SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " demi " 1,771 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
'This is a Chance to Build Something New': Stand Up for Science Rallies Around America’s Compact For Higher
Speakers highlighted importance of knowledge development; called on university leadership to stand support of academic freedom in higher ed.
Is Going to an Office Really Better for Your Health Than Remote Work? What the Research Shows
Six years after the pandemic, the debate between remote work and returning to the office remains heated. Which is healthier? Here’s what experts think.
UC A&S establishes new Department of Statistics and Data Science
The University of Cincinnati’s College of Arts & Sciences (A&S) unveiled a new Department of Statistics and Data Science with the start of the 2025–26 academic year. Previously, the bachelors,
YouTube overtakes TV as top source of political news, study finds
The Center for the Creator Economy at Syracuse University—the nation's first academic center dedicated to the advancement of interdisciplinary academics, independent research, policy engagement and support ...
COVID in Mass.: Experts highlight endemic status and low severity
Emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and deaths remain at record lows.
Dear business students, career obsession is killing your curiosity
Each year, top- and mid-tier firms have become increasingly predatory and pushed recruitment timelines earlier into our academic careers. The situation is so dire that it has become a joke among bu…
Proposed U.S. census changes could be catastrophic for public health
“Erasing data does not erase need or harm,” writes social epidemiologist Nancy Krieger.
Scientists create new statewide surface geologic map of Nebraska
A new academic paper by Paul Hanson and Matthew Joeckel of the Conservation and Survey Division in the University of Nebraska–Lincoln's School of Natural Resources contains a brief phrase—"new linework"—that ...
Epidemiological modeling in the age of artificial intelligence
Nature Computational Science - Artificial intelligence is enabling epidemic models to learn across outbreaks. The next challenge is ensuring that these models learn and transfer not mere...
Trump bucks and the politics of mailing checks
The checks started going out last week, nearly one million of them, and mostly to battleground states. With a return address for the U.S. Treasury and a letter enclosed signed by President Donald Trump, these one-time checks for $500 were ostensibly government rebates for Obamacare enrollees who overpaid. In the accompanying letter, however, Trump attacks his predecessor and talks about his record in office on an important issue he’s not polling well on, which makes it seem more like the most expensive political mailer in U.S. history. The average piece of direct mail costs between 30 cents and $3, according to Mail Processing Associates, a print, mail, and fulfillment company. At $500 a pop plus roughly 50 cents each to issue the paper check, the cost of Trump’s healthcare mailer sent to more than 950,000 enrollees comes in at more than $475 million. Trump’s midterm healthcare message “For years, the Biden Administration overcharged you to fund the operation of HealthCare dot gov,” Trump wrote in the letter. “That money belongs to hard-working Americans, not the Government, and now, I am returning it to you!” In the letter, Trump makes false and misleading claims about his administration’s record on healthcare costs, an issue Democrats have a 20 point advantage on over Republicans, according to a recent poll from KFF, a nonpartisan health policy think tank. Trump touts his administration’s TrumpRX program, which he claims is “delivering massive discounts.” However, new research from KFF found that of a selection of drugs available on the TrumpRX platform, just five were the lowest price, while 13 were the highest price. Trump also falsely claims in the letter that he’s fighting to lower healthcare costs. In reality, average monthly premium payment costs for enrollees rose 58% under Trump while marketplace sign-ups declined 5%, per KFF. Under Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, it’s estimated 10 million more Americans will be uninsured by 2034. You get a check and you get a check and you get a check Trump’s long promised cash outs to his fans, from his days as a casino operator and gameshow host to his presidency. During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the first Trump administration made the unprecedented move to put Trump’s name on checks that went out under the CARES Act (notably the $500 refund checks this time around don’t feature Trump’s name). Ever since, Trump’s been chasing that high. In his second term, Trump’s promised more stimulus that never arrived, like refund checks from DOGE cuts and tariffs, while he said at his party’s convention last month that he’d give out $5,000 checks to everyone if Republicans win in November. In reality, DOGE overstated its cost cutting and Trump’s government actually now spends more than former President Joe Biden’s, while Trump’s tariffs actually grew the trade deficit. His proposal for $5,000 checks would add about $1.2 trillion to the national debt. The problem is there’s no money to give. These $500 checks — plus $90 Medicare rebate checks also going out as well as $250 deposited this week in some Trump Accounts for kids courtesy Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell and his wife Susan — represent the closest Trump’s going to get to making good on his promise to deliver cash fast. And the checks seem especially targeted. Though the $500 checks went out to enrollees in one of 30 states that use the federal HealthCare dot gov marketplace, a Reuters review found 71% of the payments, or $339 million, went to enrollees in 13 states that have the most competitive elections for governor and U.S. Senate. Most Americans don’t buy it Could Trump bucks sway the election? An Economist-YouGov poll found 57% of U.S. adults doubt Trump will deliver on his promise for $5,000 checks, compared to 21% who do. “I’m waiting on my DOGE check and I’m still waiting on my tariff check,” one 2024 Trump voter who’s since turned on him told a recent focus group. “It felt like kind of trying to buy people’s votes, which honestly felt like in elementary when the class president was like, hey we’re going to take you to the water park if you vote for me. It’s like, I don’t think it works like that.” But for voters in swing states who got a check, it could still matter. One survey published in 2022 found receiving a physically personalized check in the mail during the pandemic was associated with a much greater self-reported likelihood of voting for Trump in 2020, and those gains mainly came from out partisans. The issue for Trump comes if these checks are mostly going to Obamacare enrollees whose premiums have gone up by more than just $500 since he took office and who view the money as something like a bribe before the election rather than an actual long-term solution to lowering household costs. Spending $500.50 per mailer would be absurd as a normal campaign expenditure, but since Trump’s checks and letter are a government rebate, his campaign and super PAC didn’t have to spend a dime and he got out his message regardless. If enough voters in key states are swayed by the one-time payment, it could prove to be the best $0 the Trump campaign spent. Subscribe [ ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/why-independent-candidates-are-making) [ Why independent candidates are making independence central to their brand ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/why-independent-candidates-are-making) Hunter Schwarz · Oct 6 [ Read full story ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/why-independent-candidates-are-making) [ ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/these-designers-and-grocery-nerds) [ These designers and grocery nerds will brand Mamdani’s NYC grocery stores ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/these-designers-and-grocery-nerds) Hunter Schwarz · Oct 2 [ Read full story ](https://www.yellopolitics.com/p/these-designers-and-grocery-nerds) Trump wants to turn his first-ever golf course into a government course for presidents
MBA Research Ranking: The Most Influential Business Schools
The Financial Times assesses MBA programs in academic research when it comes to reaching and influencing policy makers and practitioners.
It's time to face the truth: Youth violence is a public health epidemic in Delaware
Across the state, young men are dying before they’ve had a chance to really live. From Sussex to New Castle County, families are weeping, and communities are reeling, as an ongoing wave of youth violence turns communities into crime scenes. Young people involved in gun violence are unlikely to be deterred by tougher laws or […]
IT firm’s relocation paves way for latest I-88 warehouse project
The plan spotlights two forces reshaping the suburban office market: Companies upgrading their workspace to adapt to post-pandemic usage and real estate firms redeveloping office properties into warehouses.
How political upheaval and the pandemic shaped UK mental health
Major societal events such as the Brexit referendum and COVID-19 lockdowns have contributed to a lasting deterioration in mental health in the U.K., a study led by University College London (UCL) researchers ...
The New Golden Age of Science: The Trump Administration's Over $6 Billion Investment in Science
The Trump administration has announced a more than $6 billion investment across the Federal Government, industry, academia, and philanthropy as part of “the most ambitious set of science initiatives in decades.” “Under President Trump’s leadership, we are ushering in a New Golden Age of Science powered by super intelligence, a return to merit, and bold […]
Concern after Europeans endorse US science agenda
Germany’s biggest research funder has said it is “concerned” after Berlin, plus several other European countries, endorsed a controversial US-led science policy statement. On October 4, the White House announced that 16 countries, including Germany, the UK, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Poland, Japan and South Korea had backed the Kyoto Vision for a Golden Age of Science.The document, agreed on the margins of the annual Science and Technology in Society forum in Kyoto, which gathers science ministers from across the world, appears uncontroversial at first sight. It’s a one-page statement, without any concrete measures, that touches on reducing administrative burden on scientists, experimenting with new funding models and the use of “super intelligence” in science, the Trump administration’s preferred term for artificial intelligence. However, what’s controversial is that much of the language in the Kyoto Vision reflects Science: A New Golden Age, a major policy document released by the White House in July.That document attracted criticism for deriding universities as “legacy institutions” and suggesting money be diverted to new research labs. In a speech in Kyoto on October 4, Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office for Science and Technology Policy and the report’s author, said that the US was seeking to “diversify the ways that we support research to meet our best scientists where and when they do their best work.” The worry is that the Trump administration may be using genuine dysfunctions in academia as a pretext to defund and disempower universities, which US vice president JD Vance has labelled “the enemy.” Many in Europe also want more experimentation and reform of how science is organised and funded, and agree with criticisms of academia made by Science: A New Golden Age. But some also fear that if the US pushes for reform partially in bad faith, it could politicise and undermine the whole agenda. Washington is currently trying to change federal funding rules so that political appointees can block and cancel scientific grants. It has cut grants mid-project on topics related to diversity and other politically forbidden areas. And last year, it threatened to cut Harvard University’s federal funding unless it admitted a “critical mass” of new faculty and students to create campus “viewpoint diversity.” “Particularly concerned”Because of this wider US political context, the Kyoto Vision’s otherwise innocuous sounding statement that “we encourage experimentation with new institutional models for science that provide varying levels of autonomy, resources and direction” has caused consternation in Europe, particularly from some of Germany’s biggest science organisations. A spokesperson for the German Research Foundation (DFG), the country’s biggest funder, said that it would “closely monitor whether the current US administration uses the Kyoto Vision to restructure research funding to the detriment of research institutions such as universities and their autonomy.” The DFG was “particularly concerned” with the statement’s references to Science: A New Golden Age, they continued. A spokesperson for the German Rectors’ Conference, which represents the country’s universities, said that the reference to “new institutional models” raises “questions on the underlying understanding of academic freedom and autonomy.” Research funding must “guided first and foremost by scientific not political principles,” they went on. Dampen criticismEuropean endorsement of the Kyoto Vision might dampen domestic criticism of the Trump administration’s science policy, some in the US fear, by suggesting international support. “What we saw from Germany, Japan, the UK and other countries, is an impulse that the administration has exploited with our own science reform movement, a belief they can use dialogue to make things better,” said Cole Donovan, director of science policy at the campaigning group Stand Up for Science. “In practice, the administration has done the opposite.” Not a binding statementThere’s been so much concern in Germany that the country’s federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space put out a statement defending its endorsement of the Kyoto Vision, which it has posted on its website. Related articlesIs metascience being co-opted?European researchers sound the alarm that Trump rule changes will hit cooperationThe US ‘golden age’ science strategy: what Europeans need to know The ministry said that it “should be regarded as a basis for discussion and does not constitute a binding statement.” Backing the statement gives Germany the chance to raise “issues and concerns” with the US during upcoming talks on science and technology scheduled for November. “Although these intentions appear, in principle, to be worthy of support, they will be scrutinised and examined more closely as the process continues,” the statement continues. Super intelligence?A ministry spokesperson confirmed to Science|Business that Germany had broadly endorsed the Kyoto Vision.However, they said Berlin had not agreed to final changes in the statement to refer to AI as super intelligence. In September, facing protests against data centres and polling that suggests US citizens are far more concerned than excited by the technology, Trump issued an executive order that attempts to rebrand AI as super intelligence, following polling on social media.The name change is to “reflect the transformative capabilities of these technologies and the limitless opportunities they create for the American people,” the order says. EU askedThe UK and Italian science ministries did not respond to a request for comment on their endorsement of the Kyoto Vision. Although most EU countries did not endorse the statement, it’s not clear which states the US asked. The White House Office for Science and Technology Policy did not return a request for comment. A European Commission official, speaking under condition of anonymity, said that the US had approached the EU, but too late for the EU to quiz all its member states on whether Brussels should endorse the statement.
Who Won August and September: Original Films or Franchises?
