SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " scientific " 1,719 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
30 Under 30 Europe Science & Healthcare 2026: The Founders Using AI To Empower Patients And Unlock Scientific Mysteries
These young entrepreneurs, researchers and doctors are improving healthcare, empowering patients and building the hardware of the future.
UL Solutions Inc. Broadens Portfolio with Agreement to Acquire Eurofins Scientific's Electrical & Electronics Business1
UL Solutions Inc. (NYSE: ULS), a global leader in applied safety science, today announced it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire the electrica...
Seneca Falls Park Launches Suffrage & Science Week
Suffrage & Science Week is coming to Seneca Falls! ♀️ Explore the connection between women's rights and the scientific world at the Women's Rights National H...
From Jurassic Park to dreams of AI doom, pop culture shapes science more than we like to admit
The relationship between science and pop culture often looks like a one-way street: scientific discoveries inspire films, television and novels, particularly in science fiction. But the relationship really ...
BGHS students earn multiple honors at science competitions - Sent-trib
Bowling Green High School students demonstrated their scientific knowledge, teamwork, and problem-solving skills at two regional science competitions held on March 14, earning multiple top finishes and one student advancing to the state level.
“AI polls” are fake polls
A few weeks after Donald Trump’s second presidential win, I took the train up from London (where I was living at the time) to Oxford to attend a conference on polls and forecasts of the 2024 election. Most of the attendees were pollsters or academics, but I also watched presentations from Aaru and Electric Twin, two companies that do what is interchangeably called synthetic sampling, silicon sampling, or synthetic audiences. Stripped of startup jargon, that means they use large language models (LLMs) to simulate responses to public opinion polls by having AI agents take on the role of survey respondents. I had already heard of Aaru thanks to some articles with eye-catching headlines like “No people, no problem: AI chatbots predict elections better than humans” in the months leading up to Election Day. The founders were making some big, some might even say far-fetched claims, such as: “within two years, we will simulate the entire globe — from the way crops are grown in Ukraine to how that impacts production of oil in Iraq, trade through the strait of Malacca, and elections for the mayor of Baltimore.” When Semafor asked Aaru’s cofounders — Cameron Fink and Ned Koh — about my boss, they said “we respect all those who came before us.” Nate (as he so often does) shared his thoughts on Twitter: Fink and Koh were relatively good-natured about this back-and-forth when we spoke at Oxford. They even offered to mail me one of the t-shirts featuring Nate’s quote they apparently had made. I never took them up on the offer, which I now somewhat regret. These synthetic sampling companies fell off my radar for a while, but they do still exist. In fact, Aaru recently received a $1 billion valuation. Is what they’re doing anywhere close to the most important frontier in AI development? Not by a longshot, especially when Anthropic just developed a model so adept at exploiting software vulnerabilities that it’s only being released to 40 companies. Still, silicon sampling is increasingly finding its way into public polling. Axios reported in March that “a majority of people trust their own doctors and nurses” based on findings from Aaru — without mentioning that the “people” in that sentence were actually LLMs. Around the same time, the Public Sentiment Institute “boosted” their online sample of 373 real survey respondents with 114 AI agents.1 (Spoiler alert: even the co-founder of Electric Twin doesn’t think that’s a particularly defensible approach.) Polling companies like Qualtrics and Ipsos are also developing synthetic data panels. So, what should we make of these … “polls”? Let’s get one thing out of the way: whatever they are, they’re not polls in the way that term is usually defined. Subscribe You can’t replace polls with AI On one hand, using LLMs to essentially make up fake survey respondents sort of sounds like the dumbest idea ever, one that will at best imperfectly replicate real polls while introducing all sorts of biases. On the other hand, with LLMs improving at a remarkable, perhaps even alarming rate, maybe that means I’m a dinosaur at the ripe old age of 24 because I still want to rely on polls that talk to actual people. I’m not going to argue that synthetic samples are completely useless. In fact, as I’ll return to later, there is evidence that some techniques can replicate topline survey results quickly and cheaply. But the marketing from certain companies can be slightly optimistic. “No traditional poll will exist by the time the next general election occurs,” said Fink in 2024. We’re just 206 days away from the midterms, and based on the fact that I still have to collect a bunch of polls every day, I’d say he should have run that prediction by a sample of AI agents before the interview.2 To see why synthetic samples can’t replace polls, here’s a quick primer on how they work. The simplest version of these models involves taking a LLM (like ChatGPT or Claude), giving it a demographic profile (e.g., a white, college-educated woman who lives in Utah and makes $70k a year), and then asking it to respond to a survey question. You repeat that process a few thousand times using different demographic profiles and end up with a sample of synthetic survey responses. The actual models used by private companies are more sophisticated than this, usually because they incorporate more hypothesized demographic characteristics for each agent and provide them with extra information. Aaru, for example, feeds agents a diet of news and information they’d be likely to consume, while Electric Twin incorporates their customers’ proprietary data about the audience they’re trying to replicate. The way Ben Warner, the co-founder of Electric Twin, explained it to me was “we have a large amount of data on […] for instance, 5,000 people. Can we make an accurate prediction of how they would respond to another question?” Still, it should be obvious why synthetic samples can’t replace polls. Polling is fundamentally a data collection process. We might use surveys to make predictions by feeding them into election forecasts, but the main purpose of a poll isn’t prediction, it’s gathering new data about what people think and how they feel. Silicon sampling, on the other hand, produces no new data. It’s simply a model: you input LLM training data, demographic prompts, and a bunch of other information, and it spits out a prediction for what a poll would say. We love models here, but models aren’t polls. That difference is an important philosophical sticking point for most pollsters I talk to. “I think politics should stay away from [synthetic sampling], because we’re trying to […] represent the voice of the people,” said Natalie Jackson, a vice president at GQR Insights. Democratic pollster John Hagner told me: “I think I’m just incredibly skeptical of this idea. I don’t think it’s research. At that point, you’re asking the machine to tell you what you already believe.” Hagner has seen some presentations of early synthetic sampling experiments, but so far, “if it’s being used in a campaign, people are keeping it incredibly quiet.”3 But Eli, I hear you saying, aren’t polls themselves increasingly governed by modeling decisions? Indeed they are: pollsters’ choices on which sampling method to use, how to define their likely voter models, and how to weight their samples can and do lead to dramatic differences in the results they publish. Aaru even referenced these limitations in the methodology statement included with that maternal mortality “poll” — although I’m using the term “methodology statement” loosely here, because it doesn’t really explain how the model works at all. We can ignore the (frankly preposterous) implication that synthetic sampling isn’t subject to a separate set of biases. The important point is that there’s still a meaningful difference between using weighting and other statistical techniques on actual polling data and using a model to predict what a poll would say. The latter is far closer to election forecasts or techniques like MRP — potentially useful models, but not a replacement for polls.4 To be fair, other synthetic sampling companies are perfectly happy with the distinction between polls and models. Warner compared polling and synthetic sampling to different tools in a toolbox. “The mistake I think we make is we think that these new tools should either work in exactly the same way or somehow replace these old tools,” he said. “Rather than thinking of it as, okay, so we’ve always had the hammer, we’ve always had the screwdriver, now we’ve got a saw. But don’t use a saw to try [to] do the job of a hammer.” A quick comment from Nate Eli didn’t ask me for a comment — rather rude of him, don’t you think? But since I’m editing this story, I figured I’d add a few quick thoughts rather than putting words in his mouth. Beyond the frequently misleading marketing, what bothers me about the AI “poll” hype is that as AI tools make statistical inference cheaper and/or better (note that these are not synonyms) that actually increases the comparative value of collecting original data. You might be able to train a model to make a reasonable estimate of what some hard-to-reach poll respondent would say — say, a young Black man who voted for Trump. (Such a person checks a number of boxes for a voter who is usually hard to reach in surveys.) Indeed, this is closely related to what models like the Silver Bulletin forecast already do. They essentially smooth out the kinks in noisy survey data by making inferences based on past voting patterns or national polls or surveys of other states. But you don’t actually know what these voters think unless you’re reaching them directly. If there’s a shift in opinion among this subgroup, you’re not going to detect it. So if I were running a campaign, I’d invest more in going the extra mile to find a representative sample of those voters. And then I’d hire some smart quants — or Claude? — to figure out the implications for campaign strategy based on proprietary data that my competitors didn’t have access to. -Nate Silver Are these models any good? If synthetic surveys are just a new type of model, the next obvious question is whether the models are at least accurate. The answer very much depends on who you ask. On one end of the spectrum, you have the maximalist argument that synthetic sampling