The answer below is slightly reorganized to incorporate the edits. I thank @PiotrAchinger and @S.D. for their comments correcting and clarifying this answer.

**Definition 1.** An **affine space morphism** is a separated, smooth morphism whose geometric fibers are affine spaces.

**Definition 2.** A morphism of schemes is a **étale cohomological equivalence** if the pullback maps on étale cohomology are isomorphisms. The morphism is a **universal étale cohomological equivalence** if every base change of the morphism by a separated, finitely presented morphism to the target is an étale cohomological equivalence. A commutative diagram of morphisms of schemes,
$$
\begin{array}{ccc}
X' & \xrightarrow{f'} & Y' \\
\downarrow & & \downarrow \\
X & \xrightarrow{f} & Y
\end{array},
$$
is an **étale cohomological equivalence** of $f$ and $f'$, resp. a **universal étale cohomological equivalence** of $f$ and $f'$, if the vertical arrows are étale cohomological equivalences, resp. universal étale cohomological equivalences.

Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field. Let $n$ be an integer that is prime to $\text{char}(k)$. Let $Y$ be a $k$-scheme. Let $f:X\to Y$ be an affine space morphism. Let $\mathcal{E}$ be a locally constant $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$-module on the (big) étale site of $Y$. For every integer $q\geq 0$, denote the pullback map associated to $f$ by $$H^q(f^*,\mathcal{E}):H^q(Y,\mathcal{E})\to H^q(X,f^*\mathcal{E}).$$

**Question 3.** Under what additional hypotheses is every affine space morphism an étale cohomological equivalence? Does this still hold if we consider non-smooth morphisms $f$ whose geometric fibers are affine spaces?

The reference that I use below for étale cohomology is the following textbook by J. S. Milne.

J. S. Milne

Lectures on etale cohomology

https://www.jmilne.org/math/CourseNotes/LEC210.pdf

**Pullback maps are isomorphisms for affine space morphisms to separated, finite type $k$-schemes.** Although the application is to affine space morphisms, it is convenient to formulate the next results in terms of étale cohomological equivalence.

**Lemma 4.** A morphism $f$ is an étale cohomological equivalence if it is étale cohomologically equivalent to a morphism $f'$ that is an étale cohomological equivalence. Similarly, a morphism $f$ is a universal étale cohomological equivalence if it is universally étale cohomologically equivalent to a morphism $f'$ that is a universal étale cohomological equivalence.

**Proof.** This follows from the fact that pullback maps on étale cohomology are functorial. **QED**

**Proposition 5.** For a class of smooth morphisms between separated, finitely presented $k$-schemes that is stable for separated, finitely presented base change, to check that all such morphisms are universal étale cohomological equivalences, it suffices to check that the morphisms are étale equivalences whenever the target is $k$-smooth.

**Proof.** Since the closed immersion of the induced reduced scheme is an affine morphism that is universal homeomorphism, and since such morphisms are étale cohomological equivalences, by the previous lemma it suffices to consider the case of a reduced target $Y$ of a morphism $f:X \to Y$.

As mentioned in the comments below, using de Jong's Alterations of Singularities Theorem, for every separated, reduced, finitely presented $k$-scheme $Y$, there exists an proper hypercovering $Y_\bullet\to Y$ such that every term of $Y_\bullet$ is $k$-smooth. This is Theorem 3.1 of the following.

MR1748625 (2001f:14027)

Geisser, Thomas

Applications of de Jong's theorem on alterations.

Resolution of singularities (Obergurgl, 1997), 299–314

Progr. Math., 181, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2000.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.446.2452&rep=rep1&type=pdf

By Deligne, a proper hypercovering is of étale cohomological descent for constructible $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$-modules with $n$ prime to the characteristic of $k$.

