SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " breakthrough " 654 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Safety fears as scientists make first viruses designed by AI
Researchers say breakthrough offers hope for new medicines but also raises urgent biosecurity questions
Cohen's reversible male contraception research earns recognition at international science summit
Dr. Paula Cohen has been chosen as a finalist for the Falling Walls Global Call for Science Breakthroughs 2026. Since 2009, the Falling Walls Science Summit has united the world’s greatest minds to break down barriers in science and innovation.Cohen's work in reversible male contraception has earned her place as a finalist in the life sciences category. Falling Walls interviewed Cohen on this project recently:
Viewpoint: Europe needs a new scientific contract
The White House's new science strategy should be required reading in the Berlaymont and every European capital.Not because Europe should copy it. Parts of it should concern Europeans deeply. But because it asks the question Europe has so far avoided while steadily losing ground in the global race for technological leadership.Europe already possesses many of the world's finest universities, scientists and research-intensive companies. It produces world-leading research in fields ranging from quantum technologies and biotechnology to climate science. Yet time and again Europe generates the scientific breakthroughs while others build the companies, industries and strategic advantages around them, particularly in digital technologies. Increasingly, we find ourselves regulating technologies whose underlying capabilities were developed elsewhere.This is not primarily a scientific failure. It is an institutional one.The settlement that shaped modern science policy emerged after the Second World War. In Science, the Endless Frontier, Vannevar Bush argued that governments should invest in fundamental research while protecting scientists from political direction. Public investment was justified precisely because no government, university or company could predict where the next transformative discovery would emerge.That scientific contract served liberal democracies extraordinarily well. It underpinned decades of advances in medicine, computing, energy and communications, but the world for which it was designed no longer exists.Artificial intelligence is transforming not only technology but the production of knowledge itself. Advanced chips, computing power, data and scientific instruments have become strategic assets. Scientific knowledge now diffuses globally almost instantly. Competitive advantage increasingly lies not in making discoveries first, but in possessing the infrastructure, capital, engineering capability and institutions required to translate those ideas into products, industries and strategic advantage.The old boundaries between science, industrial policy, national security and geopolitics have largely disappeared. Dual-use technologies now underpin both economic power and military deterrence.The US has recognised this shift. In July, the White House published Science: A New Golden Age, a comprehensive attempt to rethink the relationship between science and national power. The report builds on Bush's legacy, but departs from his framework in important ways. Science is no longer treated simply as the source of future discoveries. It is presented as the foundation of economic resilience, technological leadership and national security. AI, advanced infrastructure and the capacity to build become as important as discovery itself.Yet the report also reveals a striking paradox. The same administration calling for “a new golden age” of US science has simultaneously proposed deep cuts to the federal research enterprise while expanding political influence over the allocation of public research funding. Europe should therefore distinguish between the report's diagnosis and its prescription. The diagnosis, that science has become a strategic asset, is compelling. But the prescription is self-defeating. Long-term technological leadership depends on strong universities, academic freedom and the institutional autonomy that makes scientific discovery possible. This distinction matters. Bush's achievement was never simply to make science serve national strength. It was to establish a division of labour in which governments invested in research without attempting to direct discovery itself. Scientific breakthroughs emerge precisely because researchers retain the freedom to pursue questions whose value cannot yet be demonstrated and whose conclusions cannot be anticipated.Neither China, nor the USAs science becomes more strategically important, the temptation to politicise it inevitably grows. But scientific freedom