is more accurate than actual polls. “It’s an incredibly challenging problem to go to someone and say ‘hey, we’re going to be more accurate at predicting human behavior than you, even when you talk to your customers directly’,” Koh recently told CNBC. In his view, synthetic sampling isn’t a saw to polling’s hammer, it’s “magic.” There’s certainly evidence that synthetic samples can replicate certain survey toplines. But if Aaru does have any examples of their approach outperforming the polls, they’re keeping those to themselves.5 Aaru’s 2024 election model, for example, had Kamala Harris leading in Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin on November 4th. And although they’ve since taken down their forecast page, they gave Harris a 50.5 percent chance of winning the race on November 2nd.6 After the election, Fink told Semafor he was happy enough with those results because they were “within margin of error,” a term that is completely meaningless when applied to a “sample” of AI agents. And of course, Aaru says their models have improved since 2024, so supposedly now they’d be more accurate than the polls? Still, their stronger argument is on cost: “We are significantly faster and cheaper than traditional polling, and still more accurate,” said Fink. The first two claims are undeniably true, but the third brings us to the opposite end of the spectrum. Both Jackson and Hagner are skeptical that these models are reliable for anything beyond replicating common survey toplines. “I just […] don’t think the machines are what we want when we’re looking for nuanced views. My example on this is people in Arizona and Nevada in 2024 who voted for Trump and voted for expanding abortion in their states on ballot initiatives,” said Jackson. Hagner identified another issue. Maybe the synthetic respondents, like sycophantic LLMs, are inhuman in one important way: they’re too nice. “The reports that have come through at the meetings that I’ve been at are that the early experiments on this, they cannot get respondents to be as racist or sexist or, frankly, as negative as human respondents,” he said. Academic research mostly agrees on this point. While there are some papers that show promising results when using LLMs to replicate polling data, most show that LLMs suffer from various quirks like producing too few “don’t know” responses and can seriously overpredict the favorability of politicians like Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. They also seem to struggle with too little variation between demographic subgroups, so the difference in predicted opinion between Democrats and Republicans, for example, is too small. When I asked Warner about these studies, his response to these papers was that just because academics can’t get synthetic sampling to work doesn’t mean that the technique doesn’t work in general. “Actually, the argument is, okay, yours does not [work]. That does not mean […] for this complex set of machinery, which uses a lot of investment, a lot of time, a lot of money, you can’t get it to work.” Cards on the table, I’m somewhat sympathetic to this argument because academics aren’t exactly great at making election forecasts. Usually, the people with skin in the game are the most accurate. Warner’s argument is that the approach Electric Twin takes — which includes, for example, making multiple predictions for each synthetic respondent using different models and prompts and subsequently averaging those to get a final prediction in a sort of ensemble forecast — produces better results than the simpler academic models. Warner shared a comparison between his method and the method from a recent academic paper with me, and Electric Twin was indeed able to get more accurate replication. But even still, he acknowledged that synthetic sampling “is not a crystal ball.” “If you asked me, do I think using other data sources will be more accurate than asking somebody who they will vote for, I would probably say no. But if you asked me ‘would your system be useful for our turnout modeling today?’ I would say yes.” For better or worse, it looks like the method is already getting more popular in the market research world. Most of the clients Aaru touts these days are businesses like EY and McDonald’s. And AI will probably begin to pop up in other parts of the political polling process. Pollsters are already using it to code open-ended survey responses, and some firms, like YouGov, are testing using LLMs to ask survey respondents questions. More worryingly, one danger to actual polls is that AI agents can be used to infiltrate online surveys. Most online polls use various checks to prevent that from happening, but there’s conflicting evidence on how effective those filters are and how prevalent AI agents currently are in online panels. If those agents ever become impossible to detect, it might spell the end of online polling, but the solution isn’t to replace all of your respondents with ChatGPT. Silver Bulletin is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a subscriber. Subscribe 1 That particular poll obviously doesn’t meet Silver Bulletin standards for aggregation. But we exclude all Public Sentiment Institute polls from our averages because we classify them as an amateur polling firm. 2 You could argue that Fink meant the next presidential election, but (a) I’m also confident we’ll still have real polls in 2028 and (b) in that case he should have asked an LLM to define “general election.” 3 Quick caveat: that’s reporting from a Democratic pollster. It’s possible that Republicans are more willing to use AI in political campaigns. 4 Indeed, Silver Bulletin does not include “polls” produced by MRP in our forecasts or averages, and we think it’s extremely misleading when their practitioners describe them in a way that suggests original data had been collected among a large number of states or Congressional districts. 5 A recent report from Aaru and EY did show two examples of a synthetic estimate being closer than a survey to a real-world benchmark — but I’d take those findings with a grain of salt because the report reads more like an ad and didn’t involve any sort of prediction being made ahead of time. 6 For comparison, our odds for Harris on the same day were 48.2 percent.
A 67-year-old “crazy” theory about vitamin B1 has finally been proven
Scientists have achieved the unthinkable by stabilizing a highly reactive molecule in water, confirming a decades-old theory about vitamin B1’s role in the body. The breakthrough not only solves a scientific mystery but could revolutionize greener chemical manufacturing.
New metal with triple copper’s heat conduction challenges fundamental physics
With performance three times better than copper’s, this new material could substantially improve heat management of electronics, data centers and energy systems
The Science Behind Spring Cleaning [Opinion]
Feeling the need to clean this spring? There’s actually a scientific reason why.
Dozens of hidden lakes discovered beneath Arctic glaciers in Canada
Researchers have uncovered the locations of 37 subglacial lakes in Canada’s Arctic, 35 of them discovered for the very first time — what could be a major scientific breakthrough in understanding the quickly-warming region.
In praise of popular science
As a kid, I was enthusiastically and unreservedly in favor of a manned space program. Our destiny lay in the stars, I figured. Get people out there. We need Star Trek here and now. As I got older, I became rather disenchanted with the idea. Humans are expensive, fragile, and inefficient as space cargo. We could flood the solar system with 100 robotic probes for the price of any single manned mission and get back just as useful data. Besides, it turns out space travel is dangerous. Tusk is a reader-supported publication. To support this work, please become a paid subscriber. Subscribe When it came to the recent Artemis II mission, my cynical side didn’t really see the point. Flying around the Moon and back is literally something we did before I was born, and I once owned a Members Only jacket. Apollo 8 circled the Moon ten times and returned to Earth safely the same month that “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” was released. What was the point of repeating a feat that far braver people once did with tin foil and slide rules? Yet I’ve surprised myself with how moving I’ve found the Artemis II mission to be. The photos have been stunning. The crew has been professional and engaging. There have been modest but important milestones — the farthest humans have travelled from Earth; the first woman, person of color, and non-American to leave low-Earth orbit; innovations in communication, and more. One thing that really stood out is that this is really NASA at its finest. Not that this is the most important mission they ever pulled off, but they did this in a competent way that celebrated the achievements and kept the crew and the science at the forefront of the project. This wasn’t some billionaire throwing celebrities or cars into orbit as a vanity project — this was a collective effort to send experts in to do a job and come home safely. We don’t see that sort of thing much these days. I’m guessing few people would describe many government agencies as inspiring, but this one counts for me. We’re living through a profoundly anti-science era, in which pathbreaking, lifesaving discoveries like mRNA vaccines are routinely downplayed or even vilified. As I’ve noted previously, this era is something like that of the Red Scare in the 1940s and 50s, in which “egghead” professors were portrayed as out of touch or even hostile to regular Americans. One of the things that helped break that spell was Sputnik — the Soviet communications satellite that demonstrated that the United States was falling behind in crucial scientific research and applications. Its launch triggered a new appreciation for American science and goaded the federal government into supporting research universities and labs. I’m not saying that Artemis is the equivalent of Sputnik, but it potentially reminds people that there’s some value to scientific endeavors and the human faces attached to them. Despite my love for the show “For All Mankind,” I’m far from convinced that there’s any real value to putting colonies on the Moon or Mars that would justify the capital investment and the massive health risks to the astronauts. But sending scientific good will ambassadors on a trip into space once in a while? Bring it. Share
Eureka! Flathead Valley students have their moment at state science fair
Flathead Valley students displayed their fortitude for the scientific method at the Montana Science Fair with Kalispell Montessori School bringing home the first-place Division II trophy for its outstanding performance among small middle schools.
