<<

Assessing ’ Willingness to Engage in “Not only is it important to ask questions and find the answers, as a I felt obligated to communicate with the world what we were learning.”

—Stephen Hawking

2 About ScienceCounts ScienceCounts ​is a 501(c)(3) organization supporting science’s essential contributions to job creation, economic growth, improved health care, national security, energy independence, environmental sustainability, and enhanced quality of life for all Americans. About the Alda Center The Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook empowers scientists and healthcare professionals to communicate complex topics in clear, vivid, and engaging ways, leading to improved understanding by the public, media, colleagues, elected officials, and others outside of their own discipline.

3 Team • Todd Newman, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Life Communication, University of Wisconsin, Madison • Christopher Volpe, PhD, Executive Director, ScienceCounts • Laura Lindenfeld, PhD, Director, Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science; Interim Dean, School of , Stony Brook University • John Besley, PhD, Ellis N. Brandt Professor, College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State University • Anthony Dudo, PhD, Associate Professor, Stan Richards School of Advertising & , University of Texas, Austin • Nicole Leavey, PhD, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science, Stony Brook University

4 The purpose of this study was to assess U.S. scientists’ and STEM professionals’ perspectives on science communication, public engagement, and baseline attitudes regarding science and its interface with society.

Questions that motivated this study:

• HOW willing are scientists to take part in public engagement?

• WHAT goals do scientists have for engagement?

• WHAT kind of help do scientists want in communicating science effectively, and from whom?

• WHAT scientific research institutions do scientists most trust to be non-political?

• WHAT are views about funding and the implications of possible cuts?

• HOW do scientists describe their personal connections to science?

5 National Online Survey An online survey was administered to two separate groups of U.S. scientists and STEM professionals in the fall of 2018: AAU Sample • Representative, random sample of U.S. STEM faculty from member of the Association of American Universities (AAU) • Administered September and October 2018 • N = 516 • ±4% at the 95% confidence level

Society Sample • lllustrative sample of U.S. members of 27 professional STEM societies • Administered October through December 2018 • N = 3,619

6 Section I: Science Communication and Engagement Section I of the survey explores scientists’ and STEM professionals’: • Willingness to take part in public engagement • Goals for and beliefs in the impacts of engagement • Preferred science communication tactics and training The mean responses from scientists in seven key demographic subgroups are presented on pages 8 to 14: politically liberal (LIB), politically conservative (CONS), employed by a college or university (UNIV), employed by a non-governmental organization (NGO), employed by a corporation (CORP), a graduate student (STUDENT), or a full professor/senior scientist (SENIOR). In all cases, a higher numerical value corresponds to a higher level of agreement or urgency. Blue shading highlights the top responses.

7 Willingness to Engage Scientists’ willingness to engage in various outreach activities in the next 12 months. (Scale 1-7) LIB CONS UNIV NGO CORP STUDENT SENIOR

Face-to-face engagement where you discuss science with adults who are not scientists 5.7 5.0 5.7 5.4 4.8 5.8 5.7 (e.g., giving a public talk or doing a demonstration)

Direct interaction with government makers (e.g., meeting with elected officials, 5.3 4.5 5.3 5.0 4.7 5.0 5.4 government officials, lobbyists, etc.)

Interviews with a or other media professional (e.g., from a , , 5.0 4.3 5.1 4.5 4.0 4.8 5.2 online news, documentary film, etc.)

Online engagement through , and/or social networks (e.g. , ) aimed at communicating about 4.7 4.1 4.5 5.0 4.1 5.3 4.4 science with adults who are not scientists

Protest, direct advocacy, or demonstrations about science-related policy (e.g., March for 4.5 2.2 4.4 4.2 3.0 4.6 4.1 Science, march, petitions, etc.)

Society sample only.

8 Goals Scientists’ goals for science communication. (Scale 1-100)

LIB CONS UNIV NGO CORP STUDENT SENIOR

Ensuring policy makers use scientific evidence 90 84 89 89 90 88 90

Ensuring our culture values science 86 77 85 84 85 82 87

Ensuring adequate funding for scientific research 80 73 80 80 77 78 82

Helping people use science to make better personal decisions 78 79 78 79 74 76 77

Getting more young people to choose scientific careers 78 76 77 76 78 76 79

Fulfilling a duty to society 72 69 73 71 65 72 74

Strengthening my own professional reputation 37 44 38 42 35 43 32

Society sample only.