is not an obstacle to technological leadership, it is an essential precondition.China represents the opposite model. For decades it has integrated science, manufacturing, infrastructure and industrial policy into a single national strategy. Its ability to mobilise resources around critical technologies is formidable. But it does so within an authoritarian system where scientific priorities are increasingly inseparable from political power.Europe should imitate neither model. It should learn from the strategic ambition of the US without importing its growing politicisation of science. And it should learn from China's capacity to build without adopting its concentration of power.Instead, Europe needs a scientific contract of its own. Bush's scientific contract protected the freedom to discover because the defining challenge of the 20th century was producing new knowledge. Europe's next scientific contract must preserve that freedom while ensuring that scientific discoveries can be converted into technological, industrial and strategic capability. Because in a transactional world, Europe's freedom to shape its own future depends on its capacity to build it.Related articlesThe US ‘golden age’ science strategy: what Europeans need to knowEuropean researchers sound the alarm that Trump rule changes will hit cooperationNIH turmoil risks reciprocal EU-US access to health research fundingThis does not mean subordinating free science to competitiveness or industrial policy. On the contrary. Scientific autonomy remains the first principle of Europe's next scientific contract. Governments should not direct scientific discovery. Their responsibility is to ensure that Europe's scientific, industrial, financial and regulatory institutions work together rather than in isolation.Meeting that responsibility requires far more than research funding. European researchers need access to world-class computing infrastructure, advanced laboratories, shared datasets and scientific facilities. Innovative companies need patient capital, testing environments and a genuine single market in which they can scale without facing 27 different regulatory regimes. Public procurement must evolve from purchasing existing technologies to creating markets for new ones. Regulators must become partners in experimentation rather than guardians of yesterday's rules.A connecting architectureEurope does not need to invent the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) model from scratch. Britain's Aria, Germany's Sprind and Wellcome Leap already show that Europe can build institutions capable of taking high-risk, mission-oriented bets while preserving democratic accountability. The challenge now is not to create more isolated initiatives, but to connect them to Europe's broader scientific, industrial and financial system so that breakthrough discoveries can scale.Above all, Europe must stop treating research, innovation, industrial policy, finance and security as separate policy domains. The challenge is no longer to create excellent institutions in each of these fields, but to make them work as one European innovation system. Europe's strength will increasingly depend not on excellence within institutions, but on excellence across them.Europe's ambition should be neither to imitate the US nor to emulate China. It should demonstrate that scientific freedom, democratic legitimacy and technological capability are not competing objectives, but mutually reinforcing strengths. In an age of geopolitical rivalry, Europe's greatest advantage may ultimately be its ability to attract the world's best talent by combining scientific freedom, democratic openness and technological ambition.Bush's scientific contract helped define the 20th century because it protected the freedom to discover. Europe's challenge is not to abandon that achievement but to extend it. The defining task of Europe's next scientific contract is to preserve the freedom to discover while building Europe's capacity to translate scientific discovery into technological power.Kaare Nielsen is founder of Pomus, a Danish think tank on science and innovation.
Are AI scribes medical devices? UK regulator weighs in.
In this edition of STAT Health Tech: UK regulator on AI scribes, CMS eliminates key payment pathways for 'breakthrough' devices, and more.
Big Questions and Breakthrough Science: Top Takeaways from the 2025–26 Watson Lecture Season at Caltech
Daily Newsmagazine and City Guide to Pasadena, California featuring local news, breaking news, events, weather, sports news, schools news, shopping, restaurants and more from Pasadena Now
Freezing fire: UT San Antonio scientists discover breakthrough for green energy
A novel approach borrowed from metallurgy breaks down ceramics into powerful clean-energy building blocks.