Since $f$ is smooth, by the Smooth Base Change Theorem, also the pullback $X_\bullet := X\times_Y Y_\bullet$ is a proper hypercovering of $X$, and thus of étale cohomological descent. Thus, we can compute the pullback map from the étale cohomology of $Y$ to the étale cohomology of $X$ in terms of the simplicial pullback maps $H^*(Y_\bullet,\mathcal{E}) \to H^*(X_\bullet, f^*\mathcal{E})$. For every $Y_i$ in the hypercovering $Y_\bullet$, the morphism $X_i\to Y_i$ is in the given class with smooth target. Thus, by hypothesis, the pullback map is an isomorphism. **QED**

**Proposition 6.** A smooth morphism to a separated, finitely presented $k$-scheme $Y$ is a universal étale cohomological equivalence if and only if for every point $y$ of $Y$ the fiber over $\text{Spec}\ \kappa(y)^{\text{sep}}$ is an étale cohomological equivalence.

**Proof.** Universal homeomorphisms are universal étale cohomological equivalences. Thus, the fiber over $\text{Spec}\ \kappa(y)^{\text{sep}}$ is an étale cohomological equivalence if and only if the fiber over $\text{Spec}\ \kappa(y)^{\text{alg}}$ is an étale cohomological equivalence. And then the base change by any further field extension also is an étale cohomological equivalence. Thus, both the hypotheses and conclusion are stable for separated, finitely presented morphisms. Therefore, to prove that such morphisms are universal étale cohomological equivalences, it suffices to prove that such morphisms are étale cohomological equivalences. Moreover, by Proposition 5, it suffices to check this when $Y$ is smooth.

Let $f:X\to Y$ be such a morphism. Consider the adjunction map, $$\alpha_{f,\mathcal{E}}:\mathcal{E} \to f_*(f^*\mathcal{E}).$$ Since $f$ is faithfully flat, the adjunction map is injective. Moreover, by the Finiteness Theorem, Chapter 19 of Milne's book, every $R^qf_*(f^*\mathcal{E})$ is a constructible sheaf. Thus, also $\text{Coker}(\alpha_{f,\mathcal{E}})$ is a constructible sheaf. By the Smooth Base Change Theorem, at the Henselized generic point $\text{Spec}\ \kappa$ of $Y$, $\kappa:= k(Y)^{\text{sep}}$, the stalk of $\text{Coker}(\alpha_{f,\mathcal{E}})$, resp. the stalk of $R^qf_*(f^*\mathcal{E})$ for $q>0$, equals the cokernel of the pullback map $H^0(f^*_{\kappa},\mathcal{E}_{\kappa})$, resp. equals $H^q(f^*_{\kappa},\mathcal{E}_{\kappa})$. By hypothesis, these all vanish. Thus, the generic point of $Y$ is not contained in the support of $\text{Coker}(\alpha_{f,\mathcal{E}})$ nor in the support of $R^qf_*(f^*\mathcal{E})$ for $q>0$.

In particular, if $Y$ is $0$-dimensional, this already establishes that the base change maps are isomorphisms. This is the base case of an induction proof for the dimension of $Y$. Thus, by way of induction, assume that $Y$ is smooth and integral of dimension $>0$, and assume that the result is proved for all separated, finitely presented $k$-schemes of strictly smaller dimension.

By the previous paragraphs, the stalk at the generic point of $Y$ vanishes for the constructible $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$-module $\text{Coker}(\alpha_{f,\mathcal{E}})$ and $R^qf_*(f^*\mathcal{E})$ for $q>0$. Thus, the union of the supports of these finitely many constructible $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$-modules is a locally closed subset of $Y$ that does not contain the generic point. If this union is the empty set, then we are done. Thus, by way of contradiction, assume that the union is nonempty.

Denote by $Z$ an irreducible component of the closure of this support. In particular, at least one of these constructible $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$-modules has a nonzero stalk at the generic point $\eta_Z$ of $Z$. Thus, the situation is preserved by restricting to a dense Zariski open subscheme of $Y$ that contains $\eta_Z$.

Since $k$ is algebraically closed, and since $Z$ is integral, there exists a dense open subscheme of $Z$ that is $k$-smooth. Thus, there exists a dense Zariski open $Y^o$ of $Y$ such that $Z^o:= Z\cap Y^o$ is an integral smooth $k$-scheme. Also, up to shrinking $Y^o$ further, assume that $Z$ is the only irreducible component of the support of these sheaves that intersects $Y^o$. Therefore, on the open complement $U:=Y^o\setminus Z^o$, all of these sheaves are zero.

