Scientists decry political interference
In survey, they say cuts to budgets hamper work
WASHINGTON – Scores of scientists working for the federal government say that under the Trump administration, political concerns outweigh scientific rigor and budget cuts hamper their mission, a new survey shows.
Scientists also said they censor their own work to avoid getting in trouble, according to the survey released Tuesday. Sponsored by the liberal-leaning Union of Concerned Scientists and conducted by Iowa State University, the survey concludes that scientists fear speaking up – particularly about climate change, which President Donald Trump has dismissed as a “hoax” created by China to gain a competitive edge.
It’s the first major survey of federal scientists and researchers since Trump was inaugurated in January 2017.
“Scientists report widespread political interference in the science policy process,” a report accompanying the survey said. “At some federal agencies, the situation for scientists is worse than it was during the Bush or Obama administrations.”
UCS, which has often sparred with the administration over policy, conducted the survey jointly with the Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology at Iowa State University.
Their findings are based on responses from 3,266 scientists working at 16 federal agencies, including the EPA, the Department of Interior, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Geological Survey. According to the survey:
One-fifth of respondents said influence of political appointees in their agencies or at the White House posed “a top barrier to scientific decision making.” That sentiment was highest at the EPA (32 percent) and the National Park Service (25 percent).
Nearly nine of 10 respondents said workforce reductions in the past year have made it harder for their agencies to fulfill their science-based mission.
About one in five reported they had avoided working on climate change or using the phrase “climate change” without explicit orders to do so. The percentage of those reporting such self-censorship was highest at USGS (32 percent) followed by the EPA (30 percent).
Other agencies included in the survey were the Agricultural Research Ser-
One agency stood out for praise: the FDA and its chief, Scott Gottlieb.
vices, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, the Economic Research Service, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Overall concern was highest at the EPA, where Trump-appointed leadership has been spearheading the president’s deregulation agenda. Few of those surveyed said they feel comfort- able in airing their grievances or being identified when they do.
When a group of outraged climate scientists last year issued an independent study publicly refuting then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s assertion the planet had stopped warming, they decided to use the same satellite data he referenced. Rather than face possible repercussions, the study’s lone federal researcher removed his name.
Pruitt is gone, submerged by scandals. There’s little sign the angst hundreds of scientists associated with climate change research feel has lessened.
That’s largely because plenty of people who have disputed that human activity is the leading cause of climate change remain in key positions, said Benjamin D. Santer, an atmospheric research and climate expert at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. The laboratory is not part of the federal government but does work for it.
Pruitt was replaced by Andrew Wheeler, a former energy lobbyist who has taken pains to emphasize his support for agency employees.
One survey respondent from the USGS said an Interior Department directive requiring that a political appointee review research grants of $50,000 or more to make sure they align with Secretary Ryan Zinke’s priorities “impedes new and ongoing research.”
Faith Vander Voort, a spokeswoman for Zinke, said “asking to ensure that discretionary grants aren’t used for frivolous purposes is sound management, not politics.”
One agency stood out for praise among its employees: the FDA and its chief, Scott Gottlieb.
“The current administration has overall enforced certain science policies which harm the public in general,” according to the anonymous agency employee cited in the survey. “However, the current commissioner is fantastic and committed to the FDA’s mission. He is consistently involved in policy development which allows the protection and promotion of public health.”