A survey analysis across five federal agencies suggests that many federal scientists perceived a drop in scientific integrity during the Trump administration. The findings were published in PLOS One.
“President Trump and his administration have been regarded by news outlets and scholars as one of the most hostile administrations towards scientists and their work,” study authors Gretchen T. Goldman and colleagues say. “However, no study to-date has empirically measured how federal scientists perceive the Trump administration with respect to their scientific work.”
Goldman and her team analyzed responses from a 2018 survey questioning more than 3,700 federal scientists on their perception of scientific integrity within their agency. The five agencies were the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Department of the Interior (DOI) (which included the National Park Service (NPS), US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the US Geological Survey (USGS)).
Results revealed that many federal scientists lacked trust in leadership within their agency. “Across the five agencies, 2,026 survey respondents reported “influence of political appointees” and “absence of leadership with needed scientific expertise” as major barriers to science-based decisions made at their agency,” the authors report.
These responses varied by agency, with FDA, CDC, and NOAA scientists appearing to have more trust in the integrity of their agency’s leadership than did EPA and DOI scientists. While 60% of EPA scientists chose “influence of political appointees” as a major barrier, only 10% of FDA employees and 17% of NOAA employees chose this response. Furthermore, 83% of EPA scientists either agreed or strongly agreed that political interests hindered science-based decision-making at their agency, while 32% of FDA scientists agreed with this statement.
When asked whether they agreed that resources within their agency had been distributed away from programs deemed politically controversial, 65% of EPA employees, 57% of DOI employees, and 47% of CDC employees reported their agreement. The authors share the following open-ended response from an employee at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Talk of defunding global health initiatives has caused my division to start terminating research collaborations with international laboratories that function as infectious disease surveillance sites in Africa and Asia.”
Self-censorship regarding climate change work was highest among EPA and DOI employees. Among scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency, 31% either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I avoided working on climate change or using the phrase “climate change,” though I was not explicitly told to avoid them.” Similarly, 26% of DOI employees either agreed or strongly agreed.
“While the percentage of respondents reporting self-censorship is low,” the authors express, “it is unusual for hundreds of federal scientists to report censoring science-based information.”
A total of 68% of EPA respondents and 58% of DOI respondents reported that the effectiveness of their agency had decreased in the last year. However, 54% of FDA employees, 50% of NOAA employees, and 43% of CDC employees reported no significant changes in the effectiveness of their offices.
Goldman and associates point out that the survey response rate was low compared to previous surveys of a similar nature. They further disclose that leadership at several agencies either discouraged or expressly instructed their employees not to take the survey. Fear of retaliation for taking the survey may have deterred some scientists from participating, resulting in a biased sample. Results, therefore, cannot be generalized to the entire scientific community.
The study, “Perceived losses of scientific integrity under the Trump administration: A survey of federal scientists”, was authored by Gretchen T. Goldman, Jacob M. Carter, Yun Wang, and Janice M. Larson.