Denote by $c$ the codimension of $Z^o$ in $Y^o$. Denote $X\times_Y Y^o$ by $X^o$. Denote $X\times_Y Z^o$ by $W^o$. Finally, denote $X\times_Y U$ by $V$. Since $f$ is smooth, by the Going-Up and Going-Down Theorems of Cohen-Seidenberg, also the codimension of $W^o$ in $X^o$ equals $c$.

By construction, the pullback maps from $U$ to $V$ are isomorphisms, since all of the constructible $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$-modules are zero on $U$ (and using the Leray spectral sequence). By the induction hypothesis, the pullback maps on cohomology from $Z^o$ to $W^o$ are also isomorphisms. Now consider the commutative diagram of relative cohomology long exact sequences,
$$
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
\to & H^r_{Z^o}(Y^o,\mathcal{E}) & \to & H^r(Y^o,\mathcal{E}) & \to & H^r(U,\mathcal{E}) & \to
\\
& \downarrow & & \downarrow & & \downarrow & \\
\to & H^r_{W^o}(X^o,f^*\mathcal{E}) & \to & H^r(X^o,f^*\mathcal{E}) & \to & H^r(V,f^*\mathcal{E}) & \to
\end{array}.
$$
By hypothesis, the last vertical homomorphism is an isomorphism. By the Purity Theorem and Gysin Homomorphisms, Chapter 16 of Milne's book, there are natural isomorphisms,
$$
H^{r-2c}(Z^o;\mathcal{E}(-c)) \xrightarrow{\cong} H^r_{Z^o}(Y^o,\mathcal{E}),
\ \
H^{r-2c}(W^o;f^*\mathcal{E}(-c)) \xrightarrow{\cong} H^r_{W^o}(X^o,f^*\mathcal{E}).
$$
Thus, by the induction hypothesis, also the first vertical homomorphism is an isomorphism. Therefore, by the Five Lemma, also the middle vertical homomorphism is an isomorphism.

This argument also holds after quasi-compact, étale base change of $Y^o$. Thus, the stalk at $\eta_Z$ of each of these constructible $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$-modules vanishes, contrary to the hypothesis on $Z$. This proves vanishing of the cokernel of $\alpha_{f,\mathcal{E}}$ and every sheaf $R^qf_*(f^*\mathcal{E})$ for $q>0$.

By induction on the dimension of $Y$, the proposition holds for every smooth $k$-scheme $Y$. **QED**

**Corollary 7.** For every affine space morphism to a separated, finitely presented $k$-scheme $Y$, the natural injection $\alpha_{f,\mathcal{E}}:\mathcal{E} \to f_*f^*\mathcal{E}$ is an isomorphism, and $R^qf_*(f^*\mathcal{E})$ vanishes for every $q>0$. In particular, every pullback map $H^q(f^*,\mathcal{E})$ is an isomorphism.

**Proof.** By the proposition, it suffices to prove this when $Y$ is $\text{Spec}\ \kappa$ for a field $\kappa$. The higher étalae cohomology of affine space vanishes for locally constant $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$-modules with $n$ prime to the characteristic. **QED**

**Remark 8.** As @S.D. notes, when the field $k$ equals $\mathbb{C}$, the Comparison Theorem for étale cohomology and singular cohomology of the underlying complex analytic space reduces this corollary to a result of differential topology: an affine space morphism is locally differentiably a fiber bundle with contractible fibers.

**Remark 9.** Since seminormalization of separated, finitely presented $k$-schemes is a universal homeomorphism, Lemma 4 also applies for seminormalization. Precisely, for a class of morphisms (not necessarily smooth) that is stable for separated, finitely presented base change, to prove that all morphisms in the class are universal étale cohomological equivalences, it is equivalent to prove that every such morphism whose target is reduced and seminormal is an étale cohomological equivalence.

