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

Pexels

By Ketura Persellin

Global consumption of beef, lamb and goat is expected to rise by almost 90 percent between 2010 and 2050. But that doesn't mean you need to eat more meat. In fact, recent news from Washington gives you even less confidence in your meat: Pork inspections may be taken over by the industry itself, if a Trump administration proposal goes into effect, putting tests for deadly pathogens into the hands of line workers.

Read More Show Less
Pexels

By Kaitlyn Berkheiser

While enjoying an occasional alcoholic beverage is unlikely to harm your health, drinking in excess can have substantial negative effects on your body and well-being.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored
MStudioImages / E+ / Getty Images

By Jillian Kubala, MS, RD

Backpacking is an exciting way to explore the wilderness or travel to foreign countries on a budget.

Read More Show Less
Tim P. Whitby / 21st Century Fox / Getty Images

The beauty products we put on our skin can have important consequences for our health. Just this March, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that some Claire's cosmetics had tested positive for asbestos. But the FDA could only issue a warning, not a recall, because current law does not empower the agency to do so.

Michelle Pfeiffer wants to change that.

The actress and Environmental Working Group (EWG) board member was spotted on Capitol Hill Thursday lobbying lawmakers on behalf of a bill that would increase oversight of the cosmetics industry, The Washington Post reported.

Read More Show Less
A protest march against the Line 3 pipeline in St. Paul, Minnesota on May 18, 2018. Fibonacci Blue / CC BY 2.0

By Collin Rees

We know that people power can stop dangerous fossil fuel projects like the proposed Line 3 tar sands oil pipeline in Minnesota, because we've proved it over and over again — and recently we've had two more big wins.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored
Scientists released a study showing that a million species are at risk for extinction, but it was largely ignored by the corporate news media. Danny Perez Photography / Flickr / CC

By Julia Conley

Scientists at the United Nations' intergovernmental body focusing on biodiversity sounded alarms earlier this month with its report on the looming potential extinction of one million species — but few heard their calls, according to a German newspaper report.

Read More Show Less
DoneGood

By Cullen Schwarz

Ethical shopping is a somewhat new phenomenon. We're far more familiar with the "tried and tested" methods of doing good, like donating our money or time.

Read More Show Less
Pixabay

Summer is fast approaching, which means it's time to stock up on sunscreen to ward off the harmful effects of sun exposure. Not all sunscreens are created equally, however.

Read More Show Less