled by Olivia Troye, who was a member of the White House coronavirus task force. She said in September that the president repeatedly derailed efforts to contain the virus and save lives, focusing instead on his own political campaign.<\/p>\n

As he seeks re-election on 3 November, Trump\u2019s actions in the face of COVID-19 are just one example of the damage he has inflicted on science and its institutions over the past four years, with repercussions for lives and livelihoods. The president and his appointees have also back-pedalled on efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions<\/a>, weakened rules limiting pollution<\/a> and diminished the role of science at the US Environmental Protection Agency<\/a> (EPA). Across many agencies, his administration has undermined scientific integrity by suppressing or distorting evidence to support political decisions, say policy experts.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019ve never seen such an orchestrated war on the environment or science,\u201d says Christine Todd Whitman, who headed the EPA under former Republican president George W. Bush.<\/p>\n

Trump has also eroded America\u2019s position on the global stage through isolationist policies and rhetoric. By closing the nation\u2019s doors to many visitors and non-European immigrants<\/a>, he has made the United States less inviting to foreign students and researchers. And by demonizing international associations such as the World Health Organization<\/a>, Trump has weakened America\u2019s ability to respond to global crises and isolated the country\u2019s science.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"Trump<\/div>\n<\/div>
\n

Supporters of President Trump \u2014 many without masks \u2014 crowded into an indoor facility in Henderson, Nevada, on 13 September.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Credit: Jonathan Ernst\/Reuters<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

All the while, the president has peddled chaos and fear rather than facts, as he advances his political agenda and discredits opponents. In dozens of interviews carried out by Nature<\/i>, researchers have highlighted this point as particularly worrisome because it devalues public trust in the importance of truth and evidence, which underpin science as well as democracy.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s terrifying in a lot of ways,\u201d says Susan Hyde, a political scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who studies the rise and fall of democracies. \u201cIt\u2019s very disturbing to have the basic functioning of government under assault, especially when some of those functions are critical to our ability to survive.\u201d<\/p>\n

The president can point to some positive developments in science and technology. Although Trump hasn\u2019t made either a priority (he waited 19 months before appointing a science adviser<\/a>), his administration has pushed to return astronauts to the Moon<\/a> and prioritized development in fields such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing. In August, the White House announced more than US$1 billion in new funding for those and other advanced technologies.<\/p>\n

But many scientists and former government officials say these examples are outliers in a presidency that has devalued science and the role it can have in crafting public policy. (A timeline chronicles Trump\u2019s actions related to science<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Much of the damage to science \u2014 including regulatory changes and severed international partnerships \u2014 can and probably will be repaired if Trump loses this November. In that event, what the nation and the world will have lost is precious time to limit climate change and the march of the virus, among other challenges. But the harm to scientific integrity, public trust and the United States\u2019 stature could linger well beyond Trump\u2019s tenure, says scientists and policy experts.<\/p>\n

As the election approaches, Nature<\/i> chronicles some of the key moments when the president has most damaged American science and how that could weaken the United States \u2014 and the world \u2014 for years to come, whether Trump wins or loses to his opponent, Joe Biden.<\/p>\n

Climate harmed<\/b><\/h2>\n

Trump\u2019s assault on science started even before he took office. In his 2016 presidential campaign, he called global warming a hoax and vowed to pull the nation out of the landmark 2015 Paris climate agreement, signed by more than 190 countries. Less than five months after he moved into the White House, he announced he would fulfil that promise<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cI was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,\u201d Trump said, arguing that the agreement imposed energy restrictions, cost jobs and hampered the economy in order to \u201cwin praise\u201d from foreign leaders and global activists.<\/p>\n

What Trump did not acknowledge is that the Paris agreement was in many ways designed by \u2014 and for \u2014 the United States. It is a voluntary pact that sought to build momentum by allowing countries to design their own commitments, and the only power it has comes in the form of transparency: laggards will be exposed. By pulling the United States out of the agreement and backtracking on climate commitments, Trump has also reduced pressure on other countries to act, says David Victor, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego. \u201cCountries that needed to participate in the Paris process \u2014 because that was part of being a member in good standing of the global community \u2014 no longer feel that pressure.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"Cars<\/div>\n<\/div>
\n