**Counterexample when the fiber dimension jumps.** Consider the case when $Y$ is an integral, smooth $k$-scheme of dimension $d\geq 2$. Let $Z=\{z\}$ be a singleton set of a closed point in $\mathbb{A}^n_k$ considered as a reduced, closed subscheme of $Y$. Let $\overline{X}\to Y$ be the blowing up of $Y$ along $Z$. The exceptional divisor is isomorphic to $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$. Let $X\subset \overline{X}$ be the open complement of a hyperplane in this $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$. In this case, the restricted morphism,
$$
f:X\to Y
$$
is a separated, finitely presented morphism between smooth $k$-schemes such that every geometric fiber is an affine space.

**Proposition 10.** For the morphism $f$ above, not all of the pullback maps are isomorphisms. More precisely, for a $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$-module $\mathcal{E}$ that is étale locally free of rank $1$, the pullback maps $H^2(f^*,\mathcal{E}(1))$ and $H^{2d-1}(f^*,\mathcal{E}(d))$ are injective with cokernel $\mathcal{E}_z$, and the pullback maps in all other degrees are isomorphisms.

**Proof.** This follows by analyzing the pullback commutative diagram of the Gysin sequence from the proof of Proposition 5. **QED**

**Counterexample when the target is not normal.** Let $\mathbb{P}^1_k$ denote $\text{Proj}\ k[s,t]$. Let $\mathbb{P}^2_k$ denote $\text{Proj}\ k[x,y,z]$. Denote by $\nu:\mathbb{P}^1_k\to \mathbb{P}^2_k$ the unique morphism with $\nu^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2_k}(1)\cong \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(3)$ defined by the following basepoint free linear system, $$\nu:\mathbb{P}^1_k \to \mathbb{P}^2_k, \ \ \nu^*x = s^2t, \ \nu^*y = s^3 + t^3, \ \nu^*z = st^2.$$ The image of this morphism is a nodal plane cubic, $$Y = \text{Zero}(z^3+xyz+x^3).$$ Define $X$ to be the distinguished open affine $D_+(s)\subset \mathbb{P}^1_k$. Denote by $f$ the restriction to $X$ of $\nu$, $$f:X\to Y.$$ This is an unramified, quasi-finite morphism that is bijective on points. Thus, every scheme-theoretic fiber is a $0$-dimensional affine space.

**Proposition 11.** The pullback map $H^1(f^*,\mu_n)$ is surjective with rank $1$-kernel $\mu_n(k)$, and the pullback map $H^2(f^*,\mu_n)$ is surjective with rank $1$-kernel $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$.

**Proof.** This follows by comparing the pullback maps of long exact sequences arising from the Kummer sequence. Since $X$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{A}^1$, all of its higher étale cohomology groups vanish. By the Kummer sequence, $H^1(Y,\mu_n)$ equals $\mu_n(k)$ and $H^2(Y,\mu_n)$ equals $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$. **QED**

**Question 12.** Let $f:X\to Y$ be a separated, finitely presented morphism with affine space fibers of constant dimension between separated, finitely presented $k$-schemes that are **normal**. Is $f$ an étale cohomological equivalence? Is $f$ flat (if so, then $f$ is smooth, hence an affine space morphism)?

**Kollár's Flatness Criteria for normal target.** Question 12 has a positive answer by Kollár's Flatness Criteria.

MR1339664 (96j:14010)

Kollár, János

Flatness criteria.

J. Algebra 175 (1995), no. 2, 715–727.

https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0021869385712094/1-s2.0-S0021869385712094-main.pdf?_tid=c9850a97-a4a0-4482-84e6-2e5b863bce01&acdnat=1551275145_19dbfad83504d3662477ba2257220fb8

**Proposition 13.** Every separated, finitely presented morphism whose geometric fibers are affine spaces of constant dimension $n$, whose domain is a finitely presented, integral $k$-scheme, and whose target is a finitely presented, integral, *normal* $k$-scheme is an affine space morphism.

**Proof.** Such a morphism satisfies the hypotheses of Corollary 11 of Kollár's article. **QED**