9 Beliefs Scientists’ level of agreement with questions about science communication. (Scale 1-7)

LIB CONS UNIV NGO CORP STUDENT SENIOR

This type of public engagement 5.9 5.3 5.9 5.9 5.7 6.0 5.8 activity can make a difference in society

My colleagues would respect someone who participates in this type of activity 5.1 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.0

Participating in this type of public engagement activity would help my career 4.6 4.5 4.2 4.6 4.1 5.0 4.0

I am skilled at this type of public engagement activity 4.2 4.0 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.5 4.7

My colleagues participate in this type of activity regularly 3.9 4.0 3.8 4.3 3.9 4.0 3.9

My colleagues expect that most scientists will contribute to this type of activity 3.7 4.0 3.6 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.8

Participating in this type of public engagement activity would hurt my career 2.3 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4

Society sample only.

10 Communication Tactics Communication tactics that scientists are comfortable to use. (Scale 1-7)

LIB CONS UNIV NGO CORP STUDENT SENIOR

Speak in a way that helps connect with an audience 6.3 5.7 6.2 6.2 5.7 5.7 6.3

Tell first person stories in a way that helps 5.8 5.2 5.8 5.7 5.2 5.2 5.7 connect with an audience

To talk about science in terms of hope 5.6 5.0 5.6 5.6 5.2 5.0 5.6

To have professional communicators help create a high-quality presentation 5.3 4.8 5.2 5.5 5.0 4.8 5.0

To talk about the role that a desire to help their community or society plays in 5.4 4.8 5.4 5.3 4.9 4.8 5.2 shaping their research

Society sample only.

11 Communication Tactics Communication tactics that scientists are less comfortable to use. (Scale 1-7)

LIB CONS UNIV NGO CORP STUDENT SENIOR

To commit time to making sure that non-scientists feel like they are being listened 5.3 4.8 5.3 5.4 4.8 4.8 5.2 to by the social community

To try to organize a group of scientists to work together to send decision-makers 4.8 3.9 4.7 4.8 4.4 3.9 4.7 a common message

To publicly question the credibility of those who 4.2 3.1 4.1 3.9 4.2 3.1 4.2 disagree with a

To commit to spending about 10% of their project budget to support communication efforts 4.1 3.5 4.1 4.2 3.9 3.5 3.8

To try to get people angry about a science topic 2.3 1.7 2.3 2.2 2.2 1.7 2.1

Society sample only.

12 Science Communication Training Scientists’ willingness to participate in various types of communication training. (Scale 1-100)

LIB CONS UNIV NGO CORP STUDENT SENIOR

In-person workshop with people outside 75 66 77 74 65 80 74 of your organization, but in your field

In-person workshop with people in your organization that work with you directly 71 64 74 72 60 79 70

In-person workshop with people outside of your organization and across different fields 70 61 71 71 60 75 68

In-person workshop with people at your organization that you may not work with directly 69 60 72 68 59 77 67

Online webinars 58 59 59 64 60 61 58

Society sample only.

13 Sources of Support The organization that scientists believe should provide assistance with public engagement activities. (Scale 1-5)

LIB CONS UNIV NGO CORP STUDENT SENIOR

Professional/Academic Society 4.3 4.0 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.3

Government Science Agencies (NSF, NIH, NASA, etc.) 4.1 3.7 4.1 4.2 3.9 4.2 4.0

Your Employer 3.9 3.4 3.9 4.0 3.3 3.8 3.9

Philanthropic Organizations 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.9 3.6 3.9 3.9

Society sample only.

14 Section I: Summary

Goals Analysis demonstrated that scientists and STEM professionals hold many of the same goals and opinions regarding science communication.

Willingness Most are willing to engage in science communication and agree on communication goals, beliefs, and tactics.

Training They are open to receiving communication training, and look to professional societies to lead in offering such programs.

15 Section II: Baseline Attitudes Section II of the survey explores scientists’ and STEM professionals’: • Trust in various institutions to conduct scientific research with no political or ideological agenda; • Awareness of government’s leading role in funding basic scientific research; • Use of words to describe how they feel about science.

Relationships between baseline attitudes and respondents’ political ideology, career level, employer sector, and field of study were explored.