(Welcome to the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a newsletter on the entertainment industry and business strategy. I write a weekly Streaming Ratings Report and a bi-weekly strategy column, along with occasional deep dives into other topics, like today’s article. Please subscribe.) I just heard someone say that if you’re reading a pundit or data analyst, and they don’t tell you that they got anything wrong, they’re not a pundit but an “influencer”. I agree with that. You have to tell your audience when you get things wrong, or they won’t (or shouldn’t) trust you as much. Today, we’ve got another edition of “What I Got Right, What I Got Wrong”. In general, I’m patting myself on the back (and patting very hard) about a few things like IP at the box office, LIV golf, horror films, crowdfunding movies, superheroes, and old people going to the theaters. That said, I also made a couple of data mistakes on the streaming bubble popping and HBO’s datecdotes, so I’m not perfect. But first, I need your feedback... Subscribe Follow-Ups: What Should We Call Mid-Budget Movies Which Aren’t Cinematic Enough for Theaters But Are Too Expensive to Make Money on Streaming? After I asked for feedback on what we should call straight-to-streaming films that are too big to pencil out on streaming but not really big enough to resonate in theaters, I got some great suggestions from you all, including... “Moldilocks” from John Aboud “Little Big Indie” from Travis Frick1 “Midflicks” from Jonathan Funke. “Extra-Medium” from Jona Nwuke. (Read the explanation in the footnote.) Between these and Brandon Katz—who suggested “Bermuda Budget Triangle”, “The Platform Gap” and “The Distribution Deadzone”—we’ve got some excellent suggestions. And they’re better than my suggestion, the “Streaming Budget Dead Zone”, so let’s take a poll! The winning entry becomes the new term. Loading... RIGHT: LIV Golf is Fully Bankrupt…Is Anyone Else Next? A few years ago, I was always a bit perplexed at all the articles I’d read praising LIV Golf and their strategy to disrupt the PGA. LIV Golf, a brand new professional golf league, offered PGA stars ten times what they made on the PGA Tour to join their new league. And folks praised this strategy for its initial “success” in that a lot of big names did indeed leave the PGA. Yeah, of course the players came over. LIV Golf paid them so, so, so much more! But LIV Golf hadn’t discovered a way to increase potential revenue. So think about this in basic business terms… They paid much more in costs… …but had no real way to increase revenue. That’s not a strategy! That’s deficit financing. It won’t work unless you bankrupt the competition (and then turn around and pay those same golfers much, much less). It’s not a sustainable strategy and only lasts as long as the company/person/nation backing it decides they’re cool with losing money. For LIV Golf, that meant Middle East oil wealth, in particular Saudi Arabian money. Clearly, the current Iran War has hurt Middle East finances, so they need to trim their more exorbitant spending. And LIV Golf was part of that trimming. This should be a major warning for others. TGL’s parent company, TMRW Sports, just got a $1 billion valuation, despite TGL’s (the indoor golf league) horrible TV viewership of less than half a million viewers per match. Unrivaled, the women’s basketball league, just secured a $650 valuation, despite its horrible TV viewership and a new rival (Project B) entering the scene next year. To relate this to streaming, Hollywood should ask which streamers may have wealthy patrons funding their losses. (Let’s be clear: Google, Amazon and Apple.) Could those patrons lose their appetite? For Amazon, probably not. But Apple has a new boss, so maybe! WRONG: My Analysis of the Streaming Bubble Was Missing a Week I’m going to be congratulating myself a lot today, but I make mistakes too, like this data goof. When I last compiled the data on the decline in TV shows, I was missing one week at the end of June. If you look at the first image, you can see that one week was mislabelled as “July”. Mainly, this image got updated to show a 27% decline, not 29%: This change doesn’t really impact the overall analysis, but it is two percent better. By the way, through the third quarter, the decline increased and it’s now a 30% decrease since 2022. (I’ll write/visualize this in an upcoming article.) But I want you to trust me and my data. Especially these days, when many people are using LLMs that I know are inserting faulty data into their charts, I want to keep earning my audience’s faith. So that’s the accurate data. RIGHT: IP Remains Very, Very Popular In July, I wrote a giant (and I mean giant) article on Backrooms, Obsession, and the box office, going over what we know, what we don’t know about what works in theaters, looking at YouTubers, IP, the horror genre, comic book movies, and a whole lot more. The month of August really tested a lot of my theses and, being honest, mostly supported my arguments. Let’s start with IP. Looking at 8-Aug (the weekend after Spider-Man: Brand New Day came out) to 18-Sep (the weekend that Resident Evil came out, which I think provides a nice bookend to this time period), there were seven films based on pre-existing IP: Resident Evil (2026) ($126 million) Practical Magic 2 ($65 million) _Insidious: Out of the Furthe_r ($65 million) Coyote Vs. Acme ($59 million) Paw Patrol: The Dino Movie ($53 million) Tony ($15 million) Super Troopers 3 ($7 million) Compare those to the notable original films from the past month—I actually could have included more movies, but here are just thirteen, bringing us to an even twenty films—including.... The End of Oak Street ($54 million) Buddy ($26 million) Mutiny ($15 million) By Any Means ($15 million) The Dog Stars ($14 million) Runner ($14 million) One Night Only ($11 million) Hope ($8 million) Spa Weekend ($7 million) The Uprising ($6 million) Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma ($6 million) Onslaught ($3 million) Eli Roth’s Ice Cream Man ($2.8 million) Here’s that in chart form: Five of the top six films in this time period were all based on IP. I made a big chart of films that grossed over $200 million at the box office before Spider-Man: Brand New Day and The Odyssey hit theaters. Let’s update that chart! By the way, if you want to see how I categorized each film—so another bar chart—here it is: I know that many of my fellow critics/pundits/analysts dislike films based on IP and how Hollywood is making so many of them. And I’m sympathetic to this point of view. As I’ve written many, many times before, you need a balance between existing franchises, new IP, and original films. And Hollywood clearly needs to make more films like Resident Evil (a well-made film from a visionary director) and fewer Practical Magic 2’s (which didn’t get critical or customer buzz). But at some point, critics and pundits need to contend with what audiences are telling them: Movie-goers aren’t showing up to original films. Audiences are speaking with their dollars, telling you they want more IP and franchises. You can try to convince studio heads to make fewer IP-based films and franchises, but the data and numbers aren’t there. Instead, critics need to work harder to convince audiences to show up for original films. Aim your ire/concern at the average person, not studio heads.2 Because they’re just making the films that audiences are telling them to make. WRONG: Original Horror Films Didn’t Break Out I’ll be honest, even though I wrote an article casting some skepticism on the horror genre in July, if you asked me to make a prediction, I would have predicted that, in August, a new, original horror film would have blown up. No, seriously, I just assumed that Obsession and Backrooms presaged a change in audience behavior. But none of the buzzy new original horror films from August—Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma, Onslaught (not an action film in spite of the ads), The End of Oak Street, Eli Roth’s Ice Cream Man, or _Buddy—_broke out. To be clear, exactly one of those films (Buddy) had good “ROI”, but again—I try to be specific in my language—none were “popular” in any broad sense of the word. None of them will be “saving” movies theaters like Backrooms or _Obsession_helped save the summer. The new Insidious film and Resident Evil, both based on IP, were far and away the biggest horror films since July. (We’ll see if this changes in October/Halloween season.) RIGHT: Stay Skeptical about Crowdfunding... I’ve long been skeptical about crowd-investing platforms as one of Hollywood’s saviors, mainly because there’s so much hype/buzz. People need to stay more skeptical about more things, explaining both the potential upside but also the downsides. In particular, the media often hypes crowdfunding at the start and never checks in on the actual results after they’ve come in later. And August gave us our first update! _Ice Cream Man—_directed by Eli Roth—grossed $6 million off of a $5.5 million budget. This is a production of The Horror Section, which was one of the first “crowd investing” studios with 2,400 investors, which means that 2,400 investors probably lost money. They certainly aren’t getting as great of returns as if they had just invested their dollars in the stock market. Hopefully Stiletto (Tagline: “Someone’s Going to Make it Rain Blood!”) does better next month. WRONG: Another Data Goof Here’s another data error. When the first episode of House of the Dragon came out, HBO put out that it had 21.5 million viewers in the first three days, and I read that to mean in the US…but no, it was global. So my US-only datecdotes charts shouldn’t have included it. We never got US-only numbers for the first episode, but for the final episode, HBO put out that it had 11 million US viewers. (And that global dropped to 21 million viewers.) Here’s the updated chart (which I’ve since used in the Streaming Ratings Report): Still, this show is absolutely huge. RIGHT: Superhero Films Remain Very, Very Popular After Supergirl flopped, I read a few takes that “comic book movies are going the way of the Western”. Post-Spider-Man: Brand New Day, that take didn’t age well. To be fair, I have a very nuanced take on the superhero genre right now; it’s down right now, for a lot of reasons. But it’s not “dead”. Maybe _Spider-_Man is just a really popular character? I saw that take, and it’s a fair counter-argument. (But pundits arguing that superhero movies were dead should have mentioned this $1.5 billion counter-argument…) But is it just Spider-Man? The next Avengers film already has $50 million in pre-sales (and I was skeptical that that film would do well) and the Avengers: End Game re-release topped the box office two weekends ago (over three original films). And I wouldn’t bet against Batman or Superman. So maybe it’s just Spider-Man, Batman, Superman and the Avengers. Oh, and Deadpool, of course. And Black Panther. And Wolverine. And probably the X-Men. Plus a well-made Wonder Woman or the Hulk film could break out. But that’s it! It’s just those ten characters/teams. Oh, what’s that? Lanterns is also doing well on HBO? (See previous section…) To be fair, I’m actually pretty sympathetic to the argument that more popular characters—like Spider-Man and Batman—anchor more popular films. In fact, I made that exact argument three years ago when I first wrote about the “Marvel-cession”. In many ways, you can blame The Guardians of the Galaxy for fooling Marvel Studios (and the rest of us) into believing that any character could pop. It turns out, the list of iconic characters is probably smaller than most people think. But it’s probably too early to say that superhero films and comic book movies are dead unless “death” means a slight decline over a longtime. RIGHT: Who Killed Theaters? Old People I get frustrated whenever I see headlines or analysis about how young people are “returning” to theaters. As I’ve detailed(for years), young people have always powered the US box office, despite narratives about “kids these days” and their “phones”. Really, what’s changed post-2020/pandemic is that old people aren’t going to the movies nearly as much. This summer, I saw a movie (from an older director) in a theater near a retirement community, and multiple older people at the theater were talking about how this was their first time seeing a movie in years. I dislike personal anecdotes, so YouGov can fill in the data, best summarized by this headline: “Who killed movie theaters? Not the youths”. According to them, 64% of people aged 18-29 have seen a movie in the last year, but only 30% of 65-and-older. 20% of 18-29 have seen a movie in theaters in the last week and 42% in the last month. Here’s the polling data: Most concerning? Many Americans (17%) think theaters are a worse or much worse experience than watching films at home. Slight WRONG: Hadestown Opens Big A live theater capture of the Broadway musical, Hadestown, made $20 million at the US box office, which begs the question: was I wrong to be skeptical about musicals a few years ago? Yes and no. On the one hand, $20 million is a far cry from being “popular”, so yeah, the genre isn’t that popular overall and Hadestown is one of the more popular musicals from recent years (i.e. the “Taylor Swift Data Fallacy” in action). On the other, I doubt filming this cost all that much, and I don’t think that they spent much on marketing, so this is a good source of ancillary revenue. Smaller Updates WRONG: As I mentioned in a Streaming Ratings Report, I underestimated the budget for Enola Holmes 3. It probably cost more like $50 million, if not more. But... I’m not sure that it really matters? At sub-10 million hours, prices have to come down to make this work. WRONG: Netflix is giving Ink a 27-day in theaters! To quote the kids/YouTubers these days, let’s go! Now I might actually have a chance to see Danny Boyle’s latest in theaters. I’d complained about this in a “Coming Soon” section, but I was heartened to read that Netflix is giving multiple films longer theatrical windows this year. RIGHT: Netflix is sending 4-5 films per year to theaters. Netflix is slowly but surely sending more and more films to theaters, as I cautiously predicted earlier this year. For now, it’s just three big films and a number of awards contenders, but still, this is great news. And they’ll be releasing box office grosses! Just this week, Ted Sarandos confirmed that KPop Demon Hunters 2 will come to theaters (and my guess is it performs in the box office top ten at a minimum). WRONG: Angel has 3 million subscribers! How do I know this? Well, they told Deadline, who reported it. I marked this as “wrong”, since they’ve doubled their subscribers in one year but, you know, they don’t really have a hit film to speak of and they’re still losing money. WRONG: Furious was only renewed for one more season. I accidentally wrote “two more seasons” in my latest “Renewals, Cancellations, Un-Orders and Removals Update”. RIGHT: House of David is ending with its third season. In July, Prime Video renewed House of David for a third season, as I just wrote in my latest “Renewals and Cancellations” report. Well, now it’s ending after that third season. Why? As I’ve been writing, its viewership wasn’t great. I got feedback that this show didn’t cost very much, but it cost enough that its limited viewership didn’t save it. WRONG: Adults was a Hulu original! So I missed Adults when it first came out last year; I saw that it aired on FX and just assumed that it was a linear-first program. Turns out, it aired three episodes on FX, but binge-released the rest of its episodes the next day on Hulu. Huh. So I should have covered it last year! But I just wrote about it. 1 “When I was a kid in the 90s, if you wore a t-shirt to school that wasn’t too big and also wasn’t too small, but somehow didn’t quite fit, we’d say you were wearing an “extra-medium” shirt.” 2 As always, a huge exception is Disney, which barely makes anything original anymore.
Leipzig Rule Out Nagelsmann Return Despite Demichelis Pressure
Internal unrest grows as Martín Demichelis faces a season-defining gauntlet, but the Red Bulls are dismissing rumors of a sentimental reunion with their former Champions League mastermind.
Professor Mahasin S. Mujahid receives Abraham Lilienfeld Award
Mujahid was celebrated for her transformational contributions to the field of social epidemiology and received the award at the ACE annual meeting.
Justina Shiroka Pula: Kosovo’s new president, elected during a crisis
An academic, former minister and a compromise choice, Pula was voted in by parliament amid protests.
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Broward County and Henderson Behavioral Health Win Community Catalyst Award - Florida Hospital News and Healthcare Report
Ty Richardson, Interim President & CEO of the Greater Fort Lauderdale Chamber of Commerce; Vivian Demille, COO of Henderson Behavioral Health; Shari Thomas, Director of Youth & Family at Henderson […]
Redoing Daubert: Are judges letting bad science back into the court room?
Daubert was meant to keep unreliable science out of the courtroom by making judges gatekeepers who ensure the reliability and relevance of expert testimony and the underlying research. A recent Second Circuit decision raises a harder question: how deeply may a judge examine the science when evaluating an expert’s methodology before determining the scientific dispute itself? The answer could reshape how courts translate epidemiological evidence into legal proof.
Candidates share their stance on healthcare at Health Improvement Alliance forum
The Health Improvement Alliance of Saint Joseph County held an open forum on Tuesday for political candidates to share their thoughts and stances on healthcare
Arkansas Advocate on Ozarks at Large: Maternal health, Kentucky's governor and political debates
Arkansas Advocate Editor-in-Chief Andrew DeMillo joined Ozarks at Large Senior Producer Matthew Moore on KUAF this week to discuss recent grants for maternal health, Kentucky's governor rallying Democrats and the history of political debates.
Arkansas Advocate on Ozarks at Large: Maternal health, Kentucky's governor and political debates
Arkansas Advocate Editor-in-Chief Andrew DeMillo joined Ozarks at Large Senior Producer Matthew Moore on KUAF this week to discuss recent grants for maternal health, Kentucky's governor rallying Democrats and the history of political debates.
Stand Up for Science to Rally Scientists & University Leaders in Support of Academic Freedom Tomorrow
Virtual rally features speakers from SUNY & SUFS; calls on university leadership to defend academic freedom.
Stand Up for Science to Rally Scientists & University Leaders in Support of Academic Freedom Tomorrow
Virtual rally features speakers from SUNY & SUFS; calls on university leadership to defend academic freedom.
The Harvard Crimson (@theharvardcrimson)
83 likes, 0 comments - theharvardcrimson on October 6, 2026: "Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences is launching 25 tenure-track faculty searches, FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra announced in a Monday email to faculty, further loosening a University-wide hiring freeze instituted last spring as the school draws an influx of philanthropic support. The searches, which include positions across the FAS’ three divisions and the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, come less than a week after Hoekstra announced the school would also be upping Ph.D. admissions for the upcoming admissions cycle — and as the University continues soliciting support from donors for its academic programming. Full story linked in bio. 🖋: Abigail S. Gerstein and Amann S. Mahajan 📷: Mae T. Weir".
Catalytic confessions and a quest for Matt Damon: PodCAT puts science on mic
PodCAT, hosted by researchers from Rice, the University of Rochester and Penn State University, is a podcast devoted to the science of catalysis, academic careers and the surprisingly personal stories of the researchers themselves.
New Study in Health Affairs Documents Rapid Rise in Healthcare Spending in Massachusetts After COVID-19 Pandemic
[auto]
UCSF Health Reaches 25,000 Robotic Surgeries
Surgeons at the UC San Francisco have performed over 25,000 robotically assisted minimally invasive surgeries, making it the first University of California health center to reach this milestone. UCSF Health has the busiest robotic surgery program in the UC Health system and is one of the leading academic medical institutions for robotic surgeries in the Western U.S.
RWJBarnabas Health President and CEO Mark E. Manigan Named 2026 NJBIZ Executive Excellence Honoree
Mark E. Manigan, President and Chief Executive Officer of RWJBarnabas Health, the largest, most comprehensive academic health system in New Jersey, has been named a 2026 Executive Excellence honoree by NJBIZ, recognizing his leadership and impact on New Jersey’s health care landscape. Mr. Manigan and the other honorees will be recognized by NJBIZ at an awards ceremony taking place today.