Argonne Open House 2026
Argonne Open House 2026Saturday, June 27, 20269:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.Lemont, Illinois Argonne National Laboratory, located just 15 miles west of Chicago, is one of the world’s leading scientific research laboratories. And for one day only, it’s open to the public. At Argonne’s Open House you can spend the day thinking and acting like a scientist and discover how science can answer the biggest questions facing humanity.
White House budget puts 54 NASA science missions on the chopping block
Experts found that the White House budget request for the upcoming fiscal year could defund 54 NASA science missions, including a spacecraft currently studying Jupiter and two planned Venus missions
Physics Professor Receives Prestigious Science Fellowship
A Georgetown University physics professor was named to a prestigious scientific association to honor her work on rheology, the movement and deformation of material caused by external forces, the university announced March 30. Emanuela Del Gado’s research focuses on soft matter — material that exists between solids and liquids, such as gel, glass and plastic —...
A Guide to Understanding Public Health Research Study Designs | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
How different types of scientific studies are designed—and what they can and can’t tell you.
What is the quantum ‘Ghost Murmur’ purportedly used in Iran? Scientists question CIA’s claim of long-range heartbeat detection
Ghost Murmur was described as a futuristic CIA tool that could detect a heartbeat from vast distances. Physicists say the public story clashes with the basic limits of magnetic sensing
The importance of NCAR: voices from science, congress and film
NCAR, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, is a trusted and esteemed scientific institution, and it’s in the heart of the Boulder community. Under the Trump administration, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget has announced plans to dismantle NCAR, citing it as a source of “climate alarmism.” KGNU’s ...
Health experts warn of rising measles cases in undervaccinated communities
A sharp rise in U.S. measles cases is linked to falling MMR vaccination rates and growing immunity gaps
Viewpoint: FP10 should remain open, excellent and secure
Europe is right to worry about research security. Foreign interference is real. So is the misuse of sensitive knowledge. Universities working in sensitive areas such as AI, quantum, semiconductors and advanced materials cannot afford to ignore the geopolitical environment around them.But Europe is in danger of drawing the wrong conclusion, one that would increase, not reduce, its strategic vulnerabilities.If the EU applies an “EU preference” logic to the next Framework Programme for research and innovation (FP10), it will weaken one of its greatest strategic assets: a research system built on openness, excellence and international collaboration. In the name of security, Europe could end up advancing science more slowly, innovating less effectively and making itself less attractive to global talent and partners in advanced science and technology.That would be a serious mistake.The EU preference included in Article 10 of the proposed European Competitiveness Fund may make sense in some industrial or deployment contexts, but is far harder to justify when applied to collaborative research in advanced science and technology, where excellence and global connectivity are crucial. Research is not procurement. It does not thrive when isolated. It advances through access to the best ideas, the best people, the best facilities and the best data, wherever they are found. This is why FP10 should not simply absorb industrial policy logic by default. Doing so would risk importing instruments that are ill-suited to research and that ultimately increase vulnerability rather than resilience.For universities of science and technology, the issue is especially acute. These institutions sit at the frontier of knowledge and technology creation in the very fields Europe sees as critical for its future competitiveness and resilience. They know better than most that security risks are real. But they also know that openness and security are not opposites. In practice, they have to be made to work together. Research security is not about closing doors. It is about building resilience through collective responsibility, trust, proportionate safeguards and better governance. That is a fundamentally different approach from default restriction.The risks of non-collaborationThe real danger in the current debate is that Europe talks too much about the risks of collaboration and not enough about the risks of non-collaboration. Those risks are strategic too. Cut researchers off from international networks and Europe loses access to knowledge, data, infrastructures and talent. Slow down global collaboration in critical technologies and Europe slows down its own progress on cutting-edge science. Make participation rules unpredictable and Europe weakens its attractiveness to researchers and investors alike.In other words, over-restricting collaboration will create strategic vulnerabilities, particularly in advanced science and technologies.This point is often underestimated in policy discussions that frame openness mainly as a value to be defended. Europe’s scientific strength, technological development and long-term competitiveness depend on remaining connected to the best research ecosystems in the world. For a continent that wants to accelerate deep tech, strengthen industrial capacity and reduce strategic dependencies, weakening the excellence base would be self-defeating. That does not mean ignoring risk. Quite the opposite. Universities are already strengthening due diligence, internal governance, awareness-raising, screening procedures and compliance support. Across Europe, institutions are working to manage risks linked to foreign interference, sanctions, export controls and the misuse of research. The right response is not complacency. It is better risk management. But that means targeted, evidence-based and proportionate measures, not blunt top-down restrictions with wide spillover effects. In the daily reality of universities, openness and restriction often coexist. The real challenge is how to apply safeguards without sliding into securitisation that damages academic freedom, open science and international cooperation. Restrict partners, not nationsMore restrictive treatment of collaborators from European Economic Area members Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, or from Switzerland and the UK, is strategically very difficult to justify. These are deeply embedded partners in Europe’s research and innovation ecosystem. Beyond that, Europe should still resist default exclusion and instead rely on case-by-case assessment. The relevant question is not nationality in the abstract. It is the actual risk profile of a collaboration: the institution, the affiliations, the field, the knowledge involved, the intended use and the safeguards available. Screening should focus on institutions and affiliations rather than nationality alone. Related articlesParliament ‘misreads’ link between Horizon Europe and ECF, Commission official saysFrustration grows at governance gap in next Horizon EuropeIf EU preference logic is imported into research without careful calibration, the likely result is a chilling effect. Researchers may step back from legitimate and beneficial collaboration, even where risks are manageable. International partners may see Europe as less predictable. And Europe may end up undermining the very excellence base it needs to compete, scale up and lead in strategic technologies, thereby increasing its dependence on others.FP10 should do the opposite. It should remain open by default, with restrictions used only exceptionally, and then on the basis of clear evidence. It should integrate research security into open science and research integrity frameworks, not set them against each other. And it should recognise that academic freedom, scientific excellence and responsible international collaboration are not obstacles to Europe’s security, they are part of it. Europe needs stronger tools to protect itself. But it also needs the discipline to avoid measures that would weaken it and increase its strategic vulnerabilities in the process. In FP10, that means staying open, excellent and secure.Louise Drogoul is senior advisor for innovation and sustainability at the Cesaer university association.