Text under each figure indicate which data sample was used.

16 78 83 Knowledge of Funding 96 80 80 Percent of scientists aware of government’s leading96 role in funding basic79 research as a 74 function of employer, field of study, and personal93 ideology. 85 0 20 40 60 80 100 91 80 BY EMPLOYER BY FIELD 90 0 20 40 BY 60 IDEOLOGY 80 100 83 86 78 83 1 Liberal 83 AAU University 88 78 96 78 96 92 80 80 Large University2 86 80 Moderate 80 Physics 96 87 79 74 Midsize University3 82 96 Conservative 74 0 20 40 60 80 100 79 Small University4 Biology 930 20 40 60 80 100 85 0 20 40 60 80 100 85 93 85 0 20 40 60 80 100 Government 83 Geoscience 91 80 91 80 Society sample only. NGO 81 Chemistry 90 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 Self-Employed 74 90 Math/Comp Sci 83 Corporate 68 83 86 88 1 86 Private Company 88 67 Social Sciences 78 92 86 78 92 86 87 82 87 0 20 82 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 85 0 20 40 60 80 100 Both AAU and society samples. 85 AAU sample only. 83 1 Sixty leading research universities83 in the US 1Anthropology, Archaeology, , Geography, 2 A college or university with more than 35,000 students 81Linguistics, Political Science, Psychology, Public Policy, 3 A college or university with 5,00081 to 35, 000 students , Urban Planning 4 74 A college or university with74 fewer than 5,000 students 68 68 67 67

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 17 Differing Views on Consequences Scientists and the public differ on the area of society that would suffer most if the U.S. loses global leadership in STEM.

PUBLIC AAU SOCIETY NATIONAL DEFENSE 12% 4% 5% HEALTHCARE AND 31% 21% 29% EDUCATION 8% 19% 16% ECONOMY 10% 28% 22% ENVIRONMENT 10% 25% 23% SPACE EXPLORATION 14% 3% 5% NONE OF THESE 14% 1% 1%

Data for U.S. public from national Raising Voices for Science Benchmark Survey, ScienceCounts, 2016 (N​ ​ = 2,021).

18 AMERICAN OVERALL AMERICAN OVERALL BY EMPLOYER (SOC) BY EMPLOYER (SOC)

LIBERAL AMERICANS LIBERAL AMERICANS SCIENTISTS/STEM PROFESSIONALS SCIENTISTS/STEM PROFESSIONALS

BA/BS 59 9 23 10 BA/BS 59 9 23 10 AAU¹ 82 14 32 AAU¹ 82 14 32 Some college 40 17 24 19 Some college 40 17 24 19 Large² 75 15 5 5 Large² 75 15 5 5 HS or less 38 22 21 18 HS or less 38 22 21 18 AMERICANAMERICAN OVERALLOVERALL Mid³ 76 14 5 5 BYBY EMPLOYEREMPLOYERMid³ 76 (SOC) (SOC) 14 5 5 MODERATE AMERICANS MODERATE AMERICANS BA/BS 46 8 27 19 BA/BS 46 8 27 19 Small⁴ 77 10 9 5 Small⁴ 77 10 9 5 LIBERALLIBERAL AMERICANSAMERICANS SCIENTISSCIENTISTSTS/S/STEMTEM PROFESSIONALSPROFESSIONALS Some college 41 12 27 21 Some college 41 12 27 21 NGO 69 15 8 9 NGO 69 15 8 9 BA/BS 59 9 23 10 AAU¹ BA/BS 59 9 23 10 AAU¹ 8282 1414 3232 HS or less 38 18 21 23 HS or less 38 18 21 23 Some college Some college 40 17 24 19 Self-Emp 63 16 8 13 Self-Emp 63 16 8 13 40 17 24 19 Large² Large² 7575 1515 55 55 CONVERSATIVE AMERICANS CONVEHS or lessRSATIVE38 AMERICANS 22 21 18 HS or less 38 22 21 18 Corporate 57 11 10 22 Corporate 57 11 10 22 BA/BS BA/BS Mid³ 25 6 30 39 25 6 30 39 Mid³ 7676 1414 55 55 MODERATEMODERATE AMERICANSAMERICANS Some college 28 8 28 38 Some college 28 8 28 38 Private Comp 54 15 8 24 Private Comp 54 15 8 24 BA/BS Small⁴ 77 10 9 5 BA/BS 4646 88 2727 1919 Small⁴ 77 10 9 5 HS or less 26 19 20 35 HS or less 26 19 20 35 Government 45 35 8 12 Government 45 35 8 12 Some college 41 12 27 21 NGO Some college 41 12 27 21 NGO 6969 1515 88 99 020406080 100 HS or less 020406080 100 HS or less 38 18 21 23 020406080 100 020406080 100 38 18 21 23 Self-Emp 63 16 8 13 Self-Emp 63 16 8 13 CONVERSATIVE AMERICANS CONVERSATIVE AMERICANS Corporate 57 11 10 22 BA/BS Corporate 57 11 10 22 BA/BS 2525 66 3030 3939 Some college Private Comp 54 15 8 24 Some college 2828 88 2828 3838 Private Comp 54 15 8 24