Largest gift in Franklin College history to pay for new business and pre-law building
The college plans to build a two-story academic facility featuring a mock courtroom for pre-law students and an investment trading lab aimed at business majors.
RWJBarnabas Health President and CEO Mark E. Manigan Named 2026 NJBIZ Executive Excellence Honoree
Mark E. Manigan, President and Chief Executive Officer of RWJBarnabas Health, the largest, most comprehensive academic health system in New Jersey, has been named a 2026 Executive Excellence honoree by NJBIZ, recognizing his leadership and impact on New Jersey’s health care landscape.
From 4-H Member to Healthcare Leader: A Conversation with Davina Ferrero King
"My 4-H experience helped establish UConn in my mind as a place where I could continue growing academically, professionally, and personally."
Anthropic AI agent uses human scientists as tools, emails 1,500 without instructions
ColonistOne, built on Claude Opus, autonomously contacted researchers to troubleshoot bugs and seek methods, raising concerns over academic spam and AI autonomy
On This Day, Oct. 5: Scientists genetically sequence flu strain behind 1918 pandemic
On Oct. 5, 2005, scientists announced that for the first time they were able to genetically sequence the strain of avian flu that was behind the 1918 pandemic that killed up to 50 million people world...
The genetic secret helping bats survive a deadly epidemic
We’re easing you into Halloween season with an episode about bats. There’s a silent serial killer decimating little brown bats as they hibernate. White nose syndrome has driven populations across the U.S. to almost the brink of extinction over the last decade. But recently, conservation biologist Giorgia Auteri and her team noticed several genetic mutations in the survivors. These mutations could explain how natural selection has shifted the existing population – and inform conservation efforts in the future.Interested in more animal science? Email us your question at shortwave@npr.org.Support public media with NPR+ and enjoy perks for over 25 podcasts like this one. This show’s perks include sponsor-free listening. Learn more at plus.npr.org.
[World Class] Sookmyung bets Hallyu’s next stage is academia, not just entertainment
Behind each university’s global ambitions are choices about what to preserve, what to develop and where to go next. In “World Class,” The Korea Herald interview
Business owners offer rewards to those with information on Bissell Street shooting
South Bend Police are still looking for the suspect or suspects in the Bissell Street shooting from two weeks ago that killed three.The community is coming toge
Professor Renée Marlin-Bennett Receives International Studies Association (ISA) Award
Professor Renée Marlin-Bennett has received the 2027 Distinguished Scholar Award from the Science, Technology, and Art in International Relations (STAIR) section of the International Studies Association (ISA). The award celebrates scholars whose work and academic engagement have been highly influential in the study of science, technology, and art in International Relations and International Political Economy....
How Americans’ Financial Health Is Faring In The “K-Shaped” Economy
Hey all, Jason here. Money20/20 is still two weeks away, but I’ve already started packing (not procrastinating for once!). My calendar is already filling up with various sessions I want to catch, meetings, and of course happy hours, dinners, and other side events. If you’ll be in Vegas and want to catch up, let me know by replying to this email, and we can try to find a time amidst the chaos of the Venetian. A big if not totally unexpected piece of news dropped on Friday: the Independent Community Bankers of America, a trade group that represents smaller U.S. banks, filed a lawsuit against the OCC and Comptroller Jonathan Gould, arguing that the regulator’s move to grant trust bank charters to firms seeking to use them to conduct substantial non-fiduciary activities exceeds the authorities granted to the OCC by Congress. I haven’t had time to fully digest the legal filing or speak to folks in my network about it, but you can expect to see coverage and analysis on it in next week’s newsletter. Subscribe or Support by Upgrading The NerdCon agenda just dropped. It’s stacked. Partner content: Nubank built an AI-first bank. Chime built its own banking core. Figure and Valon are rebuilding the mortgage stack. At NerdCon, you’ll hear from the people behind those bets: what they chose, what they learned, and what they’re still figuring out. The agenda is live, with leaders from Nubank, Chime, OpenAI, Remitly, Mercury, Figure, Valon and more. Follow the mainstage conversations, bring the problem your team is wrestling with to a hands-on workshop, or pull up a chair at a roundtable. Pick your quests. Meet us in San Diego, November 18–20. Fintech Business Weekly readers save 20% with code FBW20. Explore the Agenda Things To Know & Other Good Reads Federal Reserve Board finalizes changes to enhance the transparency and public accountability of its stress test and reduce volatility in its stress test-related capital requirements (Federal Reserve Board of Governors) FDIC Announces Conclusion of Independent Monitorship (FDIC) Modernizing Financial Regulation: Initial Observations from eSLR (Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman) The Data Version of Godzilla versus Kong: FRED Takes on AI (Fed Governor Christopher Waller) Financing the AI buildout (Brookings) Q3’26: Rules for Banks but Not for Crypto (Fintech Takes Banking) The Inevitability of Local Stablecoins (Lombard Notes) Delusions of AI Governance: The Human-in-the-Loop Comfort Blanket (Fintech Snark Tank) Stripe agrees to acquire Parafin to expand revenue opportunities for platforms and help small businesses grow (Stripe) Listen: Fighting Fraud in the Age of AI, with SEON’s Tamas Kadar (Fintech Business Weekly) How Americans’ Financial Health Is Faring In The “K-Shaped” Economy If there is one overarching theme across the economy and politics in the U.S. at the moment, it’s “affordability.” The term is vague enough to encompass a panoply of factors shaping Americans’ day-to-day lives: rising costs for the hallmarks of being “middle class,” including healthcare, housing, childcare, and education, inflation and rising interest rates, and a job market with the specter of AI hovering over it. At the same time, policy shifts under the Trump administration have resulted in reduced subsidies to those who get health insurance under the Affordable Care Act and new restrictions on qualifying for Medicaid and SNAP, the impacts of which have yet to be fully felt. These factors are contributing to declining consumer confidence and general dissatisfaction with the economy, despite continuing GDP growth and stock market records. This divergence is encapsulated in the idea of the “K-shaped” economy, in which a small proportion of Americans have seen their wealth balloon, while the majority of American households struggle to preserve the lifestyle they have. Perhaps the greatest determinant of which branch of the “K” a household is on is whether their wealth and income are primarily derived from employment vs. from assets. Nearly two decades of low interest rates and, more recently, elevated rates of inflation have benefited asset owners, while those whose income is primarily or solely derived from labor have largely seen real purchasing power stagnate or decline. This is reflected in recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing that labor share of U.S. GDP — the fraction of economic output that accrues to workers as compensation in exchange for their labor — dropped to just 52.8% in Q2 2026, the lowest since the BLS began keeping records. In 1947, approximately 2/3rds of economic output accrued to workers; even as recently as 2001, labor’s share of GDP was 64.1%. Against this backdrop, we’ve seen the rise of more credit and credit-like products: cash advance apps, “no-fee” overdraft, earned wage access, and buy now pay later, which are often used as small-dollar short-term borrowing mechanisms to meet immediate consumption needs or pay other bills (eg utilities, cell phone, other debt payments). With the markers of a middle class existence and, increasingly, basic financial stability seemingly out of reach for many, it should be no surprise there’s been an increase in “financial nihilism,” something industry peers like Alex Johnson and Frank Rotman have discussed and analyzed the roots of. The explosion of gambling and gambling-adjacent products and services — often marketed under the guise of being an “investment” — is inextricably intertwined with the rise of financial nihilism. Crypto, sports betting, and, more recently, prediction markets offer an escape or even hope of sorts, like a contemporary, digital version of a scratch-off lottery ticket, while leaving the overwhelming number of people who use such products worse off. Share of Households That Are Financially “Vulnerable” Ticks Up The Financial Health Network’s 2026 Financial Health Pulse® report adds context on how American households are faring. (I linked to this report in last week’s newsletter, but wanted to take time to further unpack the data in the report this week.) The Financial Health Network publishes the report annually, providing insight into how Americans’ financial circumstances are changing over time. The 2026 report is derived from a survey fielded in April and May 2026. The report leverages survey responses to assess indicators of financial health across spending, saving, borrowing, and planning/protecting and to determine a zero to 100 “FinHealth” score. Those with scores between 0 and 39 are considered “Financially Vulnerable,” consumers with scores ranging between 40 and 79 are defined as “Financially Coping,” and those with scores of 80 to 100 are “Financially Healthy.” The report found that moderate improvements in 2025 were reversed, with the share of respondents considered financially “vulnerable” rebounding to 17%. The longitudinal data reflect the impact of pandemic-era programs, like expanded unemployment, cash stimulus payments, and pauses of federal student loan payments. The positive impacts of those programs, as reflected in the Financial Health Pulse reports, had largely disappeared by 2023. While pandemic-era inflation — to be fair, in part caused by the various support and stimulus measures — had come down from as high as 9% in 2022, it has rebounded since the start of Trump’s second term, with tariffs and energy market disruptions owing to the war in Iran pushing prices back up. Specific indicators in the survey that deteriorated from 2025 to 2026 include the share of respondents spending less than their income over the past 12 months, the share paying all bills on time over the past 12 months, the share that have a manageable amount or no debt, the share that are “moderately” or “very” confident their insurance is adequate to cover them in an emergency, and the share that “somewhat” or “strongly” agree that their household plans ahead financially. Unsurprisingly, lower- and moderate-income households are more likely to struggle to pay their bills on time and have any funds leftover to save. The share of low-income households whose income exceeded their spending dropped from 35% in 2025 to 31% in 2026, while the share of upper-income households whose income exceeded expenses remained unchanged at 63%. Households with student loans or revolving credit card debt reported having “a bit more” or “far more” debt than was manageable at rates far higher than those not carrying these types of debts. The share of those with student loan debt indicating their debt load was too high to manage increased from 50% in 2025 to 55% in 2026, while the share of those with revolving credit card debt saying the same ticked up from 51% in 2025 to 54% in 2026. Households that had student loans were markedly more likely to be financially “coping” or “vulnerable” vs. those without student loans. In 2026, 27% of households with student loans were considered financially vulnerable, a jump of 6% points vs. 2025. Households without student loans saw just a 1% point increase (not statistically significant) in those considered financially vulnerable. Households’ perception of the affordability of categories of goods and services paints a stark picture, with less than one-fourth considering higher education affordable, about a third deeming childcare affordable, and less than half viewing healthcare as affordable. Fintech Business Weekly is made possible by the generous support of paying subscribers — bringing you independent analysis of banking, fintech, and crypto without fear or favor. You can support my work by becoming a paying subscriber if you aren’t already. Paying subscribers enjoy: access to the entire archive of nearly six years of newsletters extended versions of the weekly newsletter, with additional content and analysis and (for founding member tier) quarterly personal 1:1 fintech Q&A / strategy calls with me, tapping into my unparalleled knowledge of the intersection of banking and fintech and experience working in the sector, including helping to launch Goldman Sachs’ retail bank Marcus Support Fintech Business Weekly You can also support Fintech Business Weekly by sponsoring a newsletter or podcast, putting you in front of 93,000+ of the most influential decision makers in banking, fintech, and crypto. Learn more about sponsor opportunities or request a media kit by dropping me an email. Democratic Senate Report Highlights How Iran Uses Tether to Evade U.S. Sanctions Iran uses stablecoins, specifically Tether, to evade sanctions, fund regional proxies, and to purchase military drones, a report released last week by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations says. The report was authored by committee ranking member Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and the minority staff. Crypto and stablecoin proponents will often push back on criticism that criminals make use of these assets by arguing that, on an absolute dollar basis, far more illicit funds flow through traditional banking systems and payment rails than via crypto and stablecoins. And while that is likely true, it elides the reality presented in news story after news story: whether state actors — Russia, Iran, North Korea — or criminal groups, those looking to engage in illicit transactions increasingly favor stablecoins and, specifically, Tether (USDT). The report from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released last week adds context to how Iran uses Tether has a lynchpin in its shadow banking system. The report analyzed 846 wallets that have been sanctioned or targeted for seizure, finding that 84% of them transacted exclusively or primarily in Tether. The ability to create near limitless, anonymous wallets and to move funds effectively instantaneously and irreversibly have made crypto a favored financial mechanism for bad actors. Stablecoins solved key drawbacks of bitcoin, namely, the original cryptocurrency’s highly volatile value in dollars. And while Tether (the company) has the technical ability to “freeze” or destroy funds, the company is often limited and reactive in its approach to doing so, the Senate report argues. Tether, which is nominally based in crypto-friendly El Salvador, “has stated that its compliance with OFAC sanctions is ‘voluntary’ and that it follows ‘OFAC guidelines,’” the Senate report says. Owing to these favorable attributes, Tether “became a primary cryptocurrency for Iran, Hamas, Hizballah, and the Houthis beginning in 2023 and has expanded in scale since,” according to the report. Tether’s role in Iran’s shadow banking system, the report says, is enhanced by crypto exchanges like Bybit, Kyrrex, OKX, Gate, and Binance, and through “over the counter” exchanges and hawala networks. The consequences of these financial flows aren’t hypothetical. The Senate report links Tether as a funds transfer mechanism to Iranian proxies in the region, including Hizballah, the Houthis, and Hamas. Tether has also been used to make payments to secure components necessary to manufacture drones, the report says. The report concludes by arguing that “[s]tablecoin issuers with a significant nexus to the United States, particularly those that offer dollar-denominated stablecoins, should be subject to American sanctions law rather than being allowed to hide behind foreign jurisdictions.” Stablecoin issuers like Tether must be held accountable for repeated failures to prevent illicit finance and sanctions violations by law enforcement, the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and OFAC, the report argues. [Paying Subscriber Exclusive] OUSD Goes Live, Make Your Own Neobank, U.S. Sanctions Russia’s A7 Network As “Transnational Criminal Organization” OpenUSD, the stablecoin issued by the Open Standard consortium that includes Stripe, Visa, Mastercard, core providers, crypto firms, and numerous banks, went live last week. Social commerce platform Whop raised eyebrows in fintech by offering creators on its platform the ability to launch their own neobanks, which the company describes as “great businesses that are easy to run,” in just 15 minutes. And OFAC and FinCEN target Russia’s “shadow banking” A7 Network — more on these stories after the paywall.
Health Policy Watch | COVID-19 drops out of world’s top 10 causes of death for first time since pandemic began
The virus directly killed an estimated 0.9 million people in 2023, ranking 14th, as global life expectancy climbed back to near its pre-pandemic level.
Demi Moore reflects on controversial ‘Striptease’ pay: ‘Why should I not get equal to what I deserve?’
Demi Moore is looking back on the controversy that flared up after she became the highest-paid woman in Hollywood for ‘Striptease,’ which left her wondering, ‘Why should I not get equal to what I deserve?’
How a 100-Year-Old Indie Movie Theater Stays In Business
The operator of the Cranford Theater in New Jersey battled back from the pandemic and a ceiling collapse — and is now planning to mark the centennial with a gala screening.