The Environmental Protection Agency has rolled back regulations on greenhouse-gas emissions. <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Credit: Kena Betancur\/VIEWpress\/Corbis via Getty<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

After Trump announced his decision on the Paris accord, his appointees at the EPA set about dismantling climate policies put in place under former president Barack Obama<\/a>. At the top of the list were a pair of regulations targeting greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants<\/a> and automobiles. Over the past 15 months, the Trump administration has gutted both regulations and replaced them with weaker standards that will save industry money \u2014 and do little to reduce emissions.<\/p>\n

In some cases, even industry objected to the rollbacks. The administration\u2019s efforts prompted objections from several carmakers, such as Ford and Honda, which last year signed a separate agreement with California to maintain a more aggressive standard. More recently, energy giants such as Exxon Mobil and BP opposed the administration\u2019s move to weaken rules that require oil and gas companies to limit and eliminate emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.<\/p>\n

According to one estimate from the Rhodium Group, a consultancy based in New York City, the administration\u2019s rollbacks could boost emissions by the equivalent 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2035 \u2014 roughly five times the annual emissions of the United Kingdom. Although these measures could be overturned by the courts or a new administration, Trump has cost the country and the planet valuable time.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Trump era has been really a terrible, terrible time for this planet,\u201d says Leah Stokes, a climate-policy researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara.<\/p>\n

The Trump administration formally filed the paperwork to exit the Paris agreement last year, and the US withdrawal will become official on 4 November, one day after the presidential election. Most nations have vowed to press forward even without the United States, and the European Union has already helped to fill the leadership void by pressing nations to bolster their efforts, which China did on 22 September when it announced that it aims to be carbon neutral by 2060. Biden has promised to re-enter the agreement if he wins<\/a>, but it could be difficult for the United States to regain the kind of international influence it had under Obama, who helped energize the climate talks and bring countries on board for the 2015 accord.<\/p>\n

\u201cRejoining Paris is easy,\u201d Victor says. \u201cThe real issue is credibility: will the rest of the world believe what we say?\u201d<\/p>\n

War on the environment<\/b><\/h2>\n

Trump hasn\u2019t just gone after regulations. At the EPA, his administration has sought to undermine the way the government uses science to make public-health decisions.<\/p>\n

The scale of the threat came into focus on 31 October 2017 \u2014 Halloween \u2014 when then EPA administrator Scott Pruitt signed an order barring scientists with active EPA research grants from serving on the agency\u2019s science-advisory panels<\/a>, making it harder for people with the most expertise to help the agency assess science and craft regulations. The order made it easier for industry scientists to replace the academic researchers, who would be forced to either give up their grants or resign.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat was when I said, \u2018Oh my god, the fix is in,\u201d says John Bachmann, who spent more than three decades in the EPA\u2019s air-quality programme and is now active in a group of retired EPA employees that formed to advocate for scientists and scientific integrity at the agency, after Trump officials began their assault. \u201cIt\u2019s not just that they have their own views, it\u2019s that they are going to make sure that their views carry more weight in the process.\u201d<\/p>\n

Pruitt\u2019s order, which would eventually be overturned by a federal judge, was part of a broader effort to accelerate turnover and appoint new people to the panels. And it was just the beginning. In April 2018, Pruitt revealed a \u201cscience transparency\u201d rule<\/a> to limit the agency\u2019s ability to base regulations on research for which the data and models are not publicly available. The rule could exclude some of the most rigorous epidemiological research linking fine-particulate pollution to premature death, because much of the underlying patient data are protected by privacy rules. Critics say that this policy was aimed at raising doubts about the science and making it easier to pursue weak air-pollution standards.<\/p>\n