HS or less 26 19 20 35 Government HS or less 26 19 20 35 Government 4545 3535 88 1212 BY IDEOLOGY (SOC) 020406080 100 BY IDEOLOGY02 (SOC)0406080 100BY CAREER LEVEL (SOC) BY CAREER0202 LEVEL040608040608 (SOC) 00 100 100

Institutional Trust by Ideology SCIENTISTS/STEM PROFESSIONALS SCIENTISTS/STEM PROFESSIONALS SCIENTISAmericans’TS /StrustTEM in PROFESSIONALS institutions to conduct non-politicalSCIENTIS scientificTS/STEM researchPROFESSIONALS is closely Student¹ 71 14 8 6 Student¹ 71 14 8 6 tiedLIB to 74their personal ideology 17 (ScienceCounts, 5 4 2016).LIB Liberal74 Americans trust 17 5 4 academia more; conservatives trust the private sector more. Junior² 71 16 6 5 Junior² 71 16 6 5 MOD 58 16 10 16 BYBY IDEOLOGYIDEOLOGYMOD 58 (SOC)(SOC) 16 10 16 BY CAREER LEVEL (SOC) Scientists follow a similar trend. Mid³ 65 19 6 10 BY CAREERMid³ 65LEVEL (SOC) 19 6 10 CONS 37 18 12 33 CONS 37 18 12 33 Senior⁴ 70 16 6 8 Senior⁴ 70 16 6 8 BY IDEOLOGY SCIENTISSCIENTISTSTS/S/STEMTEM PROFESSIONALSPROFESSIONALS AMERICANS WITH BACHELOR’S DEGREES SCIENTISAMERICANSSCIENTISTSTS/S/S WITHTEMTEM BAPROFESSIONALSPROFESSIONALSCHELOR’S DEGREES Retired 76 16 7 12 Retired 76 16 7 12 Student¹ Student¹ 7171 1414 88 66 LIB 59 9 23 10 LIB 5974 9 23 17 510 4 LIB 74 17 5 4 020406080 100 020406080 100 Junior² Junior² 7171 1616 66 55 MOD 46 8 27 19 MOD 46 8 27 19 MOD 5858 1616 1010 1616 Mid³ Mid³ 6565 1919 66 1010 CONS CONS 25 6 30 39 CONSCONS 373725 6 30 1818 1212 39 3333 Senior⁴ Senior⁴ 7070 1616 66 88 020406080 100 020406080 100 Retired AMERICANS WITH BACHELOR’S DEGREES Retired 7676 1616 77 1212 Raising Voices Benchmark Survey, 2016 AMERICANSSociety sample WITH only. BACHELOR’S DEGREES LIB LIB 5959 99 2323 1010 020204040608060800 100 100 Academia Government Philanthropy Industry MOD MOD 4646 88 2727 1919

CONS 19 CONS 2525 66 3030 3939

020204060804060800 100 100 Institutional Trust by Employer Scientists generally trust academia most to conduct non-political scientific research. However, the prevalence of trust in academia varies with where they work. AMERICAN OVERALL BY EMPLOYER (SOC) BY EMPLOYER LIBERAL AMERICANS SCIENTISTS/STEM PROFESSIONALS