Columbine Brutal Reminder on Epidemic of School Violence
Colorado Politics looks back at Ken Salazar’s reflections on the Columbine shooting and a landmark court ruling that reshaped election security standards for Colorado voting machines.
Symphony San Jose celebrates 25th anniversary, announces new artistic partners
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Symphony San Jose opens its 25th anniversary season this weekend, celebrating a huge milestone since the orchestra’s “rebirth” following the demise of the old San Jose
Symphony San Jose celebrates 25th anniversary, announces new artistic partners
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Symphony San Jose opens its 25th anniversary season this weekend, celebrating a huge milestone since the orchestra’s “rebirth” following the demise of the old San Jose
Studying Science in an Anti-Scientific Time
This Chronicle Review Deep Cut was first published in 2025. By Julianne Werlin Thanks for reading The Chronicle Review! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe The last two decades have not been kind to science studies. Already bruised and battered by the “science wars” of the 1990s, by the 2000s sociologists of science — who had long argued that science had to be understood in its human context — were encountering the funhouse-mirror version of their own views in right-wing critiques of climate scientists. It was enough to give some prominent scholars pause. “Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies?” asked Bruno Latour, the most famous sociologist of science in the world, in 2003. “Should we apologize for having been wrong all along? Or should we rather bring the sword of criticism to criticism itself and do a bit of soul-searching here: What were we really after when we were so intent on showing the social construction of scientific facts?” In response, Latour proposed a change of method and attitude. Science studies, now chastened and contrite, would no longer seek to strip facts of their authority, but to enrich and enhance them. What this meant in practice was never fully clear. But his diagnosis of problems resonated, even if his solutions did not. Latour’s exercise in public hand-wringing signaled a shift in mood. By 2016, with the first election of Donald Trump, the idea that skepticism of science was a right-wing position, not a left-wing one, had become a commonplace, discussed eagerly in The New York Times. For liberals, vaccine denial during the Covid era and Trump’s second-term attacks on the funding of scientific research, covered extensively in these pages, added a new urgency to the defense of science on both practical and principled grounds. There was little appetite for a sociology or philosophy of science that emphasized the messiness and missteps of the scientific process rather than its integrity and triumphs. The distinguished historian of science Peter Dear’s new book, The World as We Know It: From Natural Philosophy to Modern Science (Princeton University Press, 2025), which seeks to tell the story of 18th- and 19th-century science for a general public, may seem comfortably remote from these bitter contests. In its 16 short chapters, Dear draws swift, sure sketches of major discoveries from Newton to Einstein, ably guiding the reader through debates on stellar nebulae, animal taxonomy, atomic chemistry, evolution, and other flashpoints in the history of science. But though a work of history, Dear’s book must still negotiate our polarized present. In a blurb on its back cover, the historian of biology Lynn K. Nyhart alludes to the “present moment, when scientific knowledge is being swamped by misinformation and its institutions are under siege.” Dear himself, in his conclusion, refers to the “yard signs” and “bumper stickers” that proclaim “Science Is Real.” One antidote to both anti-science propaganda and to reductive slogans in science’s defense is a robust history and philosophy of science: exactly what Dear’s scholarship has long offered. But his new book illustrates how difficult such work has become. Dear, an emeritus professor of history at Cornell University, is best known as a creative and philosophically minded historian of the Scientific Revolution. His edited volume The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument (1991) analyzed the rhetoric of Galileo’s thought experiments to brilliant effect. Discipline and Experience: The Mathematical Way in the Scientific Revolution (1995) was a major contribution to the analysis of scientific experiments in early modern Europe and beyond, while Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge in Transition, 1500-1700 (2001), now in its third edition, remains one of the best overviews of the profound epistemological upheavals of 16th- and 17th-century science. But Dear has also ventured into later periods. Nearly two decades ago, in The Intelligibility of Nature: How Science Makes Sense of the World (2006), he turned to the 18th and 19th centuries to sketch a history and theory of scientific knowledge. Aimed at a generalist audience, Dear’s simple prose belied serious philosophical ambitions. Science, Dear argued, has two aspects: “natural philosophy,” the quest to understand the true nature of the universe, and “instrumentality,” the applied skills and technologies that allow us to manipulate the world for human advantage. Both strands are ancient, but the innovation of the phenomenon we call “science” was to yoke them together. As Francis Bacon wrote, “Human knowledge and human power meet in one; for where the cause is not known, the effect cannot be produced,” an insight typically abridged to “knowledge is power.” Or, in Bertrand Russell’s characteristically blunt phrase, science has two functions, “1. to enable us to know things, and 2., to enable us to do things.” So far, so conventional. But Dear took issue with this familiar story in one respect. Bacon’s formula implied that theory and practice could be fused in a single method. In fact, Dear argued, the quest to understand nature and the desire to manipulate it were coupled only loosely. They could come together, but they could also pull apart. Focusing on natural philosophy, the “knowing” half of the scientific circle, he used a series of case studies from cosmology, taxonomy, chemistry, electromagnetism, and quantum theory to show how theories changed over time, in dialogue with practice, but never reducible to it. Take the case of matter, the basic substrate of the physical world. In the 18th and 19th centuries, scientists not only disagreed about what it was, but also about how well it could be known. In 1789, the chemist Antoine Lavoisier dismissed speculation about the atomic composition of chemicals as “discussions entirely of a metaphysical nature,” as he sought to orient chemistry away from philosophical abstraction and toward laboratory results. But in the 19th century, atoms returned with a vengeance in the atomic chemistry of John Dalton, who wanted to explain the underlying structure of nature. It was not just that Dalton and Lavoisier had a different set of experimental results, or even a different theory, Dear showed. What counted as an explanation had changed. In arguing that scientific theories depended on their intelligibility to human beings with complex arrays of beliefs and commitments, Dear was in sympathy with science studies. Key figures such as the sociologist Steven Shapin emphasized the importance of psychological mechanisms like trust in the formation and acceptance of scientific ideas. But in focusing on the scientific pursuit of knowledge, not its politics or economics, Dear resisted the more cynical perspective of some of his colleagues. The Intelligibility of Nature strikes a very different note than Shapin’s collection of a few years later, Never Pure: Historical Studies of Science as If It Was Produced by People With Bodies, Situated in Time, Space, Culture, and Society, and Struggling for Credibility and Authority (2010), to name just one example. Walking a very fine line, Dear depicted science as driven at once by complex social dynamics and by the intellectual power of real discoveries. It was a testament not only to his own acumen but also to the vitality of the field that he was able to do so. Nearly two decades later, The World as We Know It returns to the questions broached in The Intelligibility of Nature. Like Dear’s earlier study, it begins with the Newtonian cosmos and ends with debates between Einstein and Bohr on quantum physics. Beyond its terminal figures, many of the same characters appear in both studies, including the naturalists John Ray and the Comte de Buffon; the chemists Étienne François Geoffroy, Antoine Lavoisier, and John Dalton; as well as Charles Darwin and Michael Faraday, among others. Its subject is nearly identical: As in The Intelligibility of Nature, The World as We Know It considers natural philosophy as opposed to instrumentality, here defined as the “desire to create a picture of what the world is really like — the world as God knows it — rather than simply having instrumental or operational control over it.” The two books also overlap in insights — and sometimes even in language. The reader who has learned in The Intelligibility of Nature that Buffon’s method of classifying animals “reflected his belief in the importance of the senses and empiricism in learning about nature (a doctrine associated with Newton and the philosopher John Locke)” will experience a sense of déjà vu on reading, in The World as We Know It, that the classification “reflects Buffon’s commitment to the epistemological stance of Newton and his philosophical underlaborer John Locke, who stressed the role of the senses in creating natural knowledge.” Later in the passage, we read that, “because of its stress on understanding the ways of life of animals in their environments, Buffon’s approach could almost be labeled (anachronistically) as ‘ecological.’” And again, “an anachronistic way of putting it would be to say that Buffon recommends an ecological mode of understanding.” Likewise, in The Intelligibility of Nature we read of Dalton that he was initially drawn to meteorology, and that: He did a bit of experimental work on these things, especially having to do with the water-holding capacity of gases, but his real interest lay in understanding what, at an underlying natural-philosophical level, was really going on physically.” Whereas, in The World as We Know It: He did experimental work on these things, especially concerning the water-holding capacity of gases — although not at a very refined level quantitatively — but he was continually trying to develop a theoretical conception of what was happening physically. The final full chapter of each book closes on the same resigned note. Intelligibility: These days, most serious work on the natural philosophical underpinnings and implications of quantum mechanics is performed not by physicists but by philosophers of science. Among scientific practitioners themselves, Bohr’s attempt to use instrumentality as sufficient grounds for a respectable science has met with a high degree of success. And again, in The World as We Know It: Bohr’s and Einstein’s concerns are now questions that are mostly discussed by philosophers of science rather than by physicists themselves. The marginalization of these sorts of questions amounts to the demise of natural philosophy, at least in physics, in the 20th century. Quantum mechanics “works,” and that’s good enough for most scientists who encounter it. Examples could be multiplied. When handling the same subject matter, some echoes are inevitable. Scholars should not feel that because they have written “Isaac Newton died in 1727” in one book, in the next they must describe him as perishing, expiring, or meeting his maker. But the repetitions of language and arguments (not to mention six reproduced images) threaded throughout The World as We Know It are more extensive than that. They should have been caught by Princeton University Press or its reviewers, and revised. Because the two books have so much in common, it is easy to see where they diverge. The World as We Know It is a less theoretical work than its predecessor. The sociology of knowledge that organized The Intelligibility of Nature has been reduced in scale and folded into readings and examples. The taut interplay between history and theory, which gave the earlier study so much interest, is there, but it is subtle. In the earlier book, the case studies demonstrated theoretical claims about the character and development of science. In the later work, each narrative of discovery is an end in itself. Insights emerge from the history, but they do not control the organization of the study. With the theory muted, it can be hard to understand the logic uniting Dear’s sprawling history of more than two centuries of scientific knowledge. The 16 brisk chapters cover an enormous amount of material. But the closer the volume edges to comprehensiveness, the more obvious the missing elements become. A chapter on “Institutions and Pedagogy,” describing the birth of the research university, illustrates the problem. Inserted roughly halfway through the book, the unnumbered chapter is designed as an “entr’acte,” in acknowledgement that it does not fit the study’s organization around scientific discoveries. Yet as Dear is well aware, no general history of the development of modern science can bracket its 19th-century institutionalization and professionalization. It was the 19th-century university, after all, that gave us the “scientist,” a term coined by the Cambridge philosopher William Whewell. Dear’s history of scientific discoveries implies a wider social and institutional history, but it remains largely subterranean, only occasionally extruded under the pressure of the narrative. It must be said that the balance is not all on the side of the earlier study. There are some advantages to the more historical, less theoretical organization of The World as We Know It. Dear’s accounts of paradigm shifts are remarkably lucid, no small accomplishment given that they span fields and centuries. He makes excellent use of the wealth of new scholarship on Darwin and his influences, to which he has himself contributed. It is satisfying to see puzzle pieces from Buffon’s natural history, Georges Cuvier’s animal taxonomy, Thomas Robert Malthus’s demography, and Charles Lyell’s geology recombined seamlessly in the Darwinian jigsaw. Likewise, Dear’s discussion of stellar nebulae, divided between chapters two and 15, shows vividly how Newton, Kant, Herschel, and Hubble reimagined insights and observations as they sought to discover whether the diffuse light that filtered through early telescopes was a glowing, gaseous substance or discrete but distant stars. Yet despite such pleasures, the book remains a more modest work than The Intelligibility of Nature. Dear has clearly not changed his views about the history of science. But in the two decades that have elapsed, the discipline and the world around it have changed, making it harder to write a sociologically and philosophically ambitious history of science for the general reader. That is a shame, because in the age of Silicon Valley and biotechnology, both the reciprocity and the tensions Dear identified between the epistemological and instrumental ambitions of science are more evident than ever. In recent years, some of the most exciting new books on the history of science in early modernity have focused precisely on this pressure point. Important studies such as Pamela H. Smith’s From Lived Experience to the Written Word (2022), James Poskett’s Horizons: The Global Origins of Modern Science (2022), and Vera Keller’s The Interlopers: Early Stuart Projects and the Undisciplining of Knowledge (2023) all shed new light on how early modern science negotiated the relationship between its instrumental and epistemological ambitions, or in Russell’s phrase, knowing and doing. There is every opportunity for a philosophically informed approach to draw new insights from this wealth of material. Dear, unfortunately, has not done so in The World as We Know It. But for future scholars of the history of science, his body of work over nearly four decades may provide just the model. Julianne Werlin is an associate professor of English at Duke University. Thanks for reading The Chronicle Review! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe
Global life expectancy bounces back to near pre-pandemic levels, WHO says
People around the world are living longer again, with global life expectancy almost fully recovered from the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Friday.
COVID-19 Drops Out Of World’s Top 10 Causes Of Death For First Time Since Pandemic Began
COVID-19 dropped out of the world’s 10 leading causes of death in 2023 for the first time since the pandemic began in 2020, and only two years after it topped
Global life expectancy nears pre-pandemic level, but healthy years lag behind: WHO
Healthy life loss linked to anxiety disorders up nearly 45% since 2019, while depressive disorders see around 20% jump, says UN agency | Anadolu
Don’t trade your mental health to be the best
Columnist Sara Sayed emphasizes the importance of students taking advantage of mental health resources to manage academic stress.
With the Expansion of Tampa General to DeSoto County, Florida’s Premier Academic Health System Strengthens Access to Exceptional Care in Rural Communities
DeSoto Memorial Hospital is Now TGH DeSoto OCTOBER 2, 2026 – Tampa General Hospital (TGH) today welcomes patients in Florida’s Heartland to TGH DeSoto, formerly DeSoto Memorial Hospital. As Florida’s premier academic health system, TGH continues to expand its reach across the state, bringing greater access to exceptional care and specialized services to rural communities. […]
How Phillies' finish-line stumble set up their latest October demise
Don Mattingly always preached “better baseball,” but the Phillies couldn’t close out September — and carried the consequences into October.
Teachers team up to build a statewide science kit business outside the traditional classroom
Former educators Lindsey MacWha and Jennifer Corron share how they grew their pandemic project into a full-time venture.
Teachers team up to build a statewide science kit business outside the traditional classroom
Former educators Lindsey MacWha and Jennifer Corron share how they grew their pandemic project into a full-time venture.
Wichita candle business owner indicted Covid-era loan fraud
Grand jury accuses Wichita woman of submitting false information to obtain pandemic-era small business loans
Pieces of History
Chapter 5 of “The American Plague,” the acclaimed 2006 book about the yellow fever epidemic that decimated Memphis in the 1870s, details the life, work, and death of Dr. William James Armstrong as he attempted to care for the stricken.