A Science Strategy for the Human Exploration of Mars
Full report Exploration as a scientific endeavor exemplifies great American innovation. The first human steps on Mars will be a watershed moment for humanity and for science. The endeavor to bring humans to Mars will profoundly change the scientific understanding of the solar system and our place in it. The Artemis Accords (NASA 2020) embody […]
The Boundless Deep: Young Tennyson, Science, and the Crisis of Belief by Richard Holmes
Pantheon Review by Walter Cummins The image of Alfred Tennyson I’ve carried for decades goes back to the childhood card game of Authors that depicts him with a stately continence sharpened by a jutting black beard. He’s formidable, his aura superior. Holmes opens his biography of the youthful Tennyson by describing the similar formality of the imposing Tennyson statue at Trinty College Cambridge, sharing the honor with other Trinity greats, including Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, and Thomas Babington Macaulay. Holmes doesn’t want to chip away at that statue but rather reveal its inner youthful core of the man—tall, handsome, and talented but unformed, emerging from a disturbed family of addicted or insane male siblings and four unusual sisters struggling under a violent alcoholic clergyman father. Alfred was certainly statuesque, but would he end up a block of unformed stone like his equally promising brothers? He was youngest of three equally regarded Tennyson brothers at Cambridge, all bright, handsome, and talented, in fact Alfred regarded by some as less promising than his elders who also wrote poetry. Yet Alfred wrote one of his major poems, “The Kraken,” at twenty, revealing both his talent, his interest in geological forces, and the haunting creature that embodied his anxieties. While Holmes focuses on Tennyson of the 1830s and 1840s, he can’t tell his story without exploring his involvement with the Victorian intellectual upheaval. Tennyson was fascinated by new scientific perspectives, following the latest findings as soon as books and articles were published. He was especially taken with Charles Lyell’s deep studies of geology and the discovery of fossils and a timeline of the planet’s development that did much to question fundamental religious assumptions. The impact of these discoveries is reflected in Tennyson’s poetry and led to the crisis in belief he shared with so many contemporaries. He was especially taken by the cycles of destruction and renewal that informed the struggles he confronted in In Memoriam, Maud, and Idylls of the King. Tennyson was only one of the eventual major figures at Cambridge at the same time, young men just beginning to realize their potential. Charles Darwin was at Christ College, although there is no evidence that he and Tennyson even met as students or later in life. Yet evolution became significant in Tennyson’s thinking and the issues of his poetry. One of Tennyson’s best and most important Cambridge friends was Edward FitzGerald, who became the translator of The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám and in their on and off relationship served as Tennyson’s harshest critic. FitzGerald was also a friend of the novelist William Makepeace Thackeray, the two of them partying in Paris as undergraduates. That connection led to a friendship between Thackeray and Tennyson. Others who came to play significant roles in Tennyson’s life were Thomas Carlyle, the Brownings, and the Pre-Raphaelites. Tennyson’s deepest friend at college was Arthur Hallam, who at twenty wrote a glowing review of Tennyson’s first poetry collection, travelled on European adventures with him, and fell in love with his sister Emily. Hallam was also regarded as one more very promising Cambridge student. His sudden death at twenty-two in Vienna from a stroke while travelling with his father devastated many friends, but perhaps Tennyson most of all. He did not write immediate poems of grief but took years to compile those collected in In Memoriam A.H.H., published in 1850, almost twenty years after Hallam’s death For all of Tennyson’s early poetic successes and successes, Holmes reveals him as an often troubled young man suffering periods of depression, fearing planetary upheaval, concerned about supporting himself, disappointed in romances, and worried that he would inherit the family’s mental illness tendencies. Yet despite his seeming withdrawals, he was always writing poetry that he kept private and would not let go, constantly revising. 1850 became a transformative year for Tennyson. He finally consented to publishing In Memoriam with a last-minute prologue that acknowledged God and perhaps convinced the religious Emily Sellwood to marry him after years of pursuit.. He opened up to Emily, revealing his struggles with fears of depression and “weird seizures.” The devastating event of that time was the stillborn death of his unnamed first son. It shook him, but Emily’s faith brought them closer and convinced him to believe in an afterlife. Two later sons survived. With the death of William Wordworth in April of 1950, Tennyson was named poet laureate at age forty-one, reluctantly accepting. It’s as if Tennyson’s life split in half in that year. He lived another forty years, now a recognized success, with the prestige of being an official poet writing patriotic verse, wealthy and revered, no longer the insecure young man seeking an outlet for his immense talent. He earned a place in the Authors deck, now dignified and in 1884 elevated to the peerage as Arthur, Lord Tennyson. Richard Holmes is the author of twenty previous books on the Romantics and Victorians, several of which received awards. The Boundless Deep was shortlisted for the 2025 Baillie Gifford Prize for Non-Fiction. He captures the complex vicissitudes of Tennyson’s youth, illustrated by frequent excerpts from the poetry, placing that life in the full context of the shattering discoveries that led to an upheaval of thought in the Victorian age.
Immunic COO highlights the importance of science-led innovation to mark World Health Day
Immunic Inc (NASDAQ:IMUX, FRA:10VA) chief operating officer Jason Tardio talked with Proactive's Stephen Gunnion about the importance of science-led innovation in tackling neurological diseases, particularly multiple sclerosis, on World Health Day 2026. Tardio highlighted that the biotech industry is fundamentally grounded in scientific research and data, noting that “everything we do is rooted in science.” He explained that Immunic is focused on developing innovative therapies designed to improve patient outcomes and address significant unmet medical needs. The discussion centred on multiple sclerosis (MS), a complex neurological disease that continues to present challenges despite decades of progress. Tardio pointed out that while advancements have been made, “the disease is not solved for,” with many patients still experiencing disability progression and requiring safer, more tolerable treatments. He emphasised the urgent need for innovation, particularly in progressive forms of MS where treatment options remain extremely limited. Immunic’s lead asset, vidofludimus calcium, is being developed as a novel approach aimed at addressing the full spectrum of the disease. Tardio also reinforced the broader mission of the healthcare and biotech sectors, stating that the ultimate goal is to help individuals “live a better quality of life” and “a healthier life longer.” Watch the full interview to learn more about Immunic’s approach to advancing MS treatment through science. For more videos like this, visit Proactive's YouTube channel, like this video, subscribe to the channel, and enable notifications so you never miss an update. #Immunic #MultipleSclerosis #BiotechInnovation #Healthcare #MSResearch #DrugDevelopment #ClinicalTrials #Neurology #WorldHealthDay #ScienceDriven #VidofludimusCalcium #PharmaNews #BiotechNews
White House Looking to Cut $3.4 Billion From NASA Science
The 2027 budget proposes to end major scientific initiatives in favor of crewed missions to the Moon and Mars.