Pruitt resigned in July 2018, but the trend at the EPA continues. Under its new administrator, Andrew Wheeler, the agency has accelerated efforts to weaken regulations targeting chemicals in water and air pollution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Whitman, the former EPA chief, says there\u2019s nothing wrong with revisiting regulatory decisions by past administrations and altering course. But decisions should be based on a solid scientific analysis, she says. \u201cWe don\u2019t see that with this administration.\u201d<\/p>\n

One of the biggest recent decisions at the EPA came in the air-quality programme. On 14 April this year, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the EPA proposed to maintain current standards for fine-particulate pollution<\/a>, despite evidence and advice from government and academic scientists who have overwhelmingly backed tighter regulations.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s devastating, totally devastating,\u201d says Francesca Dominici, an epidemiologist at Harvard University in Boston, Massachusetts, whose group found that strengthening standards could save tens of thousands of lives each year. \u201cNot listening to science and rolling back environmental regulations is costing American lives.\u201d<\/p>\n

Pandemic problems<\/b><\/h2>\n

The coronavirus pandemic has brought the perils of ignoring science and evidence into sharp focus, and one thing is now clear: the president of the United States understood that the virus posed a major threat to the country early in the outbreak, and he chose to lie about it.<\/p>\n

Speaking to Washington Post<\/i> journalist Bob Woodward on 7 February, when only 12 people in the United States had tested positive for the coronavirus, Trump described a virus that is five times more lethal than the even the most \u201cstrenuous flus\u201d. \u201cThis is deadly stuff,\u201d Trump said in the recorded interview, which was released only in September.<\/p>\n

In public, however, the president presented a very different message. On 10 February, Trump told his supporters at a rally not to worry, and said that by April, when temperatures warm up, the virus would \u201cmiraculously go away\u201d. \u201cThis is like a flu,\u201d he told a press conference on 26 February. In a TV interview a week later: \u201cIt\u2019s very mild.\u201d<\/p>\n

In another recorded interview with Woodward on 19 March, Trump said he had played down the risk from the beginning<\/a>. \u201cI still like playing it down because I don\u2019t want to create a panic,\u201d Trump said.<\/p>\n

After the tapes were released, Trump defended his efforts to keep people calm while simultaneously arguing that he had, if anything, \u201cup-played\u201d the risk posed by the virus. But health experts say that explanation makes little sense, and that the president endangered the public by misrepresenting the threat posed by the virus.<\/p>\n

All the while, scientists now know, viral transmission was surging across the country. Rather than marshalling the federal government\u2019s power and resources to contain the virus with a comprehensive testing and contact-tracing programme, the Trump administration punted the issue to cities and states, where politics and a lack of resources made it impossible to track the virus or provide accurate information to citizens. And when local officials started to shut down businesses and schools in early March, Trump criticized them for taking action.<\/p>\n

\u201cLast year, 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu,\u201d he tweeted on 9 March. \u201cNothing is shut down, life & the economy go on.\u201d Within a month, the US coronavirus death toll had topped 21,000, and the pandemic was in full stride, killing around 2,000 Americans every day.<\/p>\n

Shaman and his colleagues at Columbia decided to investigate what might have happened had the country acted sooner. They developed a model that could reproduce what happened county by county across the United States from February to early May, as state and local governments shut down businesses and schools in an effort to halt the contagion. They then posed the question: what would have happened if everybody had done exactly the same one week earlier?<\/p>\n

Their preliminary results, posted as a preprint on 21 May (S. Pei et al. <\/i>Preprint at medRxiv https:\/\/doi.org\/ghc65g; 2020<\/a>), suggested that around 35,000 lives could have been saved, more than halving the death toll as of 3 May. If the same action had been taken two weeks earlier, that death toll could have been cut by nearly 90%. Reducing the initial exponential explosion in cases would have bought more time to roll out testing and address the inevitable outbreaks with targeted contact-tracing programmes.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s no reason on Earth this had to happen,\u201d Shaman says. \u201cIf we had gotten our act together earlier, we could have done much better.\u201d<\/p>\n