After Hobbes vs Rousseau: Politics must move beyond human nature
Since the great debate between Hobbes and Rousseau, our political theory has been organised around a single question: is human nature essentially good or essentially corrupt? Graham Harman, the philosopher behind object-oriented ontology, argues that this is simply the wrong question to be asking. The real forces governing our collective fate - climate change, artificial intelligence, geography, and pandemics - are non-human; therefore, questions about human nature are not the central ones. Instead, Harman proposes a politics reorganised around our relationship to non-human objects and environments, in which quasi-government institutions incentivise and deter actions with the aim of extending the survival of the human race. “It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” This has become one of the most popular phrases among twenty-first-century intellectuals. Often misattributed to Fredric Jameson, it has been warmly embraced by such influential authors as Slavoj Žižek and the tragically departed Mark Fisher, and has fueled the notion that the major problem with the political Left is that it simply needs to become more speculative and creative. Naturally, this is never a bad idea in any human pursuit. But what if the political distinction between Left, Right, and Center itself results from a failure of imagination? SUGGESTED READING Hobbes vs Rousseau: are we inherently evil? By Robin Douglass This particular division has been with us only since the summer of 1789. During the simmering prelude to the French Revolution, it referred originally to the physical position in the National Assembly of radical figures on one side and loyal monarchists on the other. These positions are linked with two entirely different camps of modern political theory. On the Left we find a series of authors ranging from the moderate (Locke) to the supercharged (Rousseau) to the truly radical (Marx), all of them contending that exploitation of the many by the few justifies revolutionary overthrow of the existing order. On the Right they are countered by the likes of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Schmitt, a group of thinkers convinced that corrupt human nature can be tamed only by force. In the words of the Nazi supporter Schmitt: “One could test all theories of nature and state and political ideas according to their anthropology and classify these as to whether they consciously or unconsciously presuppose [humans] to be by nature evil or by nature good.” This is the division we continue to face today, even in the daily retail politics of Western democracies.___Our species has regularly proven itself capable of both the noblest gestures and the most scathing cruelties, making it hard to define us as essentially either emancipatory or brutal in our aims.___The most refreshing feature of David Graeber and David Wengrow’s 2021 book The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity was their awareness that the forced choice between Rousseau and Hobbes (as they put it) is no longer sufficient. Our species has regularly proven itself capable of both the noblest gestures and the most scathing cruelties, making it hard to define us as essentially either emancipatory or brutal in our aims. Far from being stationed “beyond good and evil,” we seem to be fully entangled with both. We are not naturally good or evil, Graeber and Wengrow contend, but naturally experimental and imaginative. They rest their case on the archaeological record, which seems to bear witness to numerous episodes of seasonally shifting governments and festivals, which vacillate in the same society (even in the same year) between the egalitarian and the dictatorial. Such praise of political experiment makes a good fit with the generally anarchist position defended by these authors. Yet it is also what I find most disappointing in their position. Although they are right that the forced choice between Hobbes and Rousseau falls short of what our new situation requires, the authors simply replace it with praise for the human being as a political tinkerer and performer. In other words, they give us just another theory of human nature, one that would not have been out of place in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. What other options might we have?___The time is ripe for a retheorization of politics on the basis of something other than human nature… We are not just alienated and limited by objects, but also empowered and unleashed by them___One fresh approach would be to treat politics within a broader framework than human nature, given that the polis does not exist in a vacuum filled exclusively with people. When Bruno Latour went to observe the baboons of Kenya with the San Diego anthropologist Shirley Strum, they jointly concluded that these primates were more socially interdependent than our own species. Each baboon is so reliant on the dynamics of the group that they find themselves locked into constant surveillance of their potentially dangerous peers. The group structure turns out to be inherently volatile. Humans, by contrast, are able to stabilize their societies to a large degree through the mediation of inanimate objects. Although one’s position in society may seem to fluctuate over time, considerable stability is produced through such items as apartment keys, wedding rings, and identification cards, all of them serving to secure us a place distinct from that of our fellows. The Italian philosopher Maurizio Ferraris has written at length about the crucial role of documents in establishing social relations, making him a hero among notaries in his country. Proper names and license plates cement our position amidst other humans, as do symbolic achievements such as graduation from a top university or distinguished wartime service with its various medals and ribbons. None of this is found among baboons, despite their closeness to us on the evolutionary tree: after all, we did share a common ancestor just 25 to 30 million years ago. SUGGESTED VIEWING The goodness paradox With Richard Wrangham The time is ripe for a retheorization of politics on the basis of something other than human nature, whether understood in the manner of the Left or of the Right. We are not just alienated and limited by objects, but also empowered and unleashed by them. But initially, it is true, we face non-human things primarily in the form of constraints. It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to