MAGA Is Winning Its War Against U.S. Science
Source: NBER With all the other terrible news right now, you may not have noticed that Donald Trump is in the process of killing American science. OK, that’s an exaggeration — but not that much of an exaggeration. The Trump administration’s latest budget proposal calls for a gigantic increase in military spending combined with severe cuts to social programs. But as the chart above shows, it also calls for debilitating reductions in research funding. Furthermore, Trump appointees have already been strangling science by sharply reducing the rate at which research grants are approved. Here, for example, is the number of new grants approved by the National Science Foundation: Source: Nature Large numbers of existing grants have also been frozen or terminated, especially in the study of infectious diseases. Add to this a sharp drop in visas issued to foreign students, who often play a direct role in research and who help support academic departments that do research: Put all of this together, and much U.S. scientific research is set to come to a screeching halt — not a few years from now, but over the course of the next year or two. This new assault on U.S. science is taking place at a time when the role of American science in the world has already been greatly eroded. The chart below, based on research recently reported by the National Bureau of Economic Research, measures national strength in science by the share of publications in highly ranked journals. In the 1990s the United States had more such publications than the rest of the world combined. Since then we’ve dropped into third place — well behind China and slightly below the European Union. And this was before the Trump administration’s attack on science had time to take its full effect. Source Some erosion in U.S. scientific preeminence was inevitable given China’s growing sophistication and wealth. But we’ve also fallen behind Europe, even though everyone says that Europe is lagging economically and technologically. Claims about Europe’s underperformance are, in fact, dubious if one looks hard at the data. But it’s still striking to see America lagging. What’s going on? There are presumably multiple factors behind America’s scientific lag. But even before Trump II the growing hostility of the U.S. right to science surely had some negative effect. And since the rise of MAGA G.O.P. attitudes toward science in general have become overwhelmingly hostile. This is true even for the Republican rank and file: And while I haven’t been able to find good survey data, it’s obvious that the anti-science turn has been even more pronounced — and began earlier — among the Republican political elite. Chris Mooney published The Republican War on Science in 2005, and even then was describing a longstanding trend. Why have Republicans turned so anti-science? Part of the answer is that they believe that scientists don’t support them. And they’re right! A study of who scientists give money to shows that only a small percentage gave money to Republicans even 20 years ago, and that almost none of them donate to Republicans now: Social scientists have always been strongly pro-Democratic, while there used to be a significant number of physical, “hard” scientists supporting the GOP. But these days physicists are almost as uniformly Democratic, or at least non-Republican, as sociologists. Why are there almost no Republican scientists? It’s not a mystery. GOP political orthodoxy includes positions that are at odds with the scientific consensus on multiple issues, ranging from the validity of the theory of evolution, to the reality of climate change, to the efficacy and safety of vaccines. In each case the scientific consensus is solidly grounded in evidence. But even before the rise of MAGA the U.S. right was increasingly hostile to evidence-based policymaking — especially, of course, where the evidence is unfavorable to fossil fuel interests or quack medicine, both financial mainstays of right-wing politics. So scientists don’t support Republicans, and the feeling is mutual. Today’s Republican Party doesn’t like science or scientists. It doesn’t like having its preconceived views challenged by appeals to evidence. It knows that very few scientists are on its side electorally. In general, it sees scientific research as a threat to its grasp on political power. Add in MAGA’s combination of rabid anti-intellectualism and allergy to any hint of criticism, and one has the makings of a drastic anti-science turn in policy. “Ignorance is strength” might was well be an official MAGA motto. And as I said, we aren’t talking about something that will happen over the course of multiple years: The U.S. scientific enterprise is threatened with severe damage, even collapse, over just the next year. There are many reasons to find this prospect horrifying: Think of all the beneficial advances, affecting almost every part of life, that won’t happen because U.S. science — still crucial to the world — has been eviscerated. But think, also, of America’s international standing. Can a nation that has forfeited its role as a leader, or even a contender, in global science, still be a Great Power? No. MUSICAL CODA
World Health Day 2026
World Health Day 2026 promotes One Health and scientific collaboration. Join #TogetherForScience to advance global health research and science partnerships.
World Health Day 2026
World Health Day 2026 promotes One Health and scientific collaboration. Join #TogetherForScience to advance global health research and science partnerships.
World Health Day 2026: Together for health. Stand with science
On World Health Day 2026, celebrated on 7 April, WHO unites and mobilizes the world under the theme “Together for health. Stand with science.” celebrating the power of scientific collaboration to protect the health of people, animals, plants, and the planet. The year‑long campaign spotlights both scientific achievements and the multilateral cooperation needed to turn evidence into action.
UA Professors Honored by American Association for the Advancement of Science
Two University of Alabama professors were named 2025 AAAS fellows for their contributions to scientific research.
Standing with Science in a Post-Truth World
Scientific progress against emerging threats will matter only if societies can defend trust in evidence from the distortions of the post-truth age
The brain might not create consciousness after all
Is consciousness something the brain produces, or is it woven into the fabric of reality itself? Renowned neuroscientist Christof Koch is challenging long-held scientific assumptions by confronting the “hard problem” of consciousness — why and how subjective experience exists at all. He highlights growing tensions between neuroscience, physics, and unexplained phenomena like near-death experiences and sudden moments of clarity before death.
On plant health and embracing new plant-breeding techniques in South Africa
The major challenge currently confronting South Africa’s agriculture is the spread of foot-and-mouth disease. For many farmers across the country, the most urgent tasks are both securing sufficient vaccines and rolling them out quickly in the coming months, particularly as the beef and dairy industries continue to suffer big losses. There is also pressure on sheep, goats, and other livestock to prevent the disease from spreading. As efforts to get the country through this monumental challenge continue, I believe it is important to sharpen our focus on the broader task at hand: strengthening biosecurity. This covers both animal and plant health. In recent years, we haven’t focused much on plant health, except a few times, such as when we had a goss’s wilt scare in the maize industry, a few cases of citrus black spot, or cases of sclerotinia in sunflower seeds. But the fact that South Africa managed to control the outbreaks of these particular diseases when they occurred a few years ago was due to organized agricultural and government scientific capabilities, and, most importantly, the availability of crop protection or agrochemicals necessary to address some of them. Therefore, as the animal health division in the Department of Agriculture focuses on the pressing challenge of the day, the foot-and-mouth disease, there is an opportunity for the plant health division to assess if they have all the requirements to tackle any outbreak that may occur on fruits, vegetables or crops in future. The challenge with crop diseases is that they can spread quickly and cause much more rapid damage in the field than we typically see with livestock. Therefore, speed is everything in ensuring the appropriate controls are available. I raise this as an important area, particularly given the drastic climate variation we observe across the country. The production conditions in some areas have changed noticeably over time, which may introduce new risks. The other essential part is ensuring that South Africa has access to the best crop protection technology available in the market. Many technology developers worldwide have operations in South Africa. Therefore, the Department of Agriculture, along with the Agricultural Research Council, must continuously interact with technology developers to assess the various crop protection technologies they are releasing globally and determine their suitability and need in South Africa. This will require a proactive approach from the government, unlike the current approach, in which technology developers typically approach regulators with new technologies. The government, recognising the food security risks, must take a proactive approach to ensure that South African farmers have access to the latest crop protection technologies, thereby safeguarding the country’s food security. Beyond crop protection, we must never forget that South Africa’s agriculture is key to ensuring that the country is the most food-secure country at the national level in sub-Saharan Africa. South Africa is also the only African country in the top-40 global agricultural exporters, having more than doubled since 1994 on the back of the adoption of high-yielding seed cultivars. South Africa has been the only African country to adopt a bold approach to embracing science and adopting genetically engineered seeds for grains and oilseeds in the early 2000s. Since then, we have seen crop yields improve noticeably, contributing to the gains we mentioned above. But ensuring that South Africa improves further is not a given. The key lies in South African regulators’ attitudes towards new technologies. We have to maintain a progressive approach and not give in to the politics of non-food and non-scientific voices that shout on the sidelines. Food security is national security, and the government must ensure we progress, leaning on science. Therefore, the registration of high-yielding new genomic techniques is required. South Africa cannot afford to fall behind the EU, the USA, South America, and many of its competitors in global agriculture. The Department of Agriculture’s crop science division must adopt a progress-and-science-embracing approach for the good of the country. Thanks for reading AgriView! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe Share
Trump’s 2027 budget proposes deep cuts to science programs
Domestic agencies would face $73 billion in cuts, including reduced funding for scientific research and health and environmental programs
Trump administration proposes massive budget cuts to science
The White House budget proposal would also curb federal payments for scientific publishing
Weekend reads: Half of social science ‘doesn’t replicate’; ‘Scientific ghosts: Life after retraction’; multisensory learning paper retracted
If your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed. The week at Retraction Watch featured: A citation alert led researchers to a network of fake articles. But w…
How Scientifically Accurate Is ‘Project Hail Mary’? Experts Weigh In
Based on hard science fiction, a genre that prioritizes scientific accuracy, the blockbuster gets a lot right but misses a few things, experts say.
Animal Sciences Faculty Wendie Cohick Among Eight Rutgers Researchers Named 2026 AAAS Fellows
Wendie Cohick, Vice Provost and Vice Chancellor for Research, Rutgers-New Brunswick and faculty in the Department of Animal Sciences, is one of eight Rutgers faculty named to the 2026 class of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) fellows. Cohick and her Rutgers colleagues were among the 500 scientists, engineers and innovators spanning 24 scientific […]
50-year-old expired salmon found: the shocking discovery that baffles scientists - Futura-Sciences
Unexpected Treasures in Forgotten Cans Decades-old cans tucked away on a shelf might sound like the start of a food safety nightmare, but recently, they’ve become a scientific goldmine instead. In April 2024, the journal Ecology and Evolution published a study that lifted the lid—literally—on an astonishing scientific resource: canned...