Gerardo Chowell, a computational epidemiologist at Georgia State University in Atlanta, says that Shaman\u2019s study provides a rough approximation of how earlier action might have changed the trajectory of the pandemic, although pinning down precise numbers is difficult given the lack of data early in the pandemic and the challenge of modelling a disease that scientists are still trying to understand.<\/p>\n

Trump responded publicly to the Columbia study by dismissing it as a \u201cpolitical hit job\u201d by \u201can institution that\u2019s very liberal\u201d.<\/p>\n

Control the message, not the virus<\/b><\/h2>\n

With the economy in freefall and a mounting death toll, Trump increasingly aimed his vitriol at China. The president backed an unsubstantiated theory suggesting that the virus might have originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, and argued that international health officials had helped China cover up the outbreak in the earliest days of the pandemic. On 29 May, he made good his threats and announced that he was pulling the United States out of the World Health Organization \u2014 a move that many say weakened the country\u2019s ability to respond to global crises and isolated its science<\/a>.<\/p>\n

For many experts, it was yet another counterproductive political manoeuvre from a president who was more interested in controlling the message than the virus. And in the end, he failed on both counts. Criticism mounted as COVID-19 continued to spread.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe virus doesn\u2019t respond to spin,\u201d says Tom Frieden, who headed the CDC under Obama. \u201cThe virus responds to science-driven policies and programmes.\u201d<\/p>\n

As the pandemic ground forward, the president continued to contradict warnings and advice from government scientists, including guidance for reopening schools. In July, Frieden and three other former CDC directors issued a sharp rebuke in a guest editorial<\/a> in The Washington Post<\/i>, citing unprecedented efforts by Trump and his administration to undermine the advice of public-health officials.<\/p>\n

Similar concerns have arisen with the FDA, which must approve an eventual vaccine. On 29 September, seven former FDA commissioners penned another editorial in The Washington Post<\/i><\/a> raising concerns about interventions by Trump and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary Alex Azar in a process that is supposed to be guided by government scientists.<\/p>\n

This kind of political interference doesn\u2019t just undermine the public-health response, but could ultimately damage public trust in an eventual vaccine, says Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist and vice-provost for global initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. \u201cEverybody is wondering: \u2018Am I going to be able to trust the Food and Drug Administration\u2019s decision on the vaccine?\u2019\u201d says Emanuel. \u201cThat fact that people are even asking that question is evidence that Trump has already undermined the agency.\u201d<\/p>\n

Elias Zerhouni, who headed the US National Institutes of Health under former president Bush from 2002 to 2008, says the Trump administration failed to control the coronavirus, and is now trying to force government agencies to use their prestige and manipulate science to buttress Trump\u2019s campaign. \u201cThey don\u2019t really get the science,\u201d says Zerhouni of Trump and his appointees. \u201cThis is the rejection of any science that doesn\u2019t fit their political views.\u201d<\/p>\n

The White House and the EPA did not respond to several requests for comment. The HHS issued a statement to Nature <\/i>saying: \u201cHHS has always provided public health information based on sound science. Throughout the COVID-19 response, science and data have driven the decisions at HHS.\u201d The department adds: \u201cPresident Trump has led an unprecedented, whole-of-America response to the COVID-19 pandemic.\u201d<\/p>\n

Isolationist science<\/b><\/h2>\n

On 24 September, the US Department of Homeland Security proposed a new rule to restrict how long international students can spend in the United States. The rule would limit visas for most students to four years, requiring an extension thereafter, and impose a two-year limit for students from dozens of countries considered high-risk, including those listed as state-sponsors of terror: Iraq, Iran, Syria and the Democratic People\u2019s Republic of Korea.<\/p>\n

Although it is not yet clear what effects this rule might have, many scientists and policy experts fear that this and other immigration policies could have a lasting impact on American science. \u201cIt could put the US at an enormous, enormous competitive disadvantage for attracting graduate students and scientists,\u201d says Lizbet Boroughs, associate vice president of the Association of American Universities in Washington, DC, a group representing 65 institutions.<\/p>\n