form a human civilization underwater, deep underground, atop Mount Everest, or in outer space. Human dependence on the non-social background takes on subtler form in discussions of political geography, especially unloved on the more idealistic Left. Consider the luckless position of Poland during World War II, sandwiched between Hitler on one side and Stalin on the other. By contrast, note the good fortune of the United States in not having a military peer positioned on any land border. Anglo-American geopolitics, since the writings of the American naval commander Alfred Thayer Mahan and the British geographer Sir Halford Mackinder, has been wedded to the notion that one or more liberal offshore naval powers should prevent any authoritarian “heartland” regime from gaining effective control of Eurasia. That remains the case whether the opponent is the impatient Napoleon, the swashbuckling German Kaiser, the villainous Hitler, the murderous Stalin, or the industrial juggernaut Chinese. In their current Foreign Affairs article “Heartland vs. Rimland,” Michael Beckley and Hal Brands analyze the current and coming state of the world on the basis of these same rather durable principles. In recent years a similar outlook has been embraced, in inverted form, by the Putin-loving Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, an icon of the Rightist intellectual underworld. For Dugin, the Anglo-Saxons are an evil force bent on destroying the spiritually superior people of the land: much like Athens in its failed war with Sparta, or Carthage in its eventual collapse against Rome. But the shared notion on both sides is that any strategy that fails to take geography into account is likely to end up as a defeated form of excessive optimism.___When dealing with environmental degradation, then, we are doing business with forces that promise dire effects on our species as a whole.___More striking for us today than geography is the non-human object called climate, which threatens rimland and heartland equally. Even if we contend that humans are one hundred percent responsible for triggering the climate crisis, it remains non-human in the sense of being an independent force beyond our effective control. In a major work published just before his death in 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, the American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould noted the tendency of evolutionary theorists to focus too closely on the fate of individuals in view of their successful or failed adaptation to circumstances. With climate change, however, we confront a force that goes well beyond the scope of any individual life. Whereas Richard Dawkins extended evolutionary questions downward from individuals to the sub-individual gene, Gould pushed it upward, speaking of entire species or clades as impacted by environmental change. The asteroid that struck the Yucatán 66 million years ago is only the most famous example of this sort. In the wake of that catastrophe, large animals needing abundant supplies of food were at a fatal disadvantage by contrast with the smaller birds and mammals of the planet. When dealing with environmental degradation, then, we are doing business with forces that promise dire effects on our species as a whole. The effect is to shift our attention away from individual beings towards the survival of the group.In the United States in particular, the COVID-19 pandemic sparked considerable backlash among those who asserted a nearly absolute degree of individual freedom. In California I encountered those who demanded that their businesses be allowed to reopen, that it was enough to cover their mouths but not their noses, or that they should have the right to enter any public area despite refusing vaccination. Yet public health is probably the clearest argument against libertarianism, which often merely asserts the autonomy of individuals against any claims of the commons. In normal times the individual is worth defending; under conditions that threaten the survival of part or all of our species, compulsion may be our only resort, as with perfectly reasonable blackouts and rations in wartime. To rebuild human society under the constraints of climate change will be one of the great challenges of the century to come, as will our improvised grappling with artificial intelligence. Such phenomena pose existential risks for humanity, and leave far less room for tolerance of individual brattiness. Cases are mounting of devastating wildfires caused by arson. Recently it was reported that there is even a website where one can bet on the location of coming wildfires, raising the specter of deliberate blazes set to collect on wagers. The death penalty has steadily lost support in a world where many stress the infinite value of human life. But if we focus instead on entire ecosystems, those who purposely burn the forests may begin to look worse than serial murderers.___The politics of the future may be splintered by disagreement over such topics as how to manage our environing background and how to permit or restrict the entry of new objects into the political sphere.___So far I have spoken of force, authority, and punishment: measures sure to have greater appeal to those who identify with what we know as the Right. But other implications of the post-anthropocentric world are likely to have different backers. If non-human objects are seen as structuring political space, it stands to reason that they can no longer be introduced solely by the pace of technical breakthrough. Fields ranging from cybernetics to energy will demand increased politicization once they are reconceived not just as products of individual human investment, but as renovations of collective political geography. This need not involve world government, with its inherent risk of tyranny, but may involve quasi-governmental enforcers of prestige along the lines of a less corrupt FIFA or International Olympic Committee, punishing deviant states not with violence but with less tangible incentives.Politics will never lose its historic links with conflict and faction. But rather than factions aligned by differing theories of human nature, the politics of the future may be splintered by disagreement over such topics as how to manage our environing background and how to permit or restrict the entry of new objects into the political sphere. This will prove just as incommensurable with the modern Left/Right spectrum as a globe is with a two-dimensional map.
