IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0231929.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived losses of scientific integrity under the Trump administration: A survey of federal scientists

Author

Listed:
  • Gretchen T Goldman
  • Jacob M Carter
  • Yun Wang
  • Janice M Larson

Abstract

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. However, no study to-date has empirically measured how federal scientists perceive the Trump administration with respect to their scientific work.In 2018, we distributed a survey to over 63,000 federal scientists from 16 federal agencies to assess their perception of scientific integrity. Here we discuss the results of this survey for a subset of these agencies: Department of Interior (DOI) agencies (the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the US Geological Survey, and the National Park Service); the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). We focus our analysis to 10 key questions fitting within three core categories that relate to perceptions of integrity in science. Additionally, we analyzed responses across agencies and compare responses in the 2018 survey to prior year surveys of federal scientists with similar survey questions. Our results indicate that federal scientists perceive losses of scientific integrity under the Trump Administration. Perceived loss of integrity in science was greater at the DOI and EPA where federal scientists ranked incompetent and untrustworthy leadership as top barriers to science-based decision-making, but this was not the case at the CDC, FDA, and NOAA where scientists positively associated leadership with scientific integrity. We also find that reports of political interference in scientific work and adverse work environments were higher at EPA and FWS in 2018 than in prior years. We did not find similar results at the CDC and FDA. These results suggest that leadership, positive work environments, and clear and comprehensive scientific integrity policies and infrastructure within agencies play important roles in how federal scientists perceive their agency’s scientific integrity.

Suggested Citation

  • Gretchen T Goldman & Jacob M Carter & Yun Wang & Janice M Larson, 2020. "Perceived losses of scientific integrity under the Trump administration: A survey of federal scientists," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-26, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0231929
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231929
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231929
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0231929&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0231929?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chris Woolston, 2018. "Satisfaction in science," Nature, Nature, vol. 562(7728), pages 611-614, October.
    2. Aarti Gupta, 2010. "Transparency in Global Environmental Governance: A Coming of Age?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 10(3), pages 1-9, August.
    3. Gamper-Rabindran, Shanti & Timmins, Christopher, 2013. "Does cleanup of hazardous waste sites raise housing values? Evidence of spatially localized benefits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(3), pages 345-360.
    4. Kerkvliet, Joe & Langpap, Christian, 2007. "Learning from endangered and threatened species recovery programs: A case study using U.S. Endangered Species Act recovery scores," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 499-510, August.
    5. Jessica M Faupel-Badger & David E Nelson & Grant Izmirlian, 2017. "Career Satisfaction and Perceived Salary Competitiveness among Individuals Who Completed Postdoctoral Research Training in Cancer Prevention," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, January.
    6. Esther Turnhout & Marian Stuiver & Judith Klostermann & Bette Harms & Cees Leeuwis, 2013. "New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(3), pages 354-365, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lucija Muehlenbachs & Elisheba Spiller & Christopher Timmins, 2015. "The Housing Market Impacts of Shale Gas Development," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(12), pages 3633-3659, December.
    2. Guignet, Dennis & Jenkins, Robin R. & Belke, James & Mason, Henry, 2023. "The property value impacts of industrial chemical accidents," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    3. Serhat Burmaoglu & Ozcan Saritas, 2019. "An evolutionary analysis of the innovation policy domain: Is there a paradigm shift?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 823-847, March.
    4. Brunet, Lucas & Tuomisaari, Johanna & Lavorel, Sandra & Crouzat, Emilie & Bierry, Adeline & Peltola, Taru & Arpin, Isabelle, 2018. "Actionable knowledge for land use planning: Making ecosystem services operational," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-34.
    5. Nicolai V. Kuminoff, 2018. "Can Understanding Spatial Equilibria Enhance Benefit Transfers for Environmental Policy Evaluation?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(3), pages 591-608, March.
    6. Markus Dressel, 2022. "Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    7. Pierre Squevin & Valérie Pattyn & Jens Jungblut & Sonja Blum, 2024. "There, across the border – political scientists and their boundary-crossing work," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 437-457, June.
    8. Zhang, Congwen & Boyle, Kevin J. & Kuminoff, Nicolai V., 2015. "Partial identification of amenity demand functions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 180-197.
    9. Kitchens, Carl & Wallace, Cullen T., 2022. "The impact of place-based poverty relief: Evidence from the Federal Promise Zone Program," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    10. Karen Clay & Margarita Portnykh & Edson Severnini, 2021. "Toxic Truth: Lead and Fertility," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 8(5), pages 975-1012.
    11. Mei, Yingdan & Qiu, Jixiang & Wu, Jialu & Meng, Lina, 2021. "Do residents care about urban dumps? Evidence from individual housing transaction data," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. Steve Gibbons & Stephan Heblich & Esther Lho & Christopher Timmins, 2016. "Fear of Fracking? The Impact of the Shale Gas Exploration on House Prices in Britain," SERC Discussion Papers 0207, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    13. Zhaohua Zhang & Derrick Robinson & Diane Hite, 2018. "Racial Residential Segregation: Measuring Location Choice Attributes of Environmental Quality and Self-Segregation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, April.
    14. Guoying Deng & Manuel A. Hernandez & Shu Xu, 2020. "When Power Plants Leave Town: Environmental Quality and the Housing Market in China," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(4), pages 751-780, December.
    15. Olejniczak, Karol & Wojtowicz, Dominika, 2016. "Innowacje w kształceniu kadr analitycznych administracji. Przykład szkolenia opartego na grze," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 3(3), pages 1-16, April.
    16. Fouad Khan & Benjamin K. Sovacool, 2016. "Testing the efficacy of voluntary urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 141-154, November.
    17. Teresa Kramarz & Susan Park, 2016. "Accountability in Global Environmental Governance: A Meaningful Tool for Action?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 16(2), pages 1-21, May.
    18. Semenova, Vira, 2023. "Debiased machine learning of set-identified linear models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(2), pages 1725-1746.
    19. Rivera, Nathaly M. & Loveridge, Scott, 2022. "Coal-to-gas fuel switching and its effects on housing prices," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    20. Mónica Ramos-Mejía & Alejandro Balanzo, 2018. "What It Takes to Lead Sustainability Transitions from the Bottom-Up: Strategic Interactions of Grassroots Ecopreneurs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0231929. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.