COVID-19 and the academy: opinions and experiences of university-based scientists in the U.S.

The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted global public health and economies, particularly in the United States. The pandemic's effects on universities and scientific research are widely documented in the media and scholarly literature. Existing evidence suggests that restricted access to university resources, decreased research time, reduced international collaborations, and diversion of resources from other research priorities are common consequences. Further, concerns exist that the long-term impacts may disproportionately affect women, underrepresented minorities, early-career researchers, those with childcare responsibilities, and graduate students. Much of this evidence is anecdotal or discipline-specific. The pandemic also created new research areas (monitoring, diagnostics, vaccines) but raised concerns about surveillance technologies infringing on privacy rights and expedited approvals compromising public health. This study addresses these knowledge gaps by analyzing the experiences and opinions of a probability-based sample of U.S. university-based scientists regarding the pandemic's impact on their work and related policies.

The introduction cites numerous studies highlighting the negative impacts of COVID-19 on academic research, including disruptions to lab work, collaborations, student employment, and publications. Existing literature points to a disproportionate impact on women, underrepresented minorities, and early-career researchers, often due to increased childcare and family responsibilities. The literature also notes concerns regarding the potential compromise of scientific standards and the ethical implications of surveillance technologies and accelerated approval processes for new tests and vaccines. However, the introduction highlights a lack of comprehensive and representative data on the full range of impacts across various scientific disciplines and subgroups within the scientific community. The current research aims to fill this gap.

A national survey was conducted by the Center for Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy Studies at Arizona State University. The survey instrument, developed in March 2020, included 67 questions assessing impacts on research, COVID-19 research participation, opinions on research policies, and personal exposure to COVID-19. The study employed a one-stage cluster sample design, randomly selecting 20 universities from a list of 131 R1 Carnegie-classified research institutions, ensuring geographic representation. The sample included faculty in biology, biochemistry, and civil and environmental engineering departments. The online survey, administered in May 2020, had a response rate of 29.6%. The completed sample was weighted by gender and academic field. Descriptive statistics, crosstabulations, and chi-square tests were used to analyze the data. To control for multiple comparisons, only p-values < 0.001 were reported. Geographic location was classified based on CDC hotspot designations. Nonresponse bias analysis was also conducted.

The survey revealed that 93% of scientists experienced at least one major negative impact, with university closures being the most prevalent (66%). Lab work disruptions (17%), disruptions to student employment (45%), and collaboration disruptions (40%) were also frequently cited. Significant differences were observed across subgroups: Women reported significantly greater difficulties concentrating on research compared to men (χ² = 12.6, df = 1, p < 0.001). Assistant professors experienced significantly more childcare responsibilities (χ² = 23.62, df = 1, p < 0.001) and difficulties concentrating (χ² = 13.9, df = 1, p < 0.001) than other ranks. Despite the prevalence of negative impacts, 52% of respondents reported at least one positive impact. Regarding policy opinions, scientists were divided on surveillance technologies, with 53% believing they are necessary but require better regulation. Opinions on suspending FDA approval processes for new tests and vaccines were also mixed, with a majority (63%) believing the benefits of expedited vaccine approvals outweigh the risks for vaccines but more balanced opinions on testing diagnostics.

The findings highlight the significant, multifaceted negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the productivity and well-being of U.S. university-based scientists. The disproportionate effects on women and assistant professors underscore the need for targeted interventions to mitigate these disparities. The high prevalence of negative impacts and the existence of positive impacts, in roughly equal numbers, suggest the complexity of the pandemic's effects on academia. Divergent views on COVID-19 research policies indicate the need for further research to understand the nuances of these complex issues and to inform policy decisions. These findings resonate with previous research on gender disparities in academia and emphasize the need for institutional support and policies to address the challenges faced by women and early-career scientists.

This study provides valuable insights into the diverse experiences and opinions of U.S. university-based scientists during the COVID-19 pandemic. The significant negative impacts, particularly for women and assistant professors, along with the varied perspectives on research policies, highlight the need for comprehensive support systems and careful policy-making considerations. Future research should expand to include a broader range of disciplines and investigate the long-term effects of the pandemic on scientific productivity and equity in academia.

The study's limitations include its focus on biologists, biochemists, and civil and environmental engineers, limiting generalizability to other fields. The lack of data on race and ethnicity prevents a full analysis of the pandemic's differential impacts on diverse groups. The moderate response rate also warrants cautious interpretation of the findings. Future research should aim to address these limitations by incorporating a more diverse sample and including measures of race and ethnicity to fully capture the wide-ranging impacts of COVID-19 on the scientific workforce.