2
How concerned are you about the stability of official scientific conclusions across changes in government administration?
Results
(173 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- 5 — Very concerneduser-824179Strongly agree — official scientific conclusions should be stable across changes in government administration, because they’re based on evidence, methods, and peer review rather than politics.That said, I’m concerned about stability when:
- agencies or funding shift in ways that change what gets studied or how quickly results are updated,
- political leadership pressures interpretation, labeling, or risk/uncertainty communication,
- regulatory standards are revised based on non-scientific priorities.
- 4user-287804I think it happens unfortunately that scientific findings are overstated when provided to the public by government administration. and the general public does not critically consider new findings or question results when they come from government sources.
- 5 — Very concerneduser-475346The FDA leadership is being decimated, for example, while the administration searches for people who can enact their agenda that is shaped by politics and not by science.
- 5 — Very concerneduser-643805Every administration has sought to spin science in some way, but the current administration is off the charts in its criticism of, dismissal of, and disingenuous statements concerning science and medicine.
- 5 — Very concerneduser-362477EVERY administration bends the scientific evidence to fit their policy goals. This is not exclusive to the current administration, as most would have us believe.
- 5 — Very concerneduser-781581There has been governmental officials (i.g., CDC Director) who have not been adequately trained to interpret scientific data but misinterpret the data in scientific publications to come up with unjustifiable policy, as seen in the recent cases of childhood vaccination and COVID vaccination.
- 4user-957551Until the Trump madhouse, I was not very concerned. But MAGA has now made scientific research into a political animal. So, now I'm quite concerned.
- 2user-616480The idea of "Official scientific conclusions" is probably concerning, since many of these change over time as more evidence comes to light.
- 4user-169864Positions should not change according to ideology
- 5 — Very concerneduser-269790This government has politicised science with utter disregard for truth and public health.
- 5 — Very concerneduser-284488The current administration has undermined science in general and is replacing facts with unsubstantiated views.
- 4user-593562Consistency in evidence-based policies is critical for public trust and institutional stability. When government administrations change, there is a risk that political agendas may override long-term scientific consensus, leading to abrupt policy shifts. In healthcare quality and public health, such instability can confuse the public and undermine the credibility of professional scientific bodies.
- 4user-827732Changes in government come with many other factors, such as the bias of the administrators towards other agendas that may lead to alteration of some scientific conclusions
- 3user-773118NA
- 4user-183027Same as above. In case the confidence in the scientific impartiality of the consecutive governmental administrations is not well proved, concerns about the scientific soundness and reliability may arise.
- 4user-820764Concerned in countries where there is censorship (e.g. currently USA and climate change/vulnerability topics)
- 4user-269814Climate change priorities dramatically degraded by president Trump.
- 5 — Very concerneduser-353196I am very concerned. Scientific conclusions typically emerge from years—often decades—of cumulative research, peer review, and methodological refinement. When a change in government can abruptly reverse or reinterpret these conclusions, it introduces instability that is damaging on multiple levels. It undermines the credibility of science, erodes public trust, and devalues the sustained efforts of scientific communities who work to generate knowledge for the benefit of society, economies, and global well‑being. Such volatility also weakens long‑term policy planning, particularly in areas like public health, environmental protection, and food safety, where continuity of scientific guidance is essential.
- 3user-801799Not concerned in the UK context. Very concerned in the US context.
- 5 — Very concerneduser-547401Recent changes at NIH, EPA, and FDA have demonstrated that conclusions reached, information disseminated, funded or prioritized is affected by changes in Government. This is very concerning because it is led to manipulation of scientific process. Not only this hurts American public, US drug developers but also undermines credibility of once highly respected institutions in the eyes of international communities and counterparts of international organizations.
- 5 — Very concerneduser-164084Political leanings and views have influenced some governments in the way they view and adopt policies surrounding major scientific conclusions.
Some scientific findings may be classified as either left leaning or right and or centre leaning. In that case certain government may subjectively classify major scientific outcomes depending on whether it suits or conflicts with the government agenda. - 5 — Very concerneduser-328496The scientific data and conclusions are the basis for the governmental decisions, and the decisions should clearly indicate how they were taken and how differing positions were weighed and integrated in the decisions and why.
- 5 — Very concerneduser-622993We hear about some interventions by government, but we probably don't hear all. It undermines public trust in official websites and documents.
- 4user-917234Historically each new goverment has overruleed the previous government's health policies so it is definetly a concern.
- 3user-294159NA
- 5 — Very concerneduser-33865I seems that the government is taking important decision base on the opinion of people that has not scientific knowledge, but strong ideological and political opinions
- 5 — Very concerneduser-69551Scientific perspectives should be based on actual evidence and only evolve through a stringent peer review procedure and not through the influence of changes in political administration.
Scientific findings dismissed for ideological or economic reasons undercut the trust of a broader public and unsettles long-term policy regimes and risks undermining the integrity of science-based decision-making on matters ranging from public health to environmental risk and food safety. - 3user-508016The change of the policies of government the economy as social can alter the dynamic of the scientific activity. This scenario would affect seriously the continuity of some research lines
- 5 — Very concerneduser-541511I am under the impression that the current administration wants to make claims, then generate data to support the claims rather than make claims from data. This has been clear especially concerning autism.
- 5 — Very concerneduser-628084Scientific conclusions are being misinterpreted and miscommunicated due to non-scientist communication that is sometimes influenced by political views.
- 3user-829012Scientific conclusions can contradict state policy
- 5 — Very concerneduser-935064There are inadequate guard rails on Agencies as seen in the current administration.
- 2user-659873As scientific knowledge evolves, why should I be concerned about the stability of official scientific conclusions, if they follow the evolution of the given discipline?
- 5 — Very concerneduser-939376Look into the US and how government is undermining science and facts.
- 4user-890708政府有的时候没有站在公正的立场上。
- 1 — Not concerneduser-274126The government can rule, but not influence
- 4user-113307As previously stated the government does not have enough research understanding and the conclusions drawn from research are based on highlighted text which does not accurately report many of the findings, recommendations and limitations of studies.
- 4user-126116History shows that official scientific positions on topics like climate change, vaccine safety, and environmental risk have shifted with administrations — not always due to new evidence. While scientific institutions retain some structural resilience, the pattern is concerning enough to warrant serious attention and reform.
- 4user-708842Science is Truth and it should be unfazed by the change in Govt. Science should not be compromised in the light of political gain or loss.
- 4user-5378Two words: 'alternative facts'. The public is not a critical consumer of information. Politicians, their political operatives, and industry trade organizations, who are in charge of government agencies or provide political funding, have an ideological agenda and will use false 'facts' and ideological narratives to achieve self-serving outcomes, even when truly factual evidence is contrary to their beliefs. The objective of these ideologies is to generate confusion sow doubt about scientific evidence in order to make their preferred narrative seem equally feasible.
- 4user-819364Recently, scientists, in a bid to win government grants have a higher tendency to tilt their research towards the leanings of governments, and their policies. They seem to target their research ideas to curate the favour of government-appointed grants bodies, hypotheses are gradually being adjusted to be politically correct.
- 4user-259812
Changes in government can significantly affect how scientific findings are interpreted especially on topics such as climate change, public health, environmental regulation, energy policy, reproductive health etc. as these issues are affected by the policy leanings and ideologies of the political party in power or that of a person or group of persons in power in case of monarchies, dictatorships and oligarchies. This problem is more acute in less developed countries and countries with weak institutions and public participation in governance. - 4user-555529It should not have an impact, but it is obvious that different political positions eventually will change how the governments interfere on scientific interpretations.
- 5 — Very concerneduser-349707Unqualified political appointees are filtering and changing information to suit their own biases and agendas.
Further, this is often associated with personal financial gains.
Unacceptable - 5 — Very concerneduser-915My recommendations for successful cloud seeding were taken into government consideration
- 4user-960476A 4. Scientific conclusions should absolutely change, that's how science is supposed to work, but the driver has to be new evidence or better methodology, not a change in who's running the administration. When official positions shift without any visible evidence review, without independent expert input, without a transparent account of what changed and why, it becomes very difficult for the public to distinguish legitimate revision from political pressure. And once that distinction blurs, the credibility damage tends to be cumulative. People don't just distrust the specific finding that changed, they start questioning the whole process retroactively. That's the part that's hard to walk back.
- 5 — Very concerneduser-921616I am deeply concerned because scientific conclusions rely on rigourous methodology, exhaustive study and statistical reliability to eliminate bias. They are not fluid political opinions to be rewritten after an election. There is a sharp divide here much like Chilean astronomer Jose Massa pointed out: “you either believe, or you study”, if you believe without evidence you are just believing, but if you study, you actually have the evidence to back it up. When a new administration alters official scientific positions across political cycles, they are replacing systematic study with ideological faith treating evidence based consensus as a political variable and destroys public trust and lets subjective opinions override verify data.
- 5 — Very concerneduser-740862I fear that possible denialist governments may disregard science as a guide for public policy formulation