Latest peek into pika science written by CMU student during senior year
Karli Weatherill was a Colorado Mesa University sophomore when she showed up at the office of Johanna Varner and voiced an interest in doing scientific research in the mountains.
Opinion: Science Communication Is Central to the Practice of Science
Explaining and defending knowledge is as essential to the scientific enterprise as publishing research.
Mentorship and Immigration in Scientific Careers
In a cross-continental academic journey, one scientist reflects on how mentorship across borders sustains careers, shapes resilience, and guides scientific paths.
This tiny claw in a 500-million-year-old fossil just rewrote the origin of spiders
What started as routine fossil cleaning turned into a major scientific surprise when researchers uncovered a tiny claw in a 500-million-year-old specimen where no claw should exist. That detail revealed Megachelicerax cousteaui, the oldest known relative of spiders, pushing the origins of this group back by 20 million years. The fossil shows that key features of modern spiders and horseshoe crabs were already emerging during the Cambrian Explosion.
Science news in review: April 3
Take some time to catch up on the latest scientific news from around the world.
Sharing her passion for science
By Danielle Rush Communications Specialist, Indiana University Kokomo Hisako Masuda, Indiana University Kokomo professor of biochemistry, was honored by the Indiana Academy of Science (IAS) as its 2026 Distinguished Scholar. The award is given to an individual who is recognized by the IAS as having an exceptional record of scholarship. Recipients are selected from nominations submitted to its awards committee. “I was surprised,” said Masuda, who joined IU Kokomo’s faculty in 2013. “I feel there are many good scientists in the Academy, so I wasn’t expecting it at all.” Patrick Motl, dean of the School of Sciences, said the Academy recognizes up to one member per year, and that Masuda is the second or third IU Kokomo faculty member to receive the commendation. “Clearly this speaks to the strength of Dr. Masuda’s accomplishments in research and scholarship and that her work stands out amongst her peers in Indiana,” said Motl, who received the award in 2019. “Many of the institutions that participate in the IAS are undergraduate institutions or primarily undergraduate institutions, but even having that caveat, Dr. Masuda has built and maintains a very active research program in her lab, working exclusively with undergraduates. She is passionate about science and can share that passion with her students. To carry on a quality research program with so many students involved in so many projects is truly remarkable and I am glad that the IAS acknowledged that for Dr. Masuda.” The IAS specifically commended her for involving more than 50 undergraduates in her research in bacterial metabolism, genomics, and their phenotypic plasticity at IU Kokomo, and publishing 23 articles with many student co-authors. Masuda’s current work primarily focuses on biodegradation and chemical repurposing of nylon. Using soil bacteria, her lab studies bacterial biodegradation of nylon and other environmental pollutants. She applies principles of green chemistry while developing a method to convert nylon waste into other nontoxic polymers. In collaborative work with health scientists, her lab investigates gut microbiomes of Indiana native birds as well as human subjects in a clinical study. She became interested in converting plastic waste while earning her Ph.D. at Rutgers University, working on methods to remove environmental waste not using chemicals or other intrusive methods. She learned about Nylon 11, which is used in pipes for transferring oil, interior components for cars, catheters, and in other industrial hard plastics. Nylon 11 is nontoxic, she added, so it is safe to include students in the research. “Those are considered to be nonbiodegradable, and have to go to a landfill,” she said. “I thought if we could come up with a way to biodegrade it, that would make some kind of impact.” Eventually, she wants to develop a product that would convert nylon waste to something useful, and to reduce waste and microplastics in the environment. “That would be my goal at some point, that we can make that change, and also make people more aware of their use of plastics,” she said. “I hope students stop to think about what we can do as scientists to address issues currently impacting us.” She appreciates the IAS for its support of scientific research at Indiana institutions, and IU Kokomo and the School of Sciences for providing funding for students to attend the Academy’s annual meeting. She added that IU Kokomo has also supported her research with funding from the School of Sciences and Academic Affairs. “Without that, I couldn’t do my research,” she said. Masuda has also earned a Senior Research Grant from the IAS, IU Kokomo’s Distinguished Research Award, and the IU Kokomo Junior Faculty Annual Research Award. She is a Fellow of the Indiana Academy of Science. Education is KEY at Indiana University Kokomo.
New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science to reopen after monthslong revamp
The museum's $3.7 million renovation includes a new sewer line, fresh skylights and the latest in scientific knowledge.
Remembrance: Former colleagues praise Barry Bloom’s scientific achievements, global health contributions, and good humor | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Barry Bloom, the former dean of Harvard Chan School who died on March 18, was an inspiration to many, according to longtime colleagues Marc Lipsitch and Yonatan Grad.
AI maps science papers to predict research trends two to three years ahead
The number of scientific papers is growing so rapidly that scientists are no longer able to keep track of all of them, even in their own research area. Researchers from the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology ...
Science communication is central to the practice of science
Explaining and defending knowledge is as essential to the scientific enterprise as publishing research.
Why do we have chins? Researchers may finally know
Humans are the only species that has chins. A recent study sheds light on how that came to be and why evolution doesn’t always follow the rules
Introducing a new citizen science nature app that's geared towards the scientific community
Identifying weeds, checking out the pollen map, or discovering new plant life-forms are among the promising wealth of data available to users of PlantNet—a "Shazam!" for plants. Pierre Bonnet and computer ...
Johnson Lecture in Science Communication to be held April 2
On Thursday, April 2, award-winning science journalist Maddie Sofia will present the spring 2026 A. Dixon and Betty F. Johnson Lectureship in Scientific Communication at 4 p.m. in Freeman Auditorium, HUB-Robeson Center.
Climate Science Has No Place in Scientific Reference Manual for Judges, Attorneys General Say
A chapter on climate science has been removed from a manual designed to be an independent, neutral source of scientific information for judges.
How Can We Improve Representation in Major Scientific Conversations?
Women, early-career researchers, and global scholars are still underrepresented in major scientific conversations. Explore how this manifests and hear from experts on what can be done to improve inclusion.
The revolution in dinosaur science started 50 years ago – here’s what we have learned
Scientific methods validated from modern life have brought dinosaurs to life in a testable way.
Following 9 key steps for a lifetime of eating well can support heart health
Statement Highlights: Sustaining lifelong healthy eating patterns may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and other chronic health issues, according to the latest updated dietary guidance offered in a new scientific statement from the American...
Science in the age of AI
The transformative potential of new tools was the emphasis of Virginia Tech's Leaders+ discussion in Alexandria with OpenAI Vice President for Science Kevin Weil. The event was attended by more than 150 researchers, graduate students, and other members of the scientific and industry communities.
Panicking scientists, canceled experiments – federal funding cuts turned my work as a research dean into crisis management
When the Trump administration took aim at higher education and the scientific research enterprise, a university dean had to figure out on the fly how to support scientists and their work at his school.
“Everyone Should Be Welcome to Ask Questions and Pursue the Truth"
Meet the researchers building a more open, welcoming scientific community one summer at a time.
Salmon sperm to bird droppings: The science behind bizarre skincare rituals
A flurry of bizarre skincare rituals are trending on social media. But does the scientific research suggest they can be taken at face value?
Salmon sperm to bird droppings: The science behind bizarre skincare rituals
A flurry of bizarre skincare rituals are trending on social media. But does the scientific research suggest they can be taken at face value?
In wrangling dark matter, some scientists find inspiration in the Torah, Krishna and Christ
When an invisible entity making up 85% of the universe's mass stumps the greatest scientific minds of our time, awe is an understandable response.
George Eliot is best known for Middlemarch, but she also wrote an early work of science fiction
George Eliot saw literature as uniquely capable of extending our sympathies, but her work engaged deeply with scientific questions too.
Why do men sexually harass women at work? Science offers two explanations – but only one of them holds up
There are two ways to understand sexual harassment in the workplace, but one of them is more scientific than the other.
Readers reply: American football takes for ever. In which other sports do you spend most of your time not playing the game?