The Work Behind Trustworthy Science
From ethical review and mentorship to collaboration and reproducibility, strong science depends on processes the public rarely sees. When a scientific breakthrough captures national attention,...
High-powered lasers can wirelessly charge drones mid-flight
Chinese researchers have successfully charged a drone using just a laser, in a breakthrough that could change how we approach unmanned flight
The power plant players unlocking the grid | Investors Lab
History is full of aha moments where an apparent failure was actually the breakthrough people didn't know they needed. Take champagne, discovered when French winemakers kept finding their bottles exploding under pressure. Or sticky notes, developed from a glue that was rejected by leadership at 3M for being too weak, but later redeployed for the purpose we all know and love. Nuclear fusion just experienced another of these serendipitous discoveries. For decades, it wasn't clear how the subatomic particles known as alpha particles would affect the turbulence that drains heat from a reactor's core, preventing the reactor from reaching self-sustaining fusion. Now, new simulations suggest that the particles help. The new research turns what was once viewed as a potential operational hindrance into a critical performance booster. SN's Emily Conover has the info blast.
DAZN lands digital rights to MSG, YES networks; close to deals with seven other NBA teams
DAZN will become the exclusive digital home of the MSG and Yes networks this fall, in a breakthrough announcement Wednesday that is a likely precursor to deals with seven more NBA teams in the coming days and weeks and puts the Yankees and Knicks on the London-based platform next season.
A tiny molecular basket unlocks a powerful new kind of chemistry
Rice University chemists have found a new way to make neodymium, a rare-earth metal, interact with oxygen. Using a specially designed molecular structure described as a “basket,” the team positioned the atoms so they could form a bond once thought unlikely. The breakthrough produced highly reactive compounds that could eventually give chemists alternatives to iron-based molecules used in biological reactions and chemical manufacturing.
Clemson’s Thao Tran Dominy selected to help chart chemistry’s path to 2050
National Academies workshop will focus on breakthroughs in energy, quantum computing, and materials and manufacturing
Huck Institutes announces recipients of nine interdisciplinary seed grants
Penn State’s Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences has awarded nine research teams seed funding for 2026-27. These grants support high-impact, innovative research projects that align with the Huck’s strategic research priorities and have the potential to drive scientific breakthroughs and generate significant return on investment.
How Trump’s ‘America first’ administration could shut US scientists out of the next Nobel-worthy discovery
A proposed White House rule would give political appointees unprecedented control over scientific funding. One physicist, who helped discover the Higgs boson, explains how the rule would’ve stifled that breakthrough.
How Trump’s “America First” Administration Could Shut U.S. Scientists Out of the Next Nobel-Worthy Discovery
A proposed White House rule would give political appointees unprecedented control over scientific funding. One physicist, who helped discover the Higgs boson, explains how the rule would’ve stifled that breakthrough.
