Quantcast

New Survey of 63,000 Scientists Across 16 U.S. Agencies Details How Trump Is 'Sidelining Science'

Science
Matthew Roth / Flickr / CC BY-NC 2.0

By Jessica Corbett

A new survey of 63,000 scientific experts across 16 federal agencies reveals that as the Trump administration continues to brazenly attack national environmental regulations, it is also "sidelining science" within agencies, with staffers reporting issues including "censorship and self-censorship, political interference in scientists' work, low morale, decreased agency effectiveness, and dwindling resources."


Partnering with the Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology at Iowa State University, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) conducted the survey in February and March of 2018, after spending more than a year documenting the federal government's "abysmal" record on science policy since President Donald Trump took office.

UCS compiled the responses into a report that outlines how "federal scientists are doing the best they can, but many report that they lack the resources and institutional support to inform agency decisions most effectively."

Many said they feel agency "leadership, including officials lacking scientific expertise, are wasting taxpayer dollars through counterproductive reorganizations and clampdowns on scientists' ability to share their knowledge with the public."

Among those surveyed, the report states there is also widespread concern that "science-based federal agencies are losing critical expertise and capacity due to early retirements, buyouts, sustained hiring freezes, and other departures of scientists from government service."

And while some scientists have voluntarily left their government jobs—some out of frustration—or had their roles eliminated under Trump, other science positions simply remain vacant. As of June, the report notes that the president had only filled "25 of the 83 government posts that the National Academy of Sciences designates as 'scientist appointees.'"

UCS researcher and report co-author Jacob Carter said that while issues of political interference, staff cuts, and lack of qualified leadership are plaguing "many of the critical science agencies—especially the agencies that handle environmental regulation," scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report that "their leadership respects their work and includes them in the policymaking process."

Despite the few agencies that seem to be surviving Trump's well-documented war on science better than the rest, Andrew Rosenberg, director of UCS's Center for Science and Democracy, warned, "the challenges we're seeing for scientists in the Trump administration are serious."

"When federal scientists can't carry out their work, it's the public that suffers," explained Charise Johnson, a UCS research analyst who worked on the survey. "When you can't research threats and share accurate information with the public, there are real consequences. People depend on federal science to protect them from pollution, chemical exposure, and natural disasters."

"We can't afford to have these agencies hollowed out or let their work be manipulated for political reasons," concluded Rosenberg, who formerly served as senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

In addition to outlining trends among scientists' responses and emphasizing concerns about the challenges that federal scientists are facing in the Trump era, the report offers several recommendations for actions that agency leaders can take "to ensure that sound science informs policies vital to the American people's health and safety."

The report urges agency leadership to:

  • show respect for the value of independent science and publicly support agency science;
  • act to reduce inappropriate industry influence on agency scientific work and science-based policy decisions;
  • foster an environment conducive to effective work for agency scientists;
  • stop censoring results or terminology that are legitimate products of the scientific process;
  • encourage scientists to speak freely to the public and the news media about their work;
  • remove barriers to the timely public dissemination of scientific information;
  • provide appropriate resources and time for federal scientists to participate in professional meetings and other professional development opportunities; and
  • continue to facilitate training on scientific integrity policies and whistleblower rights.

Reposted with permission from our media associate Common Dreams.

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Pick one of these nine activism styles, and you can start making change. YES! Illustrations by Delphine Lee

By Cathy Brown

Most of us have heard about UN researchers warning that we need to make dramatic changes in the next 12 years to limit our risk of extreme heat, drought, floods and poverty caused by climate change. Report after report about a bleak climate future can leave people in despair.

Read More Show Less
Jamie Grill Photography / Getty Images

Losing weight, improving heart health and decreasing your chances for metabolic diseases like diabetes may be as simple as cutting back on a handful of Oreos or saying no to a side of fries, according to a new study published in the journal The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored
Golde Wallingford submitted this photo of "Pure Joy" to EcoWatch's first photo contest. Golde Wallingford

EcoWatch is pleased to announce our third photo contest!

Read More Show Less
A boy gives an impromptu speech about him not wanting to die in the next 10 years during the protest on July 15. The Scottish wing of the Extinction Rebellion environmental group of Scotland locked down Glasgow's Trongate for 12 hours in protest of climate change. Stewart Kirby / SOPA Images / LightRocket / Getty Images

It's important to remember that one person can make a difference. From teenagers to world-renowned scientists, individuals are inspiring positive shifts around the world. Maybe you won't become a hard-core activist, but this list of people below can inspire simple ways to kickstart better habits. Here are seven people advocating for a better planet.

Read More Show Less
A group of wind turbines in a field in Banffshire, Northeast Scotland. Universal Images Group / Getty Images

Scotland produced enough power from wind turbines in the first half of 2019, that it could power Scotland twice over. Put another way, it's enough energy to power all of Scotland and most of Northern England, according to the BBC — an impressive step for the United Kingdom, which pledged to be carbon neutral in 30 years.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored
Beekeeper Jeff Anderson works with members of his family in this photo from 2014. He once employed all of his adult children but can no longer afford to do so. CHRIS JORDAN-BLOCH / EARTHJUSTICE

By Jessica A. Knoblauch

It's been a particularly terrible summer for bees. Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it is allowing the bee-killing pesticide sulfoxaflor back on the market. And just a few weeks prior, the USDA announced it is suspending data collection for its annual honeybee survey, which tracks honeybee populations across the U.S., providing critical information to farmers and scientists.

Read More Show Less

tommaso79 / iStock / Getty Images Plus

By Rachel Licker

As a new mom, I've had to think about heat safety in many new ways since pregnant women and young children are among the most vulnerable to extreme heat.

Read More Show Less
Pexels

By Kris Gunnars, BSc

It's easy to get confused about which foods are healthy and which aren't.

Read More Show Less