Search

This paper examines possible causes, consequences, and potential solutions for addressing vaccine hesitancy in the United States, focusing on the perspectives of academic scientists. By examining the experiences of scientists, who are arguably a critical community in US society, we gain deeper insights into how they understand the complexities of vaccine hesitancy and whether their insights and opinions converge with or diverge from the current literature. We present findings from a national survey of a representative sample of academic scientists from the fields of biology and public health regarding vaccine hesitancy and related topics. Empirical analysis using descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses covers multiple topics, including vaccine controversy, trust in science, causes of vaccine hesitancy, preferred policy and regulatory approaches, risk perceptions, and scientists' ethics and perceived communication roles. The results highlight a diversity of opinions within the scientific community regarding how to improve science-society communication in regard to vaccines, including the need to be transparent and candid to the public about the risk of vaccines and their research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stay-at-home-orders, online learning, and work from home policies are some of the responses governments, universities, and other institutions adopted to slow the spread of COVID-19. However, research shows these measures have increased pre-existing gender disparities in the workplace. The working conditions for women during the pandemic worsened due to increased family care responsibilities and unequal distribution of domestic labor. In the academy, working from home has resulted in reduced research time and increased teaching and family care responsibilities, with a larger proportion of that burden falling to women. We investigate the persistence of gender inequity among academic scientists resulting from university COVID-19 responses over time. We draw on two surveys administered in May 2020 and May 2021 to university-based biologists, biochemists, and civil and environmental engineers, to analyze how the pandemic response has disproportionately impacted women in academia and the endurance of those inequities. Results show significantly greater negative impacts from the pandemic on women's research activities and work-life balance, compared to men. We conclude by discussing the implications of our results, and the need for the academy to better predict and adjust to the gender disparities its policies create. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2022, the US Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization to overturn federal law safeguarding abortion rights led to considerable national debate on abortion and reproductive rights. We report the findings of a survey of academic scientists' perspectives regarding abortion rights, state policies, and the impact of the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson . Furthermore, we look at how academic scientists' institutions acted to address the Dobbs decision. Using a 2023 cross-sectional survey, we address the following research questions: (i) What are scientists' views of abortion rights? (ii) How have scientists responded to the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ? and (iii) How are their views different from that of the general public with regard to Dobbs v. Jackson and abortion rights in general? Findings show that abortion was a key factor influencing scientists' voting decisions. We also highlight substantial differences between scientists' perspectives and those of the general population and reveal gender differences of opinions within the scientific community. We conclude by presenting the actions implemented by universities and scholars in response to the Dobbs decision and discuss the implications our results have for both policy and practice., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.)