BA/BS 59 9 23 10 AAU¹ 82 14 32 Academia Government Philanthropy Industry Some college 40 17 24 19 Both AAU and society samples. Large² 75 15 5 5 1 Sixty leading research universities in the US 2 College or university with more than 35,000 students HS or less 38 22 21 18 3 A college or university with 5,000 to 35,000 students Mid³ 76 14 5 5 4 A college or university with fewer than 5,000 students MODERATE AMERICANS BA/BS 46 8 27 19 Small⁴ 77 10 9 5

Some college 41 12 27 21 NGO 69 15 8 9 HS or less 38 18 21 23 Self-Emp 63 16 8 13 CONVERSATIVE AMERICANS Corporate 57 11 10 22 BA/BS 25 6 30 39

Some college 28 8 28 38 Private Comp 54 15 8 24

HS or less 26 19 20 35 Government 45 35 8 12

020406080 100 020406080 100

20

BY IDEOLOGY (SOC) BY CAREER LEVEL (SOC)

SCIENTISTS/STEM PROFESSIONALS SCIENTISTS/STEM PROFESSIONALS Student¹ 71 14 8 6 LIB 74 17 5 4 Junior² 71 16 6 5 MOD 58 16 10 16 Mid³ 65 19 6 10 CONS 37 18 12 33 Senior⁴ 70 16 6 8

AMERICANS WITH BACHELOR’S DEGREES Retired 76 16 7 12

LIB 59 9 23 10 020406080 100

MOD 46 8 27 19

CONS 25 6 30 39

020406080 100 How Scientists Feel about Science Below are the words AAU and society scientists use to describe how they feel about science. “Hope” and “Joy and Excitement” are the most frequent responses. Responses from a similar study of the most engaged members of the public (Raising Voices for Science Digital Test Campaign, ScienceCounts, 2018) are included for comparison. AAU SOCIETY ENGAGED PUBLIC JOY AND EXCITEMENT 43% 38% 6% HOPE 37% 35% 63% FEAR AND CAUTION 0% 0% 9% BOREDOM AND INDIFFERENCE 1% 1% 3% CURIOSITY AND INTEREST 8% 14% -% EVIDENCE, KNOWLEDGE, TRUTH 2% 4% -% DISCOVERY AND WONDER 1% 3% -% OTHER 8% 6% 18%

21 Process-Minded or Payoff-Minded The words scientists use to describe their feelings about their work may provide clues to the subtle differences in which they connect to science on a personal level. For instance, scientists expressing “joy and excitement” may be more motivated by the day-to-day undertaking of conducting research, hence could be said to be more process-minded.

Joy and Excitement Emotional Reward in the Present Process-Minded​

In contrast, scientists expressing “hope” may be more motivated by the eventual outcome of their research, and could be said to be payoff-minded.

Hope Emotional Reward in the Future Payoff-Minded​ ​

22 A Process/Payoff Map A process/payoff map is created using “joy and excitement” and “hope” percentages as coordinates. AAU and society samples have similar positions, but differ markedly from the most science-engaged public. PERSONAL CONNECTION PERSONAL CONNECTION TO SCIENCE BY IDEOLOGY (BOTH) TO SCIENCE BY FIELD (AAU) 60% 60% 60% 60%

50% 50% 50% 50%

40% 40% 40% 40%

30% 30% 30% 30%

20% 20% 20% 20%

10% 10% 10% 10%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

AAU and society samples with public data from ScienceCounts (2018)

23 A Process/Payoff Map Breaking out scientists by their field of study reveals an interesting pattern where natural scientists—especially physicists—are more process-minded, while engineers PERSONAL CONNECTION PERSONAL CONNECTION TO SCIENCE BY IDEOLOGY (BOTH) TO SCIENCE BY FIELD (AAU) and social scientists are more payoff-minded. 60% 60% 60% 60%

50% 50% 50% 50%

40% 40% 40% 40%

30% 30% 30% 30%

20% 20% 20% 20%

10% 10% 10% 10%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

AAU scientists are represented by -A Society scientists data use field name only Public data from ScienceCounts (2018)

24 A Final Thought about Process or Payoff Subsequent analysis indicates a possible connection between whether scientists are process-minded or payoff-minded and their views of science communication. • Process-minded (joy and excitement) scientists express a slightly higher willingness to engage and to embrace communication tactics that help connect with their audience. • In contrast, payoff-minded (hope) scientists, not surprisingly, are more comfortable with communicating the value of science in terms of hope. Additional research is recommended to further explore whether scientists indeed fall into two camps—the process-minded vs. the payoff-minded—and how such fundamentally different views of science, if real, impact scientists’ attitudes and approaches to science communication and public engagement.