It fits in with previously implemented travel restrictions that have made it more difficult for foreigners from certain countries \u2014 including scientists \u2014 to visit, study and work in the United States. These policies mark a sharp shift from previous governments, which have actively sought talent from other countries to fill laboratories and spur scientific innovation.<\/p>\n

Researchers fear that the latest proposal will make the United States even less attractive to foreign scientists, which could hamper the country\u2019s efforts in science and technology.<\/p>\n

\u201cHow we intersect with students from other countries has been hugely impacted,\u201d says Emanuel. If the best and brightest students from other countries start to go elsewhere, he adds, US science will suffer. \u201cI fear for the country.\u201d<\/p>\n

The proposed rule provides a glimpse of what a second Trump term might look like, and highlights the intangible impacts on US science that could endure even if Biden prevails in November<\/a>. Biden could reverse some of the Trump administration\u2019s regulatory decisions and move to rejoin international organizations, but it could take time to repair the damage to the reputation of the United States.<\/p>\n

James Wilsdon, a science-policy researcher at the University of Sheffield, UK, compares the US situation under Trump to the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, saying both countries are at risk of losing influence internationally. \u201cSoft power is driven a lot by perception and reputation,\u201d Wilsdon says. \u201cThese are basically the intangible assets of the science system in the international arena.\u201d Whether or how quickly that translates into loss of competitiveness in attracting international scientists and students is unclear, he says, in part because scientists understand that Donald Trump doesn\u2019t represent US science.<\/p>\n

On the domestic front, many scientists fear that increased polarization and cynicism could last for years to come. That would make it harder for government agencies to do their jobs, to advance science-based policies, and to attract a new generation to replace many of the senior scientists and officials who have decided to retire under Trump.<\/p>\n

Re-establishing scientific integrity in agencies where government scientists have been sidelined and censored by political appointees won\u2019t be easy, says Andrew Rosenberg, who heads the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which has documented more than 150 attacks on science under Trump\u2019s tenure. \u201cUnder Trump, political appointees have the authority to override science whenever they want if it doesn\u2019t conform to their political agenda,\u201d Rosenberg says. \u201cYou can reverse that, but you have to do it very intentionally and very directly.\u201d<\/p>\n

At the EPA, for example, it would mean rebuilding the entire research arm of the agency, and giving it real power to stand up to regulatory bodies that are making policy decisions, says one senior EPA official, who declined to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the press. The problem pre-dates Trump, but has accelerated under his leadership. Without forceful action, the official says, the EPA\u2019s Office of Research and Development, which conducts and assesses research that feeds into regulatory decisions, might simply continue its \u201clong decline into irrelevance.\u201d<\/p>\n

If Trump wins in November, researchers fear the worst. \u201cThe Trump folks have poured an acid on public institutions that is much more powerful than anything we\u2019ve seen before,\u201d says Victor.<\/p>\n

\u201cPeople can shake some of these things off after one term, but to have him elected again, given everything he has done, that would be extraordinary. And the damage done would be much greater.\u201d<\/p>\n

_____________________________________________<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Nature<\/span> 586, 190-194 (2020)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Update 7 Oct 2020<\/strong>: This story has been updated with new details of the president\u2019s health status.<\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original – nature.com<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

5 Oct 2020 – The US president\u2019s actions have exacerbated the pandemic that has killed more than 200,000 people in the United States, rolled back environmental and public-health regulations and undermined science and scientific institutions. Some of the harm could be permanent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":170167,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[145],"tags":[867,1829,1868,392,1864,304,1447,249,70],"class_list":["post-170166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-science","tag-anglo-america","tag-coronavirus","tag-covid-19","tag-elections","tag-pandemic","tag-science","tag-science-and-medicine","tag-trump","tag-usa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170166","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=170166"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170166\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/170167"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}