The long-running series in which readers answer other readers’ questions on subjects ranging from trivial flights of fancy to profound scientific and philosophical concepts
Static electricity has baffled scientists for centuries. Can new research solve the puzzle?
This familiar phenomenon has puzzled researchers for centuries, but experiments are finally making sense of its unruly behaviors
Researcher invited by McInnis gives talk touting investment in science
As a part of University President Maurie McInnis’ Presidential Lecture Series, Harvey Fineberg, an emeritus professor at Harvard’s public health school, criticized the federal government’s cuts to funding for scientific research.
Co-Design Of Scientific Experiments
Next Monday, or Tuesday at the latest, you will find a new bulky paper in the arXiv. Titled "On the Co-Design of Scientific Experiments and Industrial Systems", the work is authored by over 80 colleagues.
The geography of science
Scientific activity has historically been concentrated in a small number of advanced economies, but the global landscape of research is undergoing rapid transformation. Using data on 44 million publications from 1980 to 2022, this column examines how the geography of science has evolved along three dimensions: where research is produced, what topics it studies, and where it is consumed through citations. It documents a substantial shift in scientific production from traditional Western leaders s emerging economies. Yet scientific attention and knowledge diffusion remain uneven, revealing a tension between the global expansion of scientific capacity and the continued fragmentation of the knowledge system.
China launches world’s first floating deep-sea research island
China has launched a first-of-its-kind floating artificial island designed to support deep-sea scientific research in all weather conditions.
Skeleton of massive blue whale expected to make final migration to Hatfield Marine Science Center in May
If all goes as planned, the skeleton — after help from scientists and specialists from around the world — will be fully reassembled in May outside the Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport, completing a journey from surf to scientific centerpiece.
China Is Rapidly Overtaking the United States as the World’s Scientific Superpower
The Trump administration has been a disaster for science.
Innovation at the Intersections of HIV and Brain Health
amfAR research staff discuss brain health, such as HAND and Alzheimer’s, as people age with HIV and the scientific advances in treatment needed.
Science in images: Argentina’s experience in the Wiki Science Competition
The Wiki Science Competition in Argentina In recent years, Argentina has participated in two editions of the Wiki Science Competition (WSC), the international scientific photography competition sta…
Opinion | History Can Teach Us About ‘Settled Science’
Knowledge is always evolving, and we could do with a little more scientific humility.
Trump’s new science panel includes 9 tech billionaires—and just one scientist
There's a glaring hole in the president's new science and tech council
How to Break America’s Great Scientific Stagnation
President Trump’s selection of Jim O’Neill to head the National Science Foundation could open the next great chapter of discovery.
The Shocking Speed of China’s Scientific Rise
When will Chinese research pull ahead of ours?
NASA spots comet reversing its spin in a first for science
In 2017 NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope zoomed in on a comet as it passed around the sun. And then things took a more unusual turn
Researcher invited by McInnis gives talk touting investment in science
As a part of University President Maurie McInnis’ Presidential Lecture Series, Harvey Fineberg, an emeritus professor at Harvard’s public health school, criticized the federal government’s cuts to funding for scientific research.
Two Salk scientists elected as 2025 AAAS Fellows - Salk Institute for Biological Studies
Highlights Salk scientists Gerald Shadel and Tatyana Sharpee elected as American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 2025 Fellows AAAS Fellows are distinguished scientists, engineers, and innovators who have made significant contributions to their fields LA JOLLA—Salk molecular biologist Gerald Shadel, PhD, and neuroscientist Tatyana Sharpee, PhD, have been elected as American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 2025 Fellows. The honor recognizes scientists with distinguished scientific and social accomplishments, and AAAS Fellows become national and global science spokespersons for the rest of their lives.
2025 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Fellow
Department Chair, Professor Alexander Spokoyny has been selected as a 2025 Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in recognition of his distinguished contributions in main group and organometallic chemistry and academic community engagement and leadership. AAAS is the world’s largest general-scientific society and publisher of the journal Science. Spokoyny is among the 449 scientists, engineers, and innovators spanning 24 scientific disciplines who are being recognized for their scientifically and socially distinguished achievements. Four of the new fellows are UCLA faculty members. The new Fellows will be celebrated in Washington, D.C., in late May 2026. Read more about the new AAAS Fellows here. AAAS Fellows in the UCLA Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry are Professors Kendall Houk (1988), Paul Weiss (1999), Richard Kaner (2000), David Eisenberg and Todd Yeates (2001), Juli Feigon (2002), Miguel Garcia-Garibay and Steven Clarke (2007), Heather Maynard, Carla Koehler, Xiangfeng Duan and Neil Garg (2018), Paula Diaconescu and Thomas Mason (2019), Joseph Loo (2021), and Yi Tang (2022). Penny Jennings, UCLA Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, penjen@g.ucla.edu.
Four Ohio State scientists elected to 2025 class of AAAS Fellows
Four scientists at The Ohio State University have been elected to the 2025 class of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Fellows.The AAAS Fellowship, recognizing scientifically or socially distinguished efforts to advance science or its applications, is one of the most prestigious honors a U.S. scientist can receive. Fellow...
Ten Johns Hopkins researchers named American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellows
The 2025 class of American Association for the Advancement of Science fellows includes 449 scientists, engineers, and innovators spanning 24 scientific disciplines who are being recognized for their scientifically and socially distinguished achievements
Does red-light therapy work? What the research says
People are buying helmets, face masks, vests and beds that emit long-wavelength light. Beneath the hype, there is some interesting biology.
AI researchers are coming: What will happen to science?
A fully automated AI researcher has produced a paper that meets scientific standards. This could accelerate scientific discovery — but not without a cost.
American Association for the Advancement of Science names 10 UF faculty fellows
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world’s largest general scientific society and publisher of the Science family of journals, has named 10 University of Florida faculty members to its 2025 AAAS Fellows.
Around the MHS
The latest news from around the Military Health System for the week of March 23-27, 2026, includes submitting research and awards for the Department of War’s primary scientific gathering, teamwork and tools assisting field medic training, and new research on preventing dangerous diseases.
Introducing Pitt’s newest American Association for the Advancement of Science fellows
Jill Millstone and Ora Weisz join nearly 500 scientists recognized this year by the world’s largest scientific society.
Science Communication Is Central to the Practice of Science
Opinion | Explaining and defending knowledge is as essential to the scientific enterprise as publishing research.
Two from Cornell elected 2025 AAAS Fellows
Engineering professor Lara Estroff and plant science professor Klaas van Wijk have been elected fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest general scientific society.
Top climate scientist Kate Marvel just resigned from NASA. Here's why
Climate scientist Kate Marvel talked to Scientific American about her decision to leave NASA amid federal government turmoil and funding challenges
Glyphosate: A story of science, risk, and nuance
In the summer of 2014, a California groundskeeper named Dewayne Johnson started noticing patches of raw, weeping skin spreading across his body. He had spent years applying Roundup, Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide, for a school district, sometimes drenched in it when equipment malfunctioned. By 2014, he had a diagnosis: non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In 2018, a jury awarded him $289 million in damages, later reduced on appeal. Tens of thousands of lawsuits followed. The story hasn’t quieted down. It’s all over the internet, swinging between “this will kill you, buy organic” and “relax, you’re fear-mongering.” Some of that recent chatter stems from an Executive Order protecting glyphosate and its production, which set off intense infighting within the MAHA movement. Some of it reflects a deeper truth: Americans genuinely care about harmful chemicals in their environment (see poll below). And the conversation isn’t going anywhere, with a Supreme Court case involving Monsanto set for this April. Glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) is one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. But does glyphosate cause cancer? And how much exposure is actually risky? With so much mistrust in institutions and corporations (and some genuine conflicts of interest), making sense of the actual scientific evidence is genuinely hard. Here is a translation of what the scientific evidence actually says. Does glyphosate cause harm? Glyphosate is an herbicide that kills most plants it contacts rather than targeting specific species. It works by blocking an enzyme pathway (EPSPS) that plants and many microorganisms need to produce essential amino acids. Without those amino acids, the plant can’t grow and dies. Glyphosate was first developed by Monsanto in the 1970s and became ubiquitous after the company introduced “Roundup Ready” crops in the 1990s. In 2024, Bayer removed glyphosate from residential Roundup-branded products due to litigation pressure. But today it is still the most widely used herbicide in the world. Farmers also discovered they could spray it directly on crops like oats, lentils, beans, and peas just before harvest to dry them out faster and make harvesting easier. Because of its widespread use, it’s obviously really important to understand if it’s harmful to humans. The key principle: The dose makes the poison The most important concept in toxicology is that “the dose makes the poison.” Sixteenth-century physician Paracelsus articulated what remains the foundational principle of toxicology: sola dosis facit venenum. Water will kill you if you drink enough of it. Aspirin saves lives at 81 milligrams and causes internal bleeding at higher chronic doses. So, at what dose is glyphosate poisonous? The LD50 in rats (the dose that kills half the test animals) is around 5,600 mg/kg body weight. Table salt is roughly 3,000 mg/kg. By that classic measure, glyphosate is less acutely toxic than salt. But some people are exposed to a lot of glyphosate through their work. And among the general public, there are many questions about low-dose, cumulative exposure from multiple sources over long periods. Does glyphosate cause health problems? Cancer Correlation maps are striking, with one analysis finding that 60% of counties that spray the most glyphosate have non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma rates above the national average. But correlation alone doesn’t establish cause, which is why animal and human studies matter. In animals: Rat studies are typically what most fear is rooted in, but most people don’t know the study details on the dosage given to rats. A pooled analysis of the 13 most rigorous rat studies found evidence that very high doses, around 55,000 times greater than typical food residue exposure, can cause certain cancers. In humans: One of the strongest studies followed 55,000 herbicide users over 20 years and found no overall increased cancer risk. There was one signal: among those with the highest use, rates of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) appeared elevated. A broader meta-analysis of 18 human studies also found no overall cancer risk, though a separate meta-analysis focused specifically on non-Hodgkin lymphoma found that people with high cumulative glyphosate exposure faced a 41% higher relative risk compared to those with low or no exposure. These human studies are observational studies (randomized controlled trials would be unethical), and meta-analyses are only as reliable as the studies they pool. But the story seems consistent: at very high exposure levels, there may be some cancer risk. But that’s about as far as the science currently takes us. Emerging research: gut and reproductive health Gut: Because glyphosate targets a pathway that exists in some gut bacteria, scientists have questioned whether it could affect the microbiome. In mice, a 2023 University of Iowa study found that glyphosate altered gut bacterial composition and raised markers of intestinal inflammation. A 2024 systematic review found similar patterns: disrupted gut bacteria and problems with the mucus layer that protects the intestinal wall in mice. Whether this translates to humans is an open question. The human gut is highly variable and resistant, and we don't yet have strong studies confirming the same effects in people. Reproductive health: Animal studies have found that glyphosate-based herbicides can interfere with reproductive hormones, including disrupting egg cell development in mice and reducing the number of eggs available in sheep’s ovaries. However, the doses used in these experiments were high, so it’s not yet clear whether the same effects would occur in humans. On the human side, a 2021 pilot study led by Mount Sinai researchers tested urine samples from pregnant women across the U.S. and found glyphosate in 95% of them. The study also found a possible connection between higher glyphosate exposure during pregnancy and a subtle physical difference measured in female newborns. That said, some connections weren’t statistically reliable and this was a small study. The researchers themselves said more and larger studies are needed before drawing firm conclusions. What do regulators say about glyphosate safety? In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization, classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A). The classification is worth taking seriously. But, there’s an important distinction: IARC classifies hazard, meaning the potential to cause harm under some conditions. It does not assess risk, which accounts for actual exposure levels and the real-world probability of harm. The U.S. EPA, the European Food Safety Authority, Health Canada, and regulatory agencies in Australia and Japan have all concluded that glyphosate is “unlikely to be carcinogenic to humans” at realistic exposure levels. They’re asking a different question: given how much of this people actually encounter, what is the probability of harm? Your actual exposure is what determines your actual risk. What does glyphosate mean for your daily life? At the grocery store: Food residues are small. The EPA’s acceptable daily intake is 1.75 mg/kg of body weight per day. To hit that threshold from oatmeal alone, a 150-pound adult would need to eat roughly 50 pounds of oats every day. But this calculation addresses only one pathway (food), and we don’t yet have robust tools to measure people’s actual total exposure. If reducing exposure matters to you, organic certification prohibits synthetic herbicides, and organic oat products generally test at lower or undetectable levels. Either way, a diet rich in whole grains, conventional or organic, is far better for your health than one that omits them out of fear of residues. On the farm: Occupational exposure is orders of magnitude higher than consumer exposure. Farmers and farm workers who mix, load, and apply glyphosate-based herbicides, especially without protective equipment, face meaningfully different risk profiles. Proper PPE isn’t optional. Integrated weed management strategies that rotate chemical modes of action are also worth taking seriously, both for health and for long-term effectiveness. If you live near a farm: Spray drift is real. Concentrations near field edges can spike during and after application, particularly on windy days. This is an area where I think public health could really step up and empower rural communities with buffer zones, rather than placing the onus on individuals. But for now, knowing your local agricultural calendar and keeping windows closed during application are the first steps. Bottom line Dewayne Johnson was exposed to glyphosate at levels most people will never encounter, and a jury decided he deserved compensation. That outcome is not evidence that the oatmeal in your pantry is dangerous. But it is a reminder that the dose, the context, and the person doing the exposing all matter enormously. Glyphosate is a chemical tool with benefits, trade-offs, and genuine open scientific questions. Learning to hold that complexity without collapsing into panic or dismissal is, honestly, one of the most useful and hardest things to do in navigating modern health science. Love, YLE Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) is founded and operated by Dr. Katelyn Jetelina, MPH PhD—an epidemiologist, wife, and mom of two little girls. Hannah Totte, MPH, is an epidemiologist and YLE Community Manager. YLE reaches more than 425,000 people in over 132 countries with one goal: “Translate” the ever-evolving public health science so that people will be well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Subscribe
The System That Decides What Science Gets Published Is Breaking Down
The peer review system that validates scientific research is trapped in a self-defeating cycle. A new mathematical model shows why—and what comes next.
The Selfish Gene: Still one of the most thrilling evolution books ever
Fifty years ago, Richard Dawkins shared an irresistible scientific metaphor with the world that modernised and democratised evolutionary biology. Half a century on, The Selfish Gene remains powerfully insightful, finds Rowan Hooper
Funding Uncertainty Has Consequences
We're asking the U.S. government to release holds on Congressionally-appropriated funding for scientific research, education, and critical activities at the earliest possible time.
My unsung hero of science: Buckminster Fuller, the architect who wanted to redesign the world (and inspired a nanosized one)
Few 20th-century scientific figures are as hard to classify as Buckminster Fuller.
Winners of Science Playwriting Competition Showcased April 15 at Simons Center
The Stony Brook University Science Playwriting Competition brings the sciences and humanities closer together, providing an outlet for scientists and playwrights to venture beyond their normal modes of thinking, spark their imaginations and create new experiences. Rooted in artistic expression, the best science plays can be exceptional works of art that convey scientific concepts aesthetically, potentially
Opinion | Climate Science Is Creeping Into Courtrooms
Judges are fed biased information from progressive activists and a flawed scientific reference manual.
Communicating Across Disciplines in Climate Change Litigation
Climate change litigation must climb many mountains to advance justice and reshape human behaviors for the well-being of people and our planet. On this long, arduous journey, litigants, lawyers, scientific witnesses, and judges face challenges of communicating across disciplines. UCS’s new resourc
Gender equality in science: a distant goal; invisible barriers persist
While the number of women in scientific organisations is increasing, the path towards true equality is slowed down by structural barriers and informal processes