COMMENTARY: Science, Not Politics, Must Guide Lifesaving Medical Research
AFRO-AMERICAN – WASHINGTON — A recent announcement regarding a new treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer, daraxonrasib, has shown it doubled survival rates for patients and reduced the risk of death by 60 percent. This breakthrough stemmed from sustained, peer-reviewed scientific investment.
“Graphic Talk About Science: Adventures in Science Engagement”
Mount Wilson Observatory (MWO), Southern California’s esteemed home to several of the most groundbreaking astronomical discoveries in history, welcomes the public to the third Saturday Evening Talks & Telescopes of the season on Saturday, July 25, 2026. MWO is honored to present “Graphic Talk About Science: Adventures in Science Engagement,” a lecture by Clifford V. Johnson, from UCSB. This lecture explores how graphic storytelling can make cutting-edge physics more accessible, as Johnson discusses the science and creative process behind his illustrated book, “The Dialogues: Conversations About the Nature of the Universe.” Tickets are available here: www.mtwilson.edu/events/lecture072526 During the six-month season, each Talks & Telescopes event runs from 5:30pm to 11:30pm with the “talk” portion of the evening beginning in the Observatory’s Auditorium. The 60+ minute presentation is followed by picnic dining—bring your own, or purchase from a food truck or caterer—and then, after the sun goes down, stargazing through Mount Wilson’s immense telescopes, the largest in the world made available to the public. Additional stargazing around the grounds will be available thanks to members of the Los Angeles Astronomical Society. Both the 60-inch telescope and the 100-inch—the latter famously used by Edwin Hubble to discover the expanding universe—will be available for viewing the night sky. Priced at $50, this event series offers the most economical stargazing event option on the mountain. Tickets and more information are available on Mount Wilson Observatory’s website here: www.mtwilson.edu/lectures. Advance purchases are highly recommended. UPCOMING SATURDAY EVENING TALKS & TELESCOPES OF THE 2026 SEASON August 22: “Towards a Functional Cosmology” www.mtwilson.edu/events/lecture082226 Join artist Lita Albuquerque for a lecture on her multidisciplinary practice at the intersection of art, science, and cosmology. Drawing on decades of work across painting, land art, performance, and installation, she reflects on projects created in remote, astronomy-linked environments and how they shape her exploration of time, space, and human perception. September 19: “The Brightness of Stars: Henrietta Leavitt and the Transformative Nature of Attention in Art and Science” www.mtwilson.edu/events/lecture091926 Visual artist and author Anna Von Mertens explores the life and legacy of Henrietta Leavitt, whose study of variable stars enabled the first reliable measurements of cosmic distances. Working among the Harvard Computers, Leavitt laid the foundation for breakthroughs at Mount Wilson, including Harlow Shapley’s mapping of the Milky Way and Edwin Hubble’s discovery of an expanding universe. Drawing from her book “Attention Is Discovery: The Life and Legacy of Astronomer Henrietta Leavitt,” Von Mertens shares archival materials alongside her own artwork inspired by Leavitt’s life, to celebrate how careful attention leads to both scientific discovery and a meaningful life. October 17: “The Duality of Genius and Struggle: G.E. Hale” www.mtwilson.edu/events/lecture101726 This talk, presented by Sam Hale, explores the extraordinary life and legacy of his grandfather, George Ellery Hale—the visionary behind some of the world’s most important astronomical institutions. Drawing on both history and personal connection, Sam Hale offers insight into a legacy that continues to shape science and culture today. VISITING MWO The gate to Mount Wilson’s campus opens at 10:00am daily and closes at 5:00pm from early April through November. Entrance to the grounds is free. Visitors can hike, gaze at the telescope domes and towers that dot the landscape, and take a look at historic Mount Wilson photos and letters in the Museum. The Cosmic Cafe (www.mtwilson.edu/cosmic-cafe), located above the main parking lot at the Observatory entrance, is open on weekends in the spring, summer, and fall. In addition to traditional menu items such as hot dogs, drinks, and snacks, the Cafe offers wraps, salads, and sweet treats from Little Flower. PARKING A U.S. Forest Service Adventure Pass is required to park at the Observatory. A $5 day pass or a $30 dollar annual pass may be purchased at the Cosmic Cafe on weekends between 10:00am and 5:00pm. During the week, passes are available at locations around Los Angeles. The most convenient location before heading up is at the Shell station in La Canada Flintridge at the bottom of the Angeles Crest Highway (https://find.shell.com/us/fuel/10007957-4530-angeles-crest-hwy/en_US). Visit the U.S. Forest Service website for more information about Passes and other locations to buy them: www.fs.usda.gov/r05/passes/adventure-pass For more information about Visiting Mount Wilson Observatory, please visit: www.mtwilson.edu/visiting NOT ADA-COMPLIANT Please be advised that access to the 100-inch dome is via an open-air, 53-step staircase inside the building. There is no ADA-compliant access.