How Washington Funded the Politicization of Science
Over the last half-decade, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on projects designed to influence academic policies, both in the sciences and other disciplines. The aim was to foster a progressive conception of social justice in these fields. In pursuit of this end, the foundation earmarked nearly a million dollars for a project titled “Creating Inclusive Scientific Societies through Policies and Practices,” over a million for a project on “Faculty Online Learning Communities for Gender Equity,” and over $2 million to foster “racial equity focused departmental change.” Through a public records request, I’ve obtained the proposals and progress reports for dozens of NSF grants designed to promote social justice. Although funding for these grants was eventually halted by the Trump administration, the projects illustrate an important facet of recent higher-education policy. Many of the university policies that promised “social transformation” didn’t arise in a vacuum. They were actively encouraged by outside funders—often by the federal government itself. Subscribe Accreditation—the peer-review process which enables universities to receive federal grants and student loans—has recently become a policy battleground, with accreditors wielding significant power over both universities and academic disciplines. In 2020, when Oregon Health and Science University’s medical school issued an extensive diversity action plan—which promised “consequences” for employees who failed to support “DEI, anti-racism and social justice”—it specifically pointed to the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), the medical-school accrediting body, to justify the overhaul. The NSF actively promoted DEI-focused accreditation policies. The proposal for a $1.2 million program on promoting “community engagement” in STEM, which I obtained through a records request, notes that the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology was exploring changes to its criteria “that would incorporate JEDI [justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion].” The proposal promised to “support broader JEDI efforts in the general criteria for engineering.” Another grant funded a conference designed to “identify and share best practices and strategies to integrate IDEA principles in accreditation criteria”—referring to an acronym that stands for “inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility.” Scholarly societies have become another flashpoint in debates over higher education. Critics argue that many of these societies, which have the power to shape entire disciplines, have become increasingly politicized. Again, through its giving, the NSF played a role in promoting this politicization. In one million-dollar grant that received funding in 2024, a group of psychologists proposed a series of social-justice reforms to the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. The proposal, which I obtained via a records request, asserts that “[r]edistributing resources (such as moving different people into leadership roles) is not enough” and that the society’s “governance structures do not yet reflect its stated values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Its solution: review and rework the society’s criteria for leadership development, academic awards, conferences, and publications. Adjusting review criteria informed by “intersectionality” designed to fight “epistemic exclusion” is an easy way to introduce de facto ideological litmus tests into the peer-review process. For many of the grants I obtained, such litmus tests seem to be the point. “Academic departments are racialized social systems that produce and sustain the byproducts of systemic racism,” a proposal for a $2.7 million project funded in 2024 asserts, promising to develop “departmentally-focused change efforts that cultivate values, assumptions, and behaviors that advance racial equity.” The University of Illinois Urbana Champaign’s million-dollar “I-ADVANCE” project, which effectively created a small DEI bureaucracy on campus, promised to Embed 28 ADVANCE faculty fellows in STEM departments” to amplify its equity goals. Another $1.2 million project promised to create “faculty online learning communities,” made up of scientists at universities around the country, that would eventually build department-level diversity action plans. “Ultimately,” the proposal asserts, perhaps more perceptively than its authors realized, “both organizational change and intersectionality frameworks deal with power.” Indeed, such grants confer a great deal of power to administrators and scholar-activists, who can even use the mere availability of funding as a tool to advance their causes. That history is worth remembering amid today’s debate over federal involvement in higher education: Washington has been shaping university priorities for years, including by financing efforts to instill progressive ideas about race, gender, and equity into academic institutions—and many of the policies those grants encouraged remain embedded within universities long after the federal money has stopped flowing. John D. Sailer is the director of higher education policy and a senior fellow at Manhattan Institute. Share
Lukeba’s Return Could Be The Boost Demichelis Needs At Leipzig
The French defender’s recovery offers the tactical recovery speed essential for high-pressing football, providing the defensive security necessary to stabilize a struggling backline before a daunting fixture run.
FSU and Tallahassee Memorial finalize FSU Health agreement
Both parties announced they are in agreement on lease and operating agreements and other documents outlining their academic and clinical structure.
Mount Sinai and Hasso Plattner Institute Launch International Graduate Student Exchange Program to Advance Digital Health and AI Innovation
The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Hasso Plattner Institute for Digital Engineering (HPI) are expanding their academic collaboration in digital health through the launch of a new graduate student exchange program offered through Mount Sinai’s Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences.
Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library joins Libraries & Academic Innovation unit
GW’s Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library joined the University’s Libraries and Academic Innovation unit on Sept. 28 in order to make it easier for students, faculty and researchers working across disciplines to use library resources.
Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library joins Libraries & Academic Innovation unit
GW’s Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library joined the University’s Libraries and Academic Innovation unit on Sept. 28 in order to make it easier for students, faculty and researchers working across disciplines to use library resources.
Pi Alpha Xi: Student Plant Sales Paying It Forward
Pi Alpha Xi’s biannual plant sales at NC State University unite horticulture students and the community to raise essential funds that support student scholarships, academic opportunities and impactful outreach initiatives.
Nina Simone, Langston Hughes and their forgotten creative collaboration
(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.)
Good science requires much more than evidence
Empiricists believe that scientific theories are true only if they make correct empirical predictions: if we can't verify these predictions, then there is no reason to expect that they tell us anything about reality. However, Professor of Philosophy at King's College David Kyle Johnson argues that this is mistaken. In response to Bas van Fraassen, who has written on this subject for the IAI, he argues that we have many reasons for believing a theory to be true, such as it being parsimonious and having large scope — qualities which have been used throughout the history of science as criteria for judging theories. In 2024, Princeton philosopher Bas van Fraassen wrote a short article for IAI News entitled “Science Does not Describe Reality: The Limits and Benefits of Explanation.” At the time, I was working on two projects (a science book and a Great Course) that, when completed, would (among other things) defend science’s ability to describe reality. I wanted to write a response to van Fraassen, but the projects demanded too much of my attention. But now that those projects are complete, I am in a position to explain the objections to van Fraassen’s thesis. Summarizing van Fraassen’s argumentIn a nutshell, his argument is this: What scientists do is make predictions based on theories and then invite others to test to see whether those predictions are borne out. “If theory T is right, result R should happen in experimental condition C.” Many think that running an experiment that shows that R happens in condition C is proof that theory T is true (and should be believed). But, van Fraassen argues, that R happened in condition C is only a reason to think that R happens in condition C. That’s the only observable, or empirical, result we can actually see, so that is all that we are really justified in believing. (The underlying theory that made that prediction still may or may not be true.) That is why he calls those who accept his position “empiricists.”Before I explain what is wrong with this position, let me explain what it gets right. What van Fraassen Gets RightFirst, a theory correctly predicting the results of an experiment is not, strictly speaking, “proof” that the theory is correct. The basic line of reasoning is this:If the theory T is true, result R should happen. Result R did happen. Thus, theory T is true.In other words:“If T then R. R. Thus, T.”This is a deductively invalid, fallacious mode of reasoning, called “affirming the consequent.” Those premises do not guarantee that the conclusion follows. “If I am in Pennsylvania, then I am in the USA. I am in the USA. Thus, I am in Pennsylvania.” Clearly that argument doesn’t guarantee its conclusion; neither does the above argument.However, science is not a deductive method of reasoning; it is an inductive one. And inductive arguments merely try to raise the probability of their conclusion, not “prove” them for certain. Thus, the fact that an experimental result doesn’t prove a theory is true is irrelevant; it’s not supposed to. That is not what scientific reasoning is about.___If the hypothesis that something exists clearly provides the best explanation for what we can observe, then the belief that it exists is what is rational.___Second, it’s also true that a single experimental result doesn’t provide enough justification to believe that a theory is true. Scientists do not come to a consensus about whether a theory is true by looking at a single experiment; they look at all the evidence to determine where the preponderance of evidence points. The mere fact that I am in the USA raises the probability that I am in Pennsylvania, but not nearly enough to conclude that I am in Pennsylvania. However, if I am also regularly encountering people wearing Eagles and Phillies hats and seeing advertisements for Founding Father tours, I probably am. In the same way, a theory successfully predicting the outcome of one experiment is not enough to conclude that it is true; but if a theory makes a wide variety of predictions that are all vindicated by multiple experiments, performed by many different groups and people, all actively trying to prove the theory false (which is what good scientific experiments are designed to do)—that is a good reason to conclude that the theory is true. In other words, if you repeatedly try to prove something false but can’t, that is a very good indication that it isn’t. The problem of underdeterminationIn reply, those whom van Fraassen calls “empiricists” often point to the “problem of underdetermination.” For any given theory that makes successful predictions about what happens in experimental conditions, there are countless other possible theories that make exactly the same predictions—and since they do, the experimental evidence in question is just as much reason to accept any of those theories as it is to accept our original one. Thus, the argument goes, we have no way of knowing whether our original theory is true, or one of the other “predictively equivalent” theories is true. SUGGESTED VIEWING How Occam's Razor changed the world With Johnjoe McFadden As an example of underdetermination, philosophers often offer this example. The evidence of fossils seems to provide reason to conclude that the universe is quite old; ancient fossils are what the “ancient universe” hypothesis predicts. But it’s also possible that God created an ancient-looking universe 200 years ago, complete with a “fake” fossil record for us to find, to make it look old. The existence of fossils is what that theory predicts too. So, the argument goes, the fossil record can’t be used as evidence that the universe is ancient; the fossil record supports the “200-year-old ancient-looking universe” theory just as much. The problem of underdetermination points out that, for any theory with supporting evidence, we could invent another completely different theory that predicts exactly the same evidence, and thus undermine that evidence’s ability to support the original theory.But this “argument from underdetermination” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what scientific reasoning is and how it works. To explain, let me use another rather strange (but very real and commonly discussed) philosophical thought experiment called “The Grue Problem.” The “Grue” ProblemSuppose I want to know what color emeralds are, so I observe a few, see that they all appear green, and form the theory that “all emeralds are green.” I thus predict that the next 100 emeralds I find will also appear to be green. And let’s say that happens, and so I thus conclude that my theory that all emeralds are green is true. Now, one might rightly point out that I don’t know for sure that all emeralds are green—I have not seen them all. Maybe some I haven’t found yet are blue. Fair enough. After all, we used to think that all swans were white, until we found some black ones. But let’s say that I go on a quest and collect every emerald in the universe—and, for the sake of the argument, let’s say I can do this, and can even know that I have every one of them. So, I collect them all, look at them all, and verify that they all appear green. Can’t I now rightly conclude that all emeralds are green?Inspired by the problem of underdetermination, a friend might argue that I cannot.Sure, they all appear green now—but there could be another kind of color called “grue.” Something is grue if it is green up to a certain point in time, but then spontaneously turns blue. And there could be an infinite number of “shades” of grue. Something that is one shade of grue will turn blue at noon today, but something that is another shade of grue will turn blue at noon tomorrow, etc. So yes, the emeralds appear green now; and since they haven’t turned blue yet, they are not some “past” shade of grue. But they might be some “future” shade of grue (e.g., they may turn blue at noon tomorrow). And since all future shades of grue are consistent with “being green up to this point in time,” the evidence you have is completely consistent with the notion that all emeralds are some future shade of grue, rather than green. Indeed, that they would appear green until now is what the “some future shade of grue” hypothesis predicts. So, we have just as much reason to conclude that all emeralds are some shade of grue as we do to conclude that they are green.You’re probably thinking “It’s not equally possible that the emeralds are grue; they are obviously green.” You are right! But explaining why your instinctive reaction to my friend’s argument is correct will help inform why van Fraassen’s “empiricist” is wrong and science actually does describe reality.The main mistake my friend makes is in thinking that the “empirical evidence” (of all the emeralds appearing green) is (or even should be) all I am using to draw the conclusion that all emeralds are green. It is not. I am also considering known facts about how colors typically work; things don’t usually change color, and when they do, they don’t do so suddenly, without cause, and all at once. So, even though the simple evidence of the emeralds all appearing green up to this point is consistent with them being some future shade of grue—that is even what the grue hypothesis “predicts”—it is still exceedingly unlikely that they are. The hypothesis that they are green is much more likely. Understanding science refutes the problem of underdetermination The misunderstanding about science that the “empiricist” pointing to “the problem of underdetermination” makes is similar to the one that my friend made. Science is not just about considering experimental evidence; in fact, it’s not even just about considering empirical evidence. As Ernan McMullin and many other philosophers of science have pointed out, the inference that makes science is “inference to the best explanation” (sometimes called “abduction” or “retroduction” by McMullin). While, depending on the circumstances, scientists use many different kinds of reasoning, science as a whole is, simply put, the process of considering multiple competing explanations and comparing them to certain criteria—explanatory criteria (the kinds of things explanations must be and do, by definition, to be a good explanation)—to see which explanation is the best.And these criteria do not deal only with empirical results. Yes, successful predictions raise the probability of a hypothesis, but it’s also the case that the more new assumptions a theory makes, the less likely it is to be true; every new assumption presents an opportunity for the theory to be false. (The fewer assumptions a theory makes, the simpler or “more parsimonious” it is said to be.) Likewise, the more existing evidence a theory contradicts, the less likely it is, because in order for a theory to be true, every piece of evidence it contradicts has to be somehow faulty. (The fewer established theories a new theory contradicts, the more “conservative” it is said to be.) And, obviously, the more something explains, the better explanation it is. (This is called having “scope.”) If a theory raises unanswerable questions, it’s not expanding our understanding, and thus is not wide-scoping. Scientists consider all these things when deciding which theory to accept, because the theory that adheres best to these explanatory criteria is most likely to be true.___the mere fact that a theory’s predictive success is why it “sticks around” or “becomes accepted” in the scientific community is not a reason to be skeptical about its truth.