25 Part II: Baseline Attitudes Summary Trust in Institutions All demographic subgroups most trust academia to conduct science with no political or ideological agenda; the degree of trust varies with personal ideology and employment sector. Funding Knowledge More than four out of five scientists are aware of government’s leading role in funding basic research, however, awareness among private-sector and social scientists is weaker. Process-Minded or Payoff-Minded Natural scientists may be more process-oriented and express feelings of joy and excitement toward science, while social scientists and engineers may be more payoff-minded and express feelings of hope toward science, like the public. These differing mindsets may affect how scientists approach science communication.

26 Key Takeaways What’s Similar Regardless of personal ideology, career level, employment sector, or field of study, scientists widely agree that: • Public engagement makes a difference by ensuring science-based policy-making, fosters a culture that values science, and ensures federal funding for science. • Using first-person stories and hopeful themes in a face-to-face setting is the preferred form of public engagement. • More help is needed, especially if professional/academic societies would bring scientists together across different organizations in similar fields in in-person workshops.

27 Key Takeaways What’s Different On some other issues, scientists’ perspectives vary. For instance: • Although awareness of government’s leading role in funding basic science among scientists is high (85%), 1 in 3 privately employed scientists and 1 in 4 academic social scientists at leading research universities remain unaware. • While scientists view academia as doing the best job in conducting research with no political or ideological agenda, scientists who are liberal are twice as likely to trust academia as conservatives, like the public. • Scientists express their personal connections to science in two different ways, those expressing “joy and excitement,” i.e. the process-minded, and those expressing “hope,” i.e. the payoff-minded. These differences may affect how scientists view and participate in science communication.

28 AAU Sample A randomized sample of academic scientists was created from 60 US-based research universities of the Association of American Universities (AAU). Three research assistants gathered email addresses from online sources for faculty and researchers from eight (out of 25) randomly selected departments per university: chemistry, computer and science and engineering, engineering, geosciences, life sciences, materials research, mathematical sciences, physics and astronomy, psychology, and social sciences. From the 14,374 email addresses collected, three criteria – university type (public or private), field of study, and career level – were used to construct a representative subsample for the survey. The survey sample included 6,935 email addresses of which 71 emails returned as undeliverable. After five emails, sent between September 2018 and October 2018, 772 scientists responded to the survey for a response rate of 11%. Of these, 516 completed 50% or more of the survey. The average time to complete the survey was about 20 minutes. Society Sample Twenty-seven professional and academic societies distributed a survey link to their members using emails, posts, and newsletters. Five reminders were sent to participating organizations between October 2018 and December 2018. Approximately 5,000 scientists and STEM professionals responded to the survey. Of these, 3,619 were US-based individuals who completed at least 50% of the survey. The average time to complete the survey was about 20 minutes. Where possible, AAU sample data are used to make representative assessments about U.S. scientists. Society sample data are principally used to explore correlations between demographic and attitudinal variables within a wide array of scientist subgroups – i.e. scientists assorted by personal ideology, career level, employment sector, and field of study. Of note, where the AAU and society sample data do overlap, there is good agreement between the two.

29 Acknowledgements We are grateful to the scientists and STEM professionals who participated in the survey. We’d also like to thank the American Association of Universities member institutions that participated in the study, and the professional and academic societies that helped distribute the survey to their membership:

• American Anthropological • American Meteorological Society • Sigma Xi Association • American Physical Society • Society for Developmental Biology • American Association for • American Physiological Society • Society for Psychophysiological Dental Research • American Psychological Association Research • American Astronomical Society • American Society for Microbiology • Society for Research in • American Chemical Society • American Society of Plant Biologists Child Development • American Educational • Arctic Research Consortium • SPIE – The International Society Research Association of the for Optics and Photonics • American Geophysical Union • Genetics Society of America • The Oceanography Society • American Institute for Medical • Geological Society of America and Biological Engineering • Linguistic Society of America • The Optical Society • American Mathematical Society • Population Association of America • United States Pharmacopeia

30 This study was made possible with the generous support of

31 For more information, contact [email protected]

32