Handled with care, AI can be miraculous
Although it has huge potential for harm, artificial intelligence is accelerating breakthroughs in science and medicine — but it can’t replace human imagination
ACC shares updated recommendations for managing HFpEF
A team of specialists detailed new data and recent breakthroughs in the diagnosis, management and treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
Ohio State researchers to lead national teams exploring science, AI innovation
The Ohio State University continues to build momentum as a national leader in artificial intelligence research and innovation. This week, two teams led by Ohio State researchers joined a $293 million initiative sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to harness AI for breakthroughs in energy dominance, discovery science and national sec...
UT Secures $20M NSF Grant To Pioneer Breakthroughs in Automated Materials Discovery
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, has secured $20 million from the National Science Foundation to accelerate breakthroughs in automated materials.
Surgeon hails new CABG technology as a 'technical breakthrough'
The new-look ELANA device from AMT Medical could simplify CABG procedures and help improve patient access to minimally invasive and robotic surgical techniques.
5 projects at UW–Madison aimed at transforming science and energy with AI receive DOE Genesis Mission funding
The projects, spanning fusion to critical minerals, are among 278 funded awards to national labs, companies, universities and non-profits in order to accelerate breakthroughs in energy, scientific discovery and national security through a new platform that combines AI, supercomputing, quantum systems and advanced scientific instruments.
Powering America's Genesis Mission: Microsoft's commitment to scientific discovery
Today, we’re excited to share a long-term commitment to the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Genesis Mission, backed by a $60 million investment designed to accelerate AI for science and the breakthroughs it can deliver for the country. This deepened commitment includes Microsoft’s new Scientific Partnership Advancing Research & Knowledge coordination hub and program office, otherwise...
DOE Unveils First Genesis Mission Awards for AI-Driven Science
Nearly 300 projects selected from historic RFA response spanning all 50 states to accelerate breakthroughs in energy, discovery science, and national security. WASHINGTON, July 22, 2026 — The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced the first projects selected under the Genesis Mission Request for Applications (RFA). The national portfolio of research teams will help develop […]
Freedom, trust and the future of science: Nobel laureates reflect on the ideas shaping tomorrow
Behind every scientific discovery are years, sometimes decades, of fundamental research, failed experiments, uncertain funding, international collaboration and the freedom to pursue questions without knowing where they might lead. The Nobel laureates recently gathered at the 75th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting in Germany argued that scientific breakthroughs depend on far more than brilliant ideas alone. Those conversations unfolded against the backdrop of Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine, ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and growing geopolitical competition. The question running through the discussions was therefore broader than science itself: what conditions make discovery possible? ‘Europe is a space of freedom’
Switch 2 modding scene makes new breakthrough, but Nintendo safe from piracy
A new breakthrough was recently made within the Switch 2 modding scene, but Nintendo can rest easy knowing that piracy still isn’t an issue at the moment. You may remember that with the original Nintendo Switch, piracy became a major problem pretty early on. Significant vulnerabilities were discovered less than a year after the console launch. Nintendo was unfortunately unable...