___The reason the grue hypothesis is no good is because it invents an entirely new kind of color—not just a new shade, but an entirely different category of color (a different way colors work)—and thus is not parsimonious. It raises unanswerable questions about how and why emeralds would just spontaneously change from green to blue (and thus does not have wide scope). And it contradicts what is already well established about how color works (and thus is unconservative).The theories that the problem of underdetermination points to do the same thing. Yes, the theory that God created an “ancient-looking universe” (complete with an ancient-looking fossil record) two hundred years ago is also consistent with the empirical evidence (of a fossil record) that presently exists; but that theory is monumentally unparsimonious (it requires many extra assumptions about infinite entities) and not wide-scoping (it raises unanswerable questions about why God would do such a thing). So, I can rationally conclude that it is false.Indeed, the history of science includes many examples of theories that were rejected because they lacked parsimony and/or scope, even before their falsity (and the truth of their competing theory) was confirmed by observation. As I point out in my book, geocentrism was rejected by the scientific community because it lacked parsimony, almost 200 years before the observation of parallax confirmed that the Earth moves around the sun. And the continuum theory of matter was completely rejected by 1860, because it couldn’t explain chemical reactions or organize matter into a periodic table, even though the experiments that eventually confirmed atomic theory weren’t even proposed until the 1870s. Solving the best of a bad lot problemIn response, the “empiricists” are likely to object, this time pointing to the “best of a bad lot” problem. “We have no reason to conclude that an explanation that has been shown to be better than others is true because we have no guarantee that the true theory was among those that we were considering.” If you have a “lot” (a collection) of poor explanations, even the best one is not true.The responses to this problem, however, are numerous. Peter Lipton argues that the set of hypotheses that scientists consider are not just randomly selected and thus unlikely to contain a theory that is true; they use existing knowledge to home in on what is most likely to be true. A doctor trying to explain abdominal pain is not going to bother wondering whether demons are causing it; they are going to stick with things like appendicitis and kidney stones, because they are most likely. Further, despite its name, inference to the best explanation is not just the process of comparing hypotheses and accepting the best one; we also want one that is a good explanation in its own right. If it’s not, we are going to keep looking until we find an explanation that is. And while that process does not guarantee that we will come across the exact truth, it’s very likely that the theory that emerges as the best will be at least approximately true, and thus we will be justified in believing it. And lastly, as I point out in my book, although many theories not based in scientific evidence (like geocentrism and continuum theory) have been completely overturned, science almost always progresses by the refinement of scientifically established theories—not their replacement. (Although our sun is not the center of the universe, heliocentrism was our first step in understanding the Earth’s true place in the universe.) So even if a theory we accept today may not be completely right, accepting it is a step on the journey toward the complete truth. The example of atomic theoryNow, it’s worth pointing out that most empiricists are not skeptical of all scientific theories; they are only skeptical of the ones that hypothesize the existence of “unobservables.” It’s not like they think that round Earth, heliocentrism, and germ theory are just useful (but untrue) “instruments” for making predictions about how to most efficiently navigate the seas, predict planetary motion, and treat diseases. They admit that the Earth actually is round, that the planets revolve around the sun, and that germs exist and cause disease. These facts and entities can be observed; the theories that suggest they exist are true. It’s only when theories start hypothesizing the existence of unobservables—like electrons, or quantum fields—that can’t be observed directly, that we should start doubting the theories’ truth. And to be fair to van Fraassen, in this published work, he doesn’t really say that we should doubt the truth of such theories. Only that scientific reasoning does not rationally force us to accept them as true. Skepticism, or agnosticism, he argues, is warranted. SUGGESTED READING Science is based in metaphor By Andrew Reynolds But the history of atomic theory throws a monkey wrench into that argument. Atoms used to be unobservable; again, scientists first accepted the theory that they exist because it had such grandiose explanatory power. But then atoms were seen with electron microscopes. They thus moved into the category of the observable. But this didn’t substantially change anything about what scientists were justified in believing; it certainly didn’t change any “atomic skeptics’” minds. It just confirmed what everyone already knew! If the hypothesis that something exists clearly provides the best explanation for what we can observe, then the belief that it exists is what is rational. The fact that the thing itself is not technically observable does not make doubting its existence rational.What’s more, the atoms were seen with an electron microscope. But electrons are themselves unobservable. How can an electron microscope reveal an atom if electrons are not real? This leads us to what is famously known as Hilary Putnam’s “miracle argument.” It’s (not) a miraclePhilosopher Hilary Putnam’s miracle argument is somewhat famous. Basically, he argued that a scientific theory being able to repeatedly make successful predictions—even about unobservables—without being at least approximately true would require a “miracle.” In other words, it would be such an improbable occurrence that it could not rationally be believed—the better explanation for why scientific theories about unobservables make the right predictions is because the unobservable entities and structures they hypothesize exist.Van Fraassen has addressed this argument. Indeed, in his original article, where he references Alison Gopnik’s point about orgasms not being “necessary for procreation” even though the desire for orgasm “drives the creation of progeny,” he is pointing to his own argument about how organisms are not naturally selected by evolution to get true beliefs; to the extent that belief-forming processes are selected for, the ones that are selected are the ones that are useful for survival—not the ones that produce true beliefs. In the same way, van Fraassen argues, scientific theories are accepted, not because they are true, but because they aren’t falsified; they make successful predictions; that’s what makes them “stick around.” So, the fact that they make successful predictions (and thus became accepted) is not a reason to think they are true.This argument is similar to C. S. Lewis’s “argument from reason,” which he used to argue against evolution: “The truth of evolution undercuts our ability to know that it is true.” Lewis’ argument famously failed; Elizabeth Anscombe, by Lewis’s own admission, demolished Lewis in a debate on the topic, and I have explained elsewhere why modified versions of the argument fail as well. In short, it’s because it fails to recognize that a belief-forming process can make an organism more likely to survive because it reliably produces true beliefs. It is therefore not the case that beliefs generated by naturally selected belief-forming processes are automatically false or unjustified.In the same way, the reason a theory “sticks around” could be because it’s not falsified, because it “makes correct predictions.” But the reason it makes correct predictions is most likely because it is true. (In pointing this out, I am echoing the arguments of Musgrave, Lipton, Psillos, and Kitcher, who refuted van Fraassen’s argument and analogy long before his 2024 article.) It would be a huge coincidence that it could do so without being true. And that is the point of Putnam’s miracle argument. Thus, contrary to van Fraassen’s suggestion, the mere fact that a theory’s predictive success is why it “sticks around” or “becomes accepted” in the scientific community is not a reason to be skeptical about its truth. ConclusionLet me close by saying something about the fact that empiricists don’t doubt the truth of all scientific theories, just the ones that hypothesize unobservables. In today’s society, this theory is dangerous to espouse publicly. The nuance between being skeptical about all of science, and just the highly technical theories about unobservables, is guaranteed to be lost to the average reader. And there is so much unjustified skepticism and doubt about the findings of science and experts that a headline like “Science Does Not Describe Reality” could easily fuel the anti-science movement, worsen climate change denial and cause the next pandemic.This is why I believe it was important to still respond to van Fraassen’s article, a full two years after he wrote it. Not only, as I have argued, does it represent a philosophically inaccurate view of how scientific reasoning works and what scientific reasoning can do, but it is a dangerous view to boot. It should thus be rejected.
Global Health & WASH: October 2026 Funding Opportunities (26 new opportunities)
41 opportunities on the Global Health & WASH page this cycle, 26 of them new. The health money on this page is mostly research money, and much of it is aimed at people early in their careers. Funder after funder, from the TANGO2 Research Foundation’s Research Pathways grants to the South African Medical Research Council’s Early Investigators Programme to the National Ataxia Foundation and Alex’s Lemonade Stand Foundation, is funding early-career investigators and the institutions that host them, with a clear tilt toward researchers based in or from the Global South, from AMBSO in Uganda to Kenya’s CONNECT-VAX network to Ersilia’s AI Incubator for African drug discovery. The money is organized by disease as much as by need: narrow foundations, the Parkinson’s Foundation, NTAP for neurofibromatosis, the RUNX1 Research Program for an inherited blood disorder, each run their own grant, so the question for an applicant is less which health problem you work on than which foundation owns your disease. The largest European cheques go to consortia only, with the European Innovation Council putting up to EUR €4 million behind a single healthy-ageing project and UNITE up to EUR €1 million behind each cross-border digital health team. Water sits apart, almost entirely in applied utility research: the Water Research Foundation’s cluster of USD $250,000 to $500,000 projects, each built around a utility problem from sewer laterals to reuse treatment. And the biggest single pot is public: HRSA is renewing community health center service areas with awards of up to USD $10 million each. This post is for paid subscribers. This helps support the time and effort it takes to curate and organize these opportunities. Subscribe To keep this accessible to everyone who needs it, we’re happy to offer pay what you can rates. You can find more details here. Open Opportunities 2027 Building the Field of Health Advocacy Grant, Georgia Health Initiative. *New!* *Closing soon!* Georgia Health Initiative, a nonprofit private foundation focused on health equity, is opening its 2027 Building the Field of Health Advocacy Grant to strengthen the organizations that push for healthier systems across the state. The Initiative treats advocacy as infrastructure, backing one-year projects that range from urgent responses to shifting federal policy to longer arc campaigns on housing, behavioral health, care access, and food security. It wants coalitions that elevate community voice, apply an equity lens, and arrive ready to deploy concrete strategies, and it deliberately seeks variety in issues, communities, and organizational size. The optional webinar and required lobbying training signal a funder investing in a durable field, not one grant cycle. The strongest fits are Georgia nonprofits and public agencies ready to turn advocacy readiness into systems change. Geographies: United States. Who can apply: Tax-exempt 501(c)(3) public charities, state or local government agencies, or coalitions/collaboratives using a 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor, that work in Georgia on behalf of Georgians and align with the mission, vision, and values of Georgia Health Initiative. Only one application per organization, though an organization may be listed as a partner or subcontractor on multiple applications. Funding amount: Organizations can apply for up to USD $80,000 per project; the Initiative anticipates investing a total of USD $1.36 million. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Governance, Policy & Advocacy · SDG3; SDG10. Deadline: October 2, 2026. Learn more and apply here. TDD Research Pathways Grant, TANGO2 Research Foundation. *New!* *Closing soon!* The TANGO2 Research Foundation, working with a founding gift from Tango2UK, is opening its TDD Research Pathways Grant to fund early-career investigators anywhere in the world who study TANGO2 Deficiency Disorder. The foundation is using this money to seed pilot work and to build a research community around a rare disorder that few labs currently study. It wants to back emerging scientists, clinicians, and trainees who will stay with this field, not one-off projects, which is why it requires a committed mentor and real institutional support and asks each applicant for a plan for future contributions. The design rewards promise and persistence over track record. The strongest fits are students, residents, postdoctoral fellows, and new investigators ready to commit to TANGO2 research. Geographies: Global. Who can apply: Early-career investigators worldwide, including undergraduate, graduate, and medical trainees, postdoctoral fellows, residents, and clinical or research fellows. Early-career investigators must hold a PhD, MD, or equivalent doctoral degree and be within 10 years of that degree or within 5 years of initiating rare disease research, engaged in postdoctoral research at an academic institution, teaching hospital, or nonprofit research institute. Currently enrolled trainees and transitional PhD candidates beginning a postdoctoral appointment at a nonprofit institution by July 1, 2026 are also eligible. All applicants must identify a qualified mentor with relevant TDD or rare disease research experience and demonstrate institutional support. Funding amount: Up to USD $15,000. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Innovation, Science & Technology. Deadline: October 2, 2026. Learn more and apply here. Call for Expression of Interest (EOI): AMBSO Impact Research Initiative, Africa Medical and Behavioral Sciences Organization (AMBSO). *Closing soon!* The Africa Medical and Behavioral Sciences Organization is inviting expressions of interest for its Impact Research Initiative, which funds early-stage pilot studies and proof of concept work on priority health challenges. AMBSO is a Ugandan research organization backing bold ideas that can grow into larger studies, and its tracks span antimicrobial resistance, epidemic preparedness, artificial intelligence for diagnostics, HIV prevention, climate and health, cancer, maternal and child health, and non-communicable diseases. The small award size and direct-cost-only rule point to a funder that wants evidence rather than overhead, and that favors projects able to attract follow-on money or use AMBSO’s own research infrastructure. Eligibility runs worldwide, welcoming researchers and institutions inside and outside Africa. The strongest fits are researchers with a feasible pilot that generates policy-ready evidence. Geographies: Global. Who can apply: Open worldwide to researchers, academic institutions, and research organizations whose work aligns with generating high-impact health evidence. Independent researchers are eligible if affiliated with an academic or research institution. Doctoral students are encouraged to apply as part of a research team led by a faculty Principal Investigator. Community-based organizations and other eligible entities may apply. Projects may be implemented inside or outside Uganda. Funding amount: Up to USD $10,000 per project, with no minimum funding threshold. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: SDG3. Deadline: October 2, 2026. Learn more and apply here. Entrepreneurs for Resilience 2027 (E4R27), Swiss Re Foundation. *Closing soon!* Swiss Re Foundation is opening the tenth edition of Entrepreneurs for Resilience, which backs healthcare social enterprises expanding affordable, quality primary care for low-income communities across low- and middle-income countries. The Foundation is using catalytic, blended funding plus multi-year advisory to take risk out of scaling, helping proven models reach more people sustainably rather than stay stuck at pilot size. It looks to back brick-and-click enterprises that pair physical care with digital tools and build affordability through savings, payments, or microinsurance, ideally integrated with public health systems. Requiring earned revenue, real customer scale, and gender-inclusive teams signals that this is growth capital for commercially serious ventures, not seed money. The strongest fits are established, revenue-generating healthcare enterprises ready to scale access for underserved populations. Geographies: Global. Who can apply: For-profit and hybrid healthcare social enterprises serving low-income and underserved populations in low- and middle-income countries, using combined physical and digital (brick-and-click) healthcare delivery models. Applicants must demonstrate measurable social impact, generate at least 50% of income through earned revenue, have been established no later than December 2023, already serve at least 50,000 people with potential to scale, and have at least 30% low-income customers. Preference for gender-inclusive enterprises with at least one female founder or at least 30% women in management. Funding amount: Pilot funding of up to USD $45,000 for the 6-8 shortlisted social enterprises; up to USD $1 million in blended funding (up to USD $600,000 unconditional plus up to USD $400,000 conditional) shared among 3-4 finalists over a two-year implementation period; total programme funding approximately USD $1.3 million. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Innovation, Science & Technology · SDG3; SDG5. Deadline: October 4, 2026. Learn more and apply here. Horizon HealthTech 2026, IIITD Innovation & Incubation Center. *Closing soon!* IIITD Innovation and Incubation Center is opening Horizon HealthTech 2026, a nine-month MedTech incubation cohort run under the aegis of BIRAC EDGE for founders building medical devices, diagnostics, surgical and interventional tools, or remote monitoring. The center is backing teams that already hold a validated proof of concept and want to reach a tested prototype, pairing each founder with a named expert and clinical validation through a hospital partner. What they seek to back is Indian health technology that can survive real clinical scrutiny and regulatory review, not slideware. The structure, with lab access, CDSCO guidance, IP support, and investor connects, signals a program built to make startups ready for follow-on capital. The strongest fits are early-stage MedTech teams with defensible IP and a working path from bench to bedside. Geographies: India. Who can apply: Early-stage teams/startups with a validated idea/proof of concept (TRL 3 onwards) working on medical devices, diagnostics, surgical/interventional technologies, or remote monitoring, holding IP or with potential to generate IP. Funding amount: No cash award amount is stated on the official program page. Benefits are in-kind: prototyping lab and equipment access, clinical/hospital validation (Max Healthcare), expert mentorship, CDSCO regulatory guidance, IP filing support, workspace, cloud credits and tools, and investor connects. Run under the aegis of BIRAC EDGE and builds a path to follow-on Government/VC/Angel funding. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Innovation, Science & Technology · SDG3; SDG9. Deadline: October 5, 2026. Learn more and apply here. OpenAI AI and Teen Development Research Grant Program, OpenAI. *New!* *Closing soon!* OpenAI is opening its AI and Teen Development Research Grant Program to fund independent studies of how generative AI shapes the lives of young people ages 13 to 17. OpenAI wants a stronger evidence base on how teens actually use these tools and what that use does to their social and emotional development, so that product teams, policymakers, and regulators can act on findings rather than assumptions. It seeks work on emotion regulation, relationships, belonging, and the safeguards that keep teens safer, welcoming interdisciplinary teams and any methodology. That it will fund research whose conclusions may not favor AI providers, and prioritizes studies touching ChatGPT, signals a genuine appetite for credible outside scrutiny. The strongest fits are research groups grounded in adolescent development, well-being, and AI safety. Geographies: Global. Who can apply: Researchers aged 18 or older who are affiliated with a research institution or organization, and/or have significant experience relevant to child or adolescent development, well-being, human-computer interaction, AI impacts, or a closely related field. Multiple institutions may collaborate. OpenAI is seeking to fund research rather than for-profit initiatives and will not prioritize for-profit organizations. Funding amount: Individual research grants up to USD $1 million, totaling up to USD $5 million; maximum 10% of each grant for overhead or indirect costs. Targeted Sectors / SDGs: Social Inclusion & Community Wellbeing; Innovation, Science & Technology. Deadline: October 6, 2026. Learn more and apply here.
