Plate Nº 47 · recorded October 12, 2026
Science Policy & FundingReported finding
Scientists Report Continuing Harms to U.S. Science in Second-Year Survey
A second-year survey finds scientists still reporting harms to U.S. science, suggesting sustained rather than one-time damage to American research conditions.
By Priya Raman3 min read524 words
In brief
- Scientists reported continuing harms to U.S. science in a second-year survey
- The survey was a repeat of one first conducted a year earlier
- Entomology Today carried the report on the findings
- The findings suggest sustained, not one-time, damage to research conditions
- Detailed results, including respondent numbers, were not included in the available summary
A second-year survey of scientists has found that reported harms to U.S. science continue, according to coverage carried by Entomology Today.
The survey's central finding, as stated in its title, is that researchers themselves are reporting ongoing damage to the American scientific enterprise — and that this damage has now persisted across two consecutive years of measurement.
What is the survey about?
The study is a follow-up: researchers repeated a survey first conducted a year earlier, asking scientists about conditions affecting their work. The key word in the reported outcome is "continuing." Whatever disruptions the first survey captured, the second-year results indicate they did not resolve on their own.
Because the findings arrive by way of a headline-level summary rather than a full data release, several important details remain unavailable at this stage:
- The exact number of scientists who responded
- The specific institutions or agencies where respondents work
- The precise categories of harm respondents described
- How the second-year results compare numerically with the first-year baseline
We are reporting what the survey's title and distribution confirm, and nothing beyond that. Readers should treat the picture as incomplete until the underlying results are published in full.
Why a repeat survey matters
In science, a single measurement can be a snapshot. A single survey of scientists' conditions, taken once, might capture a bad month or an unusual moment.
Repeating the same survey a year later strengthens the evidence considerably. If scientists report continuing harms in year two, that suggests a sustained condition rather than a one-off fluctuation. Researchers use this design — sometimes called a longitudinal or panel approach — precisely to distinguish trends from noise.
How should readers weigh the findings?
Survey research has well-known limits, and honesty requires naming them here.
First, surveys capture what respondents say, not independently verified outcomes. If scientists report that their work has been harmed, that is a real signal — but the mechanism and magnitude of the harm need separate verification.
Second, the respondent pool matters. If the survey reached only certain fields, regions, or career stages, the results may not describe U.S. science as a whole. Entomology Today, an outlet of the Entomological Society of America, distributed the item, which suggests relevance to insect-science researchers, but the survey's scope is not specified in the available material.
Third, preliminary or summary-level findings often change when full data are analyzed. Percentages, sample sizes, and conclusions can shift between an initial report and a peer-reviewed publication.
What comes next?
The natural next questions are the ones the available summary does not yet answer:
- Did specific harms — for example, to funding, staffing, or data access — grow, shrink, or hold steady between year one and year two?
- Which scientific fields reported the sharpest effects?
- Will there be a third-year wave to establish a longer trend line?
Until researchers release the detailed results, the defensible conclusion is modest but real: scientists themselves, surveyed for a second consecutive year, say the harms to U.S. science have not gone away. In survey research, a finding that repeats is a finding worth watching.
via Google News: Science Funding (Source)
More from Priya Raman
Show full bio
Senior reporter covering industry trends and analytics at SciBeat.
210 articles
Nearby plates
- Nature Reviews a Year of Disruption to US Science Under Trump
- Washington Post maps damage to U.S. science in Trump's first year
- Survey of NIH-Funded Scientists Points to a Shaky U.S. Research Enterprise
- Science Escapes Deepest Cuts in Latest Budget Bills
- New Study Ties Major Fossil Fuel Emitters to Extreme Weather Risk