Everyone’s Watching Women’s Sports – The ESPYs Breakthrough Award Proved It
Olympic Champion Alysa Liu won the 2026 ESPY Best Breakthrough Athlete award, marking a historic five-year win streak for female athletes in an evolving sports industry.
The Directors: Two leaders in data science have a warp speed vision for AI, with cancer clinical trials leading the way Knudsen and Thoelke: “It’s actually solving for bottlenecks and challenges that we’ve been unable to overcome for so long”
The United States has a translation problem. Scientific breakthroughs in oncology are accelerating, but clinical trial infrastructure hasn’t kept pace. The solution: Speed up clinical trial enrollment by using AI to reduce costs and eliminate bureaucratic red tape. Tasks that ordinarily require hours of manual work for each patient in a single study can now […]
Doctors in Royal Oak perform world’s first single-port robotic heart surgery
Surgeons at Corewell Health in Metro Detroit have performed what the health system says is the world’s first documented single-port robotic mitral valve repair, a breakthrough they believe could help make heart surgery less invasive for some patients.
iPhone 18 Pro leaks point to a bigger, better and heavier smartphone from Apple
From camera breakthroughs to a new design, here's everything we know.
A $399 Smart Ring Aims to Replace the 150-Year-Old Blood Pressure Cuff
A three-year-old startup says it has produced a smart ring that can track blood pressure as accurately as a traditional arm cuff and that — eventually — it could be able to make medical diagnoses. If the company, called Vital Signals, can successfully deliver on the promise, it would represent a significant breakthrough in consumer wearables.
‘Bachelor No. 2’ resurfaces for Aimee Mann
Veteran singer-songwriter Aimee Mann will perform her breakthrough album at the Englert on Wednesday, July 22 at the Englert.
Researchers Put “Silly Sprinklers” in Reverse to Further Unravel Decades-Old Physics Puzzle
Breakthrough spouts new experimental answer to long-standing Feynman’s Sprinkler Problem
China Achieves Reusable Rocket Milestone with First Successful Booster Recovery
China Aerospace Science & Technology Corporation (CASC) described the achievement as a "historic breakthrough" for reusable launch technology
Breakthrough Israeli study finds potential path to reversing hearing loss
The researchers identified a unique biological mechanism that could enable the regeneration of sensory hair cells in the inner ear – a process previously thought to be impossible in humans.
Breakthroughs in RNA science
Most people first heard about mRNA during the 2020 pandemic, but this molecule that carries instructions from DNA to make proteins has been studied since the 1960s. Decades of basic
Khosla-Backed Startup Claims Breakthrough With Largest-Ever AI Model on an iPhone
Apple is on a quest to shrink powerful AI models to run on iPhones, which could cut down on cloud computing costs and enhance user privacy. But a small startup that emerged from stealth mode earlier this year says it recently got an AI model running on an iPhone bigger than any previous mobile ...
AI helped scientists discover two new superconductors, bringing them closer to a room-temperature breakthrough that could change electronics
Artificial intelligence is now fast becoming an important component in scientific investigations, and its recent achievement may have very significant effects on the advancement of technology. Scientists devised a way to utilise artificial intelligence in scientific research, which has not only resulted in the discovery of two new superconductors, but has also expedited the process of discovering even more superconductors.
Harvard scientists turn a silicon chip into a DNA writing machine
Scientists have created a silicon chip that can write dozens of DNA sequences simultaneously using electricity and water-based enzymes, offering a cleaner alternative to conventional DNA manufacturing. The breakthrough could eventually support portable DNA-writing devices and even massive DNA data storage, although new chemistry will be needed to scale the technology further.
UC Santa Cruz researchers at NASA COFFