3
In your primary area of expertise, when a change in administration has led to a revised official position on a scientific question, what has most often been the driving factor?
Results
(171 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- Changes in the composition of advisory panels or regulatory leadershipuser-287804Politicians questions scientific results and make up their own conclusions.
- Changes in the composition of advisory panels or regulatory leadershipuser-162882Chained nature of political power shift..
- I have not observed administration-driven position changes in my fielduser-643805My specific area of expertise (CBRNE, especially chemical casualty care) has so far seemed mostly to have flown under the radar of government influence.
- Political or ideological influence on how science is communicateduser-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.
- Political or ideological influence on how science is communicateduser-781581Lack of proper training/education among certain governmental officials/policy makers could lead to an improper policy decision.
- Other (please explain)user-769235Transparency is not evident so it is difficult to know what data has been used to make the decision. The change is often in alignment with budgetary decisions.
- Political or ideological influence on how science is communicateduser-957551The attitude of the Trump administration on climate change science and importance of alternative energy generation technology (solar, wind) is the best example of political influence killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
- Other (please explain)user-269790Until the current admin took office, the first two options applied. The third option applies since 2025.
- New scientific evidence or a genuinely evolving scientific consensususer-504565most of the time -especialy in healthcare sectror, scientific evidence is the ipmortant factor on changes eg new paramegnetic contrast agents few years ago, based on scientific evidenve, linear molecules stopped in favor for circus molecules as they (the linear) proved to remain on parts of the body.
- Political or ideological influence on how science is communicateduser-284488The current administration is ideologically centered rather than relying on the best science.
- Political or ideological influence on how science is communicateduser-827732Politics influences what they want to communicate and want others to know
- Political or ideological influence on how science is communicateduser-773118Like in the case of covid pandemics
- Changes in the composition of advisory panels or regulatory leadershipuser-183027unfortunately, this is what happens most of the time in my country
- Changes in the composition of advisory panels or regulatory leadershipuser-738385Subjective opinion by individuals in advisory panels or regulatory leadership can easily influence public policy and action.
- Political or ideological influence on how science is communicateduser-801799There can be legitimate differences in interpretation of scientific evidence. I think that in practice, governments choose the interpretation that reflects their underlying political stance and then use the science for cover.
- Changes in the composition of advisory panels or regulatory leadershipuser-547401Official position of the government changed quite dramatically in the RNA field and Vaccines in the recent 3-5 years. Advisory panels reviewing vaccine and immunization standards were visibly subject to changes in the Government. Positions of FDA, CBER changed dramatically with change in FDA commissioner and change in CBER director. Commitments made by leadership under Dr. Marks were revised and taken back for some programs and it is very well documented. this is leading to confusion, need to scramble and change strategy by the drug developers and ultimately will all lead to higher cost of the developed drug, just simply by prolongation of the clinical trial process. All stake holders- drug developer, patients, their families will pay the price.
- Political or ideological influence on how science is communicateduser-164084As a material scientist with research interest in sustainable materials development and benign manufacturing; climate action advocacy in most cases are trivialized and does not receive enough attention.
In Nigeria, scientific communities have harped on the endemic and uncontrolled used of single used plastic bags.
But there is no clear cut policy on mitigation of plastic pollutants. - Other (please explain)user-328496It is often unclear the scientific basis for the decisions issued and how the data and conclusions were weighed and integrated. The rationale for the decisions and implementation is often insufficiently detailed and justified.
- Political or ideological influence on how science is communicateduser-622993policy-based evidence - e.g. where in government we were asked to find the evidence to support a policy. But it was always policy that caused less harm than good.
- Legitimate differences in how existing evidence is weighted or interpreteduser-917234Evidence can be misintrepreted to support legislative needs.
- I have not observed administration-driven position changes in my fielduser-294159NA
- user-69551Changes in official scientific positions motivated by administrations have not been motivated by new empirical evidence or by a genuine methodological reassessment. The biggest driver has been political or ideological framing, the manner in which science communication is selectively filtered or reframed to fit the interests of the governing administration. These changes tend to occur alongside changes in the composition of advisory panels, but they are best understood as vehicles of ideological realignment rather than as independent causes.
- Changes in the composition of advisory panels or regulatory leadershipuser-508016The government can change the responsible people in the regulatory office, which eliminates laws related to healthcare to improve the companies' earnings. For example, eliminating the nutritional information in food that could damage health, such as sugars, fat, and salt. The stop of control of pesticides in food or materials is also a government decision.
- Other (please explain)user-541511It seems to be driven by personal opinion rather than data driven decisions. It is one thing to disagree with an interpretation of data, it is another to disregard data because it does not align with one's belief of how the world operates.
- Political or ideological influence on how science is communicateduser-935064This is also coupled with changing the compositiono f advisory panels to mesh with the ideology of leadership.
- Other (please explain)user-536440All of the above, censorship of the science, altering the conclusions, weighing the results of evidence inaccurately, cherry picking leaders that continue to communicate disinformation and missinformation, ideology influencing policy and the science, cherry picking the science that supports conclusions derived from ideology or hunches by leaders.
- Political or ideological influence on how science is communicateduser-659873I have experience in the GMO adoption. They have been banned in the EU without any science-based evidence but only for political and ideological influence. Now scientific evidence on the safety of genome editing lets hope for the adoption of this technology
- Political or ideological influence on how science is communicateduser-890708政治意识对科学产生一定的影响。
- Political or ideological influence on how science is communicateduser-113307Policy changes appear to mainly be based on the rhetoric that the specific government or agency want to promote.
- Political or ideological influence on how science is communicateduser-126116In my observation, genuine paradigm shifts in science are rare and slow. When official positions change rapidly following an election or leadership change, the driving force is far more often political framing than new empirical data. This pattern is particularly visible in environmental and public health domains.
- I have not observed administration-driven position changes in my fielduser-708842As far as doing science is concerned every scientist is working in one s own area thai is individual interest, ok . Sometime in line with the Govt policies and priorties, the Departments , Institutes may adopt any policy or thrust area accordingly. However , the scientists are free at their end to pursue their own interest and at the same time contribute to common ,prioritized goals .
- Political or ideological influence on how science is communicateduser-5378In my field there were ideological influence on science communication with the change of administrations from GHW Bush to Clinton to GW Bush to Obama. But holy hell, Trump to Biden to Trump is stunning. Today we see an all out war on science, down to the community level.
- Legitimate differences in how existing evidence is weighted or interpreteduser-819364As a Neuroscientist, I have observed changing dynamics in evaluation of behavioral parameters, Biochemical assays and and underlying molecular mechanisms of physiological pathways and pathologies
- Political or ideological influence on how science is communicateduser-259812For example, regarding the international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions arising from fossil fuel combustion in order to mitigate global warming.
- Other (please explain)user-555529I have not observed this in my field.
- Political or ideological influence on how science is communicateduser-349707Recent trends have been overtly political. (Vaccines, cell therapy, as examples.)
In the past this was not (as) apparent or blatant.
The impact on the research community and public health, has been staggeringly large and negative. - New scientific evidence or a genuinely evolving scientific consensususer-915Successful and safe cloud seeding was a target of my scientific opinions
- I have not observed administration-driven position changes in my fielduser-960476In my field, when official positions shift after an administration change, it's rarely because the underlying science moved. More often its about who's sitting on advisory committees, who leads the relevant agencies, what the institutional priorities are, and how evidence gets translated into guidance at that particular moment. Those are real influences and pretending they don't exist doesn't help anyone. But acknowledging them is different from accepting them as legitimate drivers of scientific revision. If a position changes for those reasons, it should still have to clear the same bar: transparent evidence review, independent expert input, a documented rationale that holds up to scrutiny. Without that, the change isn't really a scientific one, its an administrative one wearing scientific language, and the distinction matters more than people sometimes want to admit.
- Changes in the composition of advisory panels or regulatory leadershipuser-921616In my experience, shifts in official scientific positions following an election are rarely driven by new empirical data. Instead, they happen because the incoming administration deliberately restructures regulatory leadership and advisory panels to match their political agenda. When a government replaces actual scientific experts with leaders who lack a research background or who view scientific investment purely through a narrow ideological lens, the institutional priorities change overnight. This administrative shuffling allows political goals to override established scientific consensus, altering how research is handled and communicated without any actual change in the underlying facts.