Microsoft Science president Peter Lee to retire after 16 years | ETIH EdTech News
Microsoft Science President Peter Lee is retiring after more than 16 years at Microsoft for an undisclosed “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.” ETIH edtech news looks at his leadership of Microsoft Research and Science, academic background and continuing work across healthcare and medicine.
Discover the latest must-read health stories
Top stories: World leaders discuss preparations for next pandemic; WHO calls for stronger ethics oversight of AI in health; Pennsylvania measles outbreak grows.
Center on Science and Technology being evaluated due to budget constraints
Princeton is reviewing the Center on Science and Technology as part of broader budget reductions, though its courses and StudioLab operations will continue through the current academic year.
Fellowship-Trained Neuro-Oncologist Nishika Karbhari, MD, Joins Baptist Health Herbert Wertheim Cancer Institute
Fellowship-trained neuro-oncologist Nishika Karbhari, M.D., has joined Baptist Health Herbert Wertheim Cancer Institute. Prior to joining Baptist Health, Dr. Karbhari completed a neuro-oncology fellowship at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. She previously completed an internal medicine internship and neurology residency at Dartmouth Health in Lebanon, NH, serving as academic chief resident during her final year. […]
UN Decade of Healthy Ageing midpoint report finds progress, calls for greater investment
New evidence in the Secretary-General's report to the 81st UN General Assembly, prepared by the World Health Organization (WHO) in coordination with the UN system, finds more countries acting on healthy ageing than ever before – but longer lives will not become healthy, dignified ones without faster, more sustained investment at country level.(NEW YORK, 28 September 2026) The Secretary-General transmitted to the 81st session of the UN General Assembly the mid-term progress report on the UN Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021–2030), marking the midpoint of the ten-year global effort to improve the lives of older people. The report was prepared by the World Health Organization (WHO) in coordination with the UN Inter-Agency Group on Ageing and with inputs from thirteen UN entities, the World Bank Group and civil society partners. It finds real progress in countries – and persistent gaps that must close before 2030.The number of people aged 60 and over passed 1 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach 2.1 billion by 2050, with the fastest growth in low- and middle-income countries. Longer lives are not automatically healthy ones: globally, the gap between life expectancy and healthy life expectancy at age 60 widened between 2000 and 2023, and an estimated 71% of excess deaths from COVID-19 between 2020 and 2023 were among people aged 60 and over. “Longer lives are one of humanity’s great achievements, but we cannot congratulate ourselves while leaving millions without health and support,” said Dr Pascale Allotey, Director, Department of Sexual, Reproductive, Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health and Ageing, WHO. “The first half of the Decade has shown what is possible. The second half must be about scaling and financing the progress to meet the needs and rights of older persons.”Real progress, unevenly sharedThe report finds that more countries than ever now have legislation against age-based discrimination – up from 44.5% in 2018 to 57.7% today – and over half now have national long-term care policies, up from 49% in 2023 to 56.7%, dedicated programmes to build age-friendly environments (54.6%), and comprehensive health and social assessments of older people (54.6%). New WHO guidance on services for long-term care and for Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) delivered in communities is enabling systemic change as an increasing number of countries incorporate these services within national universal health care benefit packages. A host of UN agencies and other partners support training, increasing health workforce competencies and use of digital health tools.“This report shows the Decade of Healthy Ageing is working,” said Dr Ritu Sadana, Head of the WHO Secretariat for the UN Decade of Healthy Ageing. “More countries are legislating against ageism, providing integrated care, strengthening long-term care systems, and creating age-friendly environments than ever before, in all regions and income levels. But progress is uneven and in one area, regressive: fewer countries report active multi-stakeholder forums on ageing, down from 53.1% in 2020 to 43.3% today. The second half of this Decade must turn commitments into results, in every country.”The financing gap: this Decade's binding constraintFinancing remains the binding constraint: more than a third of reporting countries (33.8%) have very little or no dedicated resources to develop long-term care, with similar shortfalls across the Decade’s other priority areas. Less than half of countries (45.4%) have legislation providing access to assistive devices (including hearing aids, spectacles or rollators), which are key to enabling older people to maintain productive, independent and dignified lives. Only 22.7% of countries can track older people’s health over time – the largest gap across the Decade’s core progress indicators. Nationally representative information is needed in each country, as policies and interventions cannot be designed as if all older adults of a given age share similar needs and capacities. The report calls for sustained investment through national budgets, country-owned plans, development cooperation and innovative financing mechanisms to fully close these gaps by 2030.“The Decade was designed as a whole-of-UN effort, and this report shows it in action,” said Amal Abou Rafeh, Chief of the Programme on Ageing Section at the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), and Permanent Co-Chair of the UN Inter-Agency Group on Ageing. “Thirteen UN entities, the World Bank group and civil society organizations contributed to this report, with WHO as the lead technical and implementing agency. That is the model of coordination the second half of the Decade will need to scale, with countries leading legislation, funding and implementation, engaging older people.”“Investing in healthy ageing is not simply a cost; it is one of the highest-return investments a government can make,” said Fiona Stewart, Global Lead for Ageing and Pensions at the World Bank Group. “Countries that invest early in integrated and long-term care see savings that outweigh the upfront cost many times over. The evidence in this report makes the economic case; what is now needed is predictable financing at country level to act on it, along with efforts to support older entrepreneurs and the silver economy.”Older people's own voicesThe report also draws on the direct experience of older people themselves, including a multilingual global survey conducted by the International Federation on Ageing that reached more than 1000 older people across 58 countries. WHO and UN partners called on Member States to use the second half of the Decade to accelerate implementation, strengthen data systems, and secure the financing needed so that the gains of longer lives reach older people everywhere. About the UN Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021–2030)Proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in December 2020, the Decade is a global collaboration bringing together governments, UN agencies, civil society, the private sector, academia and older people themselves to improve the lives of older people, their families and communities. It is coordinated by the World Health Organization together with the UN Inter-Agency Group on Ageing. The Decade's mid-term progress report was transmitted to the General Assembly by the Secretary-General, prepared by WHO, and is available in 6 languages.Full Report available: A/81/366 Implementation of the United Nations Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021–2030): Note by Secretary-General [ العربية | 中文 | English | Français | Pусский | Español
Minnesota has new K-12 academic health standards. What will they look like in the classroom?
The Director of Training and Education at the Center for Healthy Youth Development at the University of Minnesota explains the newly approved state K-12 academic health standards.
FSU and Tallahassee Memorial finalize FSU Health agreement
In a press release Wednesday, both parties said they are in agreement on lease and operating agreements and other documents outlining their academic and clinical structure.
Sandhills Community College Small Business Center expands to Moore and Hoke Counties
Small Business Center Director, Laura Kinsman. Photo provided by: SCCSandhills Community College (SCC) is launching a redesigned Small Business Center model that expands no-cost entrepreneurial support across Moore and Hoke Counties. Rooted in the College’s commitment to strengthening small businesses and entrepreneurship as drivers of economic growth, the enhanced model is led by recently appointed Small Business Center Director, Laura Kinsman. The model also includes two new Senior Business Advisors who will provide trusted expertise, stronger community connections, and individualized guidance to entrepreneurs and business owners throughout the region.Kinsman brings a unique perspective to the director’s role as both a local business owner, operating in downtown Southern Pines, and a former Moore County educator. “Her combination of education, business ownership, leadership, and community involvement make her a great fit for the Small Business Center and the work we are continuing to build across Moore and Hoke counties,” said Taylor L. McCaskill, senior director of Workforce Development & Corporate Partnerships in a press release.Kinsman is an active member of the Southern Pines Business Association and has been connected to the Sandhills Small Business Center since the beginning of her entrepreneurial journey. She looks forward to building on that experience by strengthening the Center’s partnerships and expanding its connections throughout the community.She will lead the Center's efforts to support entrepreneurs and business owners throughout Moore and Hoke County and be the connector to the North Carolina Community College System Small Business Center Network operations. The Center offers no-cost, confidential one-on-one counseling, practical workshops, and connections to the resources and partners that help local businesses start, grow, and create jobs.A key part of this new approach, only offered at SCC, is a network of Senior Business Advisors, experienced professionals who will provide individualized guidance in areas such as business planning, finance, marketing, operations, growth strategy, and problem-solving. These advisors will serve as trusted partners to entrepreneurs and business owners, helping them turn ideas into action, overcome barriers, strengthen existing businesses, and pursue new opportunities. This one-on-one counseling is available at no cost, ensuring that high-quality business support is accessible to entrepreneurs at every stage.Senior Business Advisor for Hoke County, Kenna Parks. Photo provided by: SCCKenna Parks has been named the senior business advisor for Hoke County. She is a business professional, entrepreneur, and educator who brings a unique combination of academic training and real-world business experience. She earned her Master of Business Administration (MBA) in 2017 and has built her career around entrepreneurship, marketing, business development, and helping others turn ideas into sustainable opportunities.Senior Business Advisor for Moore County, Katrin Henderson. Photo provided by: SCCAs a military spouse, she has successfully launched and operated businesses across five states, giving her firsthand experience in adapting to diverse markets, building new customer bases and understanding the importance of global reach in today’s business environment. Over the last decade, her areas of focus include business planning, marketing strategy, branding, customer development, financial preparedness, operational planning and connecting entrepreneurs with educational programs and community resources.Parks brings an especially valuable perspective to business advising because she is an entrepreneur herself. She is the owner of Glamo Society Bridal & Formal Wear in Raeford, N.C., giving her firsthand experience with the realities of launching, operating, marketing and growing a small business. She understands that entrepreneurship extends far beyond developing a great idea; it requires strategy, financial awareness, adaptability, strong customer relationships, and consistent execution.Katrin Henderson will serve as the senior business advisor for Moore County. Thriving in hospitality and retail, Henderson has enjoyed positions in Food & Beverage Management and Retail Management in various fine dining and retail establishments in the area, before opening her own children's shop in 2015, in the Village of Pinehurst. She is a native of Moore County.Quickly immersing herself in this new world of small business ownership, Henderson joined various boards and committees, including President Elect of Pinehurst Business Partners and Event Chair for the Holly Arts & Crafts Festival. She also partnered with local organizations such as Moore County Economic Development and Moore County Chamber of Commerce and Sandhills Community College Small Business Center in events and educational opportunities. In 2026, Henderson sold her shop and now offers full-time support to both new and seasoned entrepreneurs through freelance consulting mentorship and the SCC Small Business Center program.The Small Business Center team is passionate about making business resources more accessible, and ensuring entrepreneurs know they do not have to navigate business ownership alone. Through their work with SCC, they are committed to building meaningful relationships with local businesses, community organizations, and industry partners while helping entrepreneurs move from idea to strategy, strategy to action, and action to sustainable growth.“Sandhills Community College believes deeply in the power of small business and entrepreneurship because strong local businesses create jobs, spark innovation, generate investment, and strengthen the communities we serve,” said McCaskill in press release. “Through this new Small Business Center model, Sandhills is building a stronger ecosystem where entrepreneurs can connect, grow, and thrive, while helping drive long-term economic vitality throughout our region.”To learn more about the Center's services or to schedule a consultation, please contact Kinsman directly at kinsmanl@sandhills.edu or 910-695-3938.
Fraud, compromise, and groupthink. How warped research incentives undermine science
Science is supposed to correct its own errors. In practice, distorted academic incentives often block that quality control. Universities produce far more PhDs than faculty jobs, then judge survival by grants—especially federal awards that benefit the schools themselves. Researchers who stray from funders’ preferred questions face stalled careers. The unfortunate result is groupthink that often hinders scientific progress.
When “DEI” research is cut, what happens to community health?
“I’m just going to run to the grocery store!” How many times have we said this without thinking about it? For most of us, it's usually an easy walk or a short drive to get the cheese we forgot. In reality, though, 13% of the U.S. population (about 39 million people) live in “food deserts,” which means living more than a mile from a grocery store in urban areas and more than 10 miles in rural areas. This was the case for people in Pittsburgh’s Hill District, where a quick run to buy food wasn’t an option. In the 1930s, federal maps marked the Hill as "hazardous" for lending, a practice known as redlining that steered investment away from Black neighborhoods. Decades of disinvestment followed, and residents went about 30 years without a nearby grocery store. This made it hard to keep healthy eating habits and contributed to chronic disease. When a grocery store finally opened in the area in 2013, researchers saw the opportunity and launched the PHRESH study, which initially compared the health of participants from the Hill district to those in the Homewood district. Over time, the study expanded to other factors such as brain health and Alzheimer's risk. Residents like Roderick Blair overcame initial hesitation to share their health data, trusting it would benefit their neighborhood. Then, in August 2026, the NIH abruptly canceled the study’s grant, citing that it was “subjective” and fell outside their scientific scope—an effect of the administration’s interpretation of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). Research like PHRESH can help determine what changes in a neighborhood actually improve health, so cutting it has left that question unanswered. Other canceled studies have examined health issues like maternal health, preterm birth rates, or sickle cell disease. Courts have reversed some of these grant cancellations, but not all of them. If we really want America to be healthier, research into why some communities get sicker than others is absolutely critical. The law that created the federal minority health research institute passed with bipartisan support in 2000. But these days, as evidenced by grant cancellations, the political shift in attitudes toward DEI means we often lose access to the health information we need to help all communities thrive. DEI vs. health equity vs. equality and the overlap (or lack thereof) The letters “DEI” evoke very different reactions depending on who you are in the U.S. DEI programs can address gender, disability, age, and other factors, but the fiercest debate centers on race. For some people, hearing DEI brings to mind policies that may have cost them a job or a college seat because they are white. Others see DEI as a matter of justice: a way to expand representation and opportunity for groups that have been historically marginalized. Both perspectives are rooted in lived experience, and both center on the same question: whether hiring and admissions practices are fair. Hiring and admission practices, though related, are not the same as health equity. Health equity is “the attainment of the highest level of health for all people.” It’s the recognition that some groups of people consistently experience worse health outcomes than others. For instance, black mothers die from pregnancy-related complications at three times the rate of white mothers, and rural Americans are more likely to die from issues such as heart disease and cancer. Equity is also often conflated with “equality,” which leads to misunderstanding of how to actually best support communities. Equality ignores the fact that we aren’t all starting life with the same resources or circumstances, whereas equity is about helping people get what they specifically need based on their situation so they have the chance to achieve the same outcome as anyone else. For example, if every household in Pittsburgh got a $30 grocery gift card, that would be equal. But during the decades the Hill District went without a grocery store, that card wouldn’t have helped much. Equity means making sure everyone can actually access a store in the first place. DEI policies can overlap with health equity in many ways. For example, they may help expand access to quality education and stable, well-paying jobs, which in turn can provide health insurance, safer housing, and improved finances—all of which can reduce health disparities. But to make that happen, we first need data to identify disparities in communities and to develop solutions that effectively address them. What we lose when the research stops Community data is important to health equity because: You can’t fix what you don’t see: Data show which communities are most affected by health factors such as infection, heart disease, and cancer. If we don’t know what is happening and where, then we can’t develop interventions to help. Poor health costs everyone: Chronic disease is expensive—both to the individual person and to the overall economy. Understanding what groups of people are most at risk allows us to develop interventions that can save everyone money. Disparities exist for many communities: Health equity includes disparities that exist due to a whole host of factors, such as family background, race and ethnicity, rural vs. suburban residence, gender and sexual orientation, veteran status, disability, and lower income. This means many Americans can benefit from research into differences in health outcomes and how to improve them. Trust is easy to lose: Some participants in the PHRESH study were initially vocal about their concerns about participating. But that trust was earned because the researchers kept their promises and centered their work on the community. When projects are canceled mid-cycle, researchers have no choice but to leave behind communities they had promised to help. This hurts trust in the long run. It’s also a very inefficient use of resources, and it will take significant time and effort to redo the work when the government realizes this work is important again. How should we talk about health equity? This is hard because the words “equity” and “DEI” are currently very politically charged. So whether you’re a public health professional, teacher, or friend, how we talk about this topic matters. The right framing can help people who might otherwise be skeptical see why health equity research is important and deserves funding. Here are some suggestions to help your conversations: Choose your words strategically: Who are you trying to reach with your message? Are they likely to be resistant to terms like “diversity” and “equity”? If so, find alternative words to use to still get the message across. It is frustrating to be in that position, but the goal of improving health is too important not to try to make inroads. Sometimes simply reframing can help the message reach those who need to hear it. Focus on the problem: The terms “health equity” and “DEI” are abstract. Make it more specific. For example, discuss differences in maternal death or ways to improve health outcomes in rural communities. These still have equity at their core but will likely be better understood by those you’re talking with. Focus on systems: Disparities exist, but if they are communicated poorly, people can mistakenly think the issue is the individual’s fault. Disparities are largely driven by failures of the system—such as lack of access to health care and a long legacy of racism. When discussing the disparities, frame them around these systemic issues to ensure blame isn’t placed on the individuals impacted. Tell stories: Personalize these policies by using stories from those impacted that connect to the data you’re trying to convey. This helps make the policies and outcomes more concrete and meaningful. Bottom line Some communities end up sicker than others. That’s just the facts. We can argue about the best way to do that research, but canceling it simply because it may be linked to DEI doesn’t make anyone healthier. It just leaves communities like the Hill district behind. And in the end, it causes us all to move backward in our efforts to improve health in this country. Love, EM Big thanks to MacKenzie Isaac & Legairre Radden, who reviewed this piece and generously shared their expertise and lived experience to help improve it. Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health. To discuss communication training on topics like health equity and storytelling, email Liz at liz@yle.health or learn more on our website. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Your Local Epidemiologist is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
A Microbiologist Dissects the Science of Infection in Movies
An infection control scientist binge-watches decades of outbreaks, pathogens, and pandemic drama to find out which shows and films hit the mark with infections.
6 years later, the office is making a comeback
Six years after COVID-19 transformed the way Americans work, the pendulum is swinging back toward the office. The pandemic forced companies to send employees home almost overnight, transforming remote work
Hegseth directs military service academies to immediately stop giving tenure to civilian professors
Universal health care a 'moral imperative,' Vatican's top diplomat tells UN
The meeting's theme focused on developing a
Military academies won\'t give tenure to civilian faculty, Hegseth says
The Defense Department has decided to stop appointing civilians as tenured faculty at U.S. military academies. Secretary Pete Hegseth signed a memo Tuesday outlining the change, saying he wanted to
ACLM position statement links lifestyle medicine to planetary health
The American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) has released a new position statement asserting that lifestyle medicine offers a practical, evidence-based framework to address both the chronic disease epidemic and the growing environmental challenges affecting health worldwide.
Science takes the runway: HIV Unwrapped at NYFW
At this year’s New York Fashion Week, HIV Unwrapped has put science on the runway, calling attention to today’s breakthrough treatments, the U=U message, and the HIV/AIDS epidemic that forever changed New York’s art and cultural scene
Mary Klotman, Duke's Chief Academic Health Leader, will Complete Service in 2027
DURHAM, N.C. – After two decades in senior leadership at Duke and 10 years as dean of the Duke University School of Medicine, Mary E. Klotman, M.D., will complete service on June 30, 2027.
Where Academic Healthcare Meets AI
There is a version of the artificial intelligence story that everyone has heard by now: the billion-dollar campuses, the coastal cities competing for the next great tech company.
Among the Academies: A Lifelong Fascination with Fish
For Peter Wainwright, the academic path was simple: he simply followed his fascination with fish."I dare say there wasn't a lot of deep thought about what direction I should go in my life," he said. "It was more, I like fish, let's see if I can do something with fish. It was all very organic."
HSS and New York Road Runners Hold Second Annual Runner Health Symposium
Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS), the world's leading academic medical center focused on musculoskeletal health and the official hospital of the TCS New York City Marathon, will host the 2nd Annual HSS/NYRR Runner Health and Performance Symposium on October 3 in collaboration with New York Road Runners (NYRR), the nonprofit that “runs” NYC...
RFK Jr outlines expansive vision for collecting US health data at Maha event
Health secretary calls for medical and lifestyle details to be sent to doctors and AI to address ‘chronic disease epidemic’
Stand Up for Science to Rally Scientists and Academic Leaders Against Trump Admin's Higher Ed Crackdown
Virtual rally follows 2025 Ed Compact anniversary; calls on university leadership to reject administration’s demands and defend academic freedom.
Stand Up for Science to Rally Scientists and Academic Leaders Against Trump Admin's Higher Ed Crackdown
Virtual rally follows 2025 Ed Compact anniversary; calls on university leadership to reject administration’s demands and defend academic freedom.
Meet our new faculty: Lesley Park
Dr. Lesley Park is an epidemiologist whose research focuses on HIV, cancer, and aging using large-scale data from the US Veterans Health Administration.
Ukraine’s Academy of Sciences warns against Russian cooperation after attack
The National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine has urged the international scientific community not to “restore or legitimise institutional cooperation with Russian state scientific and educational structures,” after a Russian drone hit its Presidium building in central Kyiv, killing at least two people and injuring several others. The drone strike took place in the early afternoon on September 28 while staff were working.The academy called the strike, one of several Russian attacks on Ukraine’s capital using jet-powered drones in recent days, an act of terrorism. “It is a strike [. . .] on the very idea that knowledge, research, and the search for truth should serve life, not its destruction,” it said in a statement.The academy thanked the global scientific community for its solidarity following the attack and warned against any temptation to normalise scientific relations with Russia.“Science cannot exist outside of moral responsibility. There can be no ‘ordinary scientific cooperation’ with a state that kills people and destroys scientific institutions of another country,” it said.“We urge not to create opportunities for Russian state institutions to return to the international scientific community as if nothing happened. There can be no ‘science beyond politics’ when science is attacked with weapons.”After the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Europe almost entirely cut institutional ties and joint programmes with Russian science, although personal academic contacts are still ongoing.Related articlesRussia widens targeting of European research centresHow geopolitical rifts cut scientific collaborationThe European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities (ALLEA), for instance, continues to exclude the Russian Academy of Sciences from its network.ALLEA condemned the latest attack as a “barbaric act” and part of a broader “systematic targeting of Ukraine’s scientific and cultural infrastructure.” This is a “deliberate attempt to erase the conditions under which free inquiry, knowledge, and democratic life are possible,” it said in a statement.Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, more than 4,650 educational institutions across Ukraine have been damaged, and a further 423 have been destroyed, according to ALLEA.National academies across Europe joined ALLEA in condemning the attack. “Science is about the pursuit of knowledge for the benefit of humanity, so this is an attack on civilisation itself,” said Paul Nurse, president of the UK’s Royal Society.Attacks on scientific, university and cultural institutions “are attacks on the foundations of society and constitute a clear violation of international law,” wrote the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina.The presidents of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine also released a joint statement condemning the attack and pledging to continue to support the Ukrainian research community.The targeting of the Ukrainian academy prompted outcry from European leaders. “Today, science became a target for Russia,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wrote on social media.“These strikes are the latest illustration of the Russian regime’s hostile contempt for science and truth,” said French President Emmanuel Macron.
Lesbian Bar Project Co-Founder: Purity Politics Could Destroy Our Remaining Spaces
Subscribe As a professional lesbian and Massachusetts native, I’ve recently been asked by a lot of folks what I think about the saga unfolding at Last Ditch. The now-viral story, first reported by The Boston Globe, centers on a Western Massachusetts lesbian bar that lifted its mask requirement for one night a week to help drum up business. The decision ignited an intra-queer controversy that has been feasted on by media outlets across the political spectrum—from the New York Post to LGBTQ Nation—and is even reportedly being eyed for a Hollywood adaptation. Apparently nothing is more entertaining than a bunch of lesbians and queers fighting with each other over KN-95s. What has been lost in all of the chatter and media coverage is the very real possibility that Last Ditch, which just opened in April 2025, will have to close its doors. The venue’s one remaining founder, Jackie Matellian, revealed in a community Zoom meeting that she’s working four jobs, is now solely responsible for the bar’s $50,000 business loan and is struggling to keep up with the bills. So as we laugh about the controversy’s similarity to a “Portlandia” skit and how one of the bar’s founders left to enroll in clown school, we forget that yet another lesbian bar is facing an existential crisis—and this time the call is coming from inside the house. In 2020, my friend Elina Street and I created The Lesbian Bar Project, an Emmy-, Webby- and GLAAD Media Award-winning docuseries and initiative that tells the stories of lesbian queer bars around the world. We were moved to act because at the time there were only an estimated 16 lesbian bars in the United States, and the pandemic threatened to bring that number down even further. There are now more sapphic bars than there were just before the pandemic—about 36 of them in total—but this is down from approximately 200 in 1980. Maybe that doesn’t mean much to you, but for the millions of sapphics living in the U.S., this number is calamitous. As the world laughs at lesbians and sapphics, I want to take a second and tell you what I feel when I walk into one of these bars, which are all unique and irreplaceable in their own way: I feel seen. Sometimes I think Cubbyhole in New York City’s West Village neighborhood knew I was gay before I did. When I walked in there for the first time, before I was even out, I was transfixed by the colorful array of tchotchkes hanging from the ceiling and how the women standing next to me were completely unafraid to express their desire for one another. I knew the minute I was ready to come out, I had a home. I also felt the joy of a new couple falling in love at Seattle’s Wildrose, the quiet confidence of a short king lining up her shot at the pool table at Ginger’s in Brooklyn and the kick of cayenne pepper in Julie Mabry’s crawfish at Houston’s Pearl Bar. Subscribe Lesbian bars don’t just serve lesbians; they serve queer folks across the spectrum, including bisexual, pansexual and trans people. As Elina and I traveled across the U.S. and Europe and to parts of Latin America to document the bar owners, staff and patrons that make up the ecosystems of these spaces, we also became uniquely acquainted with the factors that threaten their existence: gentrification, wage gaps, sexism, environmental disasters, gun violence, rising insurance premiums and political administrations working to annihilate queer people and their families. Lesbian bar owners, like all leaders and entrepreneurs, are imperfect. There have been significant issues over the years at lesbian bars: employee harassment, racism, lack of accessibility, sexual assault and transphobia. All bar owners should be held accountable and should listen to their communities to evolve into safer and more equitable spaces. I also acknowledge my privilege: I am able-bodied, white, cis and from a family system that loves me for who I am. Not everyone has that. Queer people, especially trans and bisexual people, are suffering from disproportionately high levels of depression, and our mental health system isn’t equipped to support them. Immunocompromised people and long COVID are real, and many of my friends are suffering to this day. The people with the least safety net are often the ones for whom a bar closing costs the most. And yet, as we’re seeing with Last Ditch, the queer community often lashes out at each other. It’s also the mainstream media taking the internal conflict and making a mockery out of it, distracting from the real possibility that this bar could close due to financial pressures. A bar that many people loved and needed is facing extinction. Perhaps it’s safer to dissent with one another than with the larger forces trying to eradicate us, but in doing so, we risk destroying the few spaces we have left. Due to the constraints of purity politics—some in good faith, some not so much—lesbian bar owners, almost all of whom are queer women themselves, are forced to be everything for everyone, similarly to how women are forced to be everything for everyone. By asking these bars to uphold impossible standards—standards very few other third spaces are asked to consider—we all end up losing. I want to move as a community toward dialogue, compassionate dissent and collaboration to make our spaces better with the goal of keeping them OPEN and thriving, rather than destroying them from the inside with expectations that are arguably unattainable. Subscribe While I have your attention—for this fleeting second of the news cycle—may I urge us to spearhead a way to keep these small businesses afloat without attacking our own community along the way? Bar owners are left with an impasse: They want to be community-centered, but they also have to make money to keep their doors open. Sometimes they might make business decisions that don’t work for everyone—and that’s partly because different patrons have different priorities and want different things—but these owners deserve the opportunity for productive dialogue**.** We have to work with them and with each other to keep our spaces open, to keep them growing. Lesbian bars raised me into the queer woman I am today. One thing I think about as I reflect on the six years of work we’ve done to document these spaces is that shared, unspoken language I have with a stranger the moment we both walk into one of these bars: the nod, the ease, the not having to explain ourselves. I don’t want to lose that, and neither should you. If objective, nonpartisan, rigorous, LGBTQ-focused journalism is important to you, please consider making a tax-deductible donation through our 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor, Resource Impact, by clicking this button: Donate
Mat3ra and the University of Tsukuba’s Center for Computational Sciences Sign MoU to Expand Access to Cloud-Based Materials Modeling in Japan
Mat3ra Japan K.K., the Japan entity of Exabyte Inc., the developers of Mat3ra.com, and the Center for Computational Sciences (CCS) of the University of Tsukuba today announced the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) that establishes a framework for the use and dissemination of the Mat3ra.com computational materials platform within CCS and associated academic institutions in Japan. Under the MoU, Mat3ra provides CCS with free access to the platform for research and educational p...
Inside the anti-climate campaign against researchers
A POLITICO investigation reveals more than 100 open records requests demanding documents from climate scientists nationwide.
California moves closer to banning work involving countertops containing silica
An occupational physicians group says an “epidemic” of silicosis “is causing disabling disease and death” among fabrication workers.
Aarhus Business College Students Bring Global Learning to Brookdale
Brookdale Community College is welcoming students and faculty from Aarhus Business College in Denmark to campus for its Second Annual Study Tour. This immersive international experience combines academics, business, culture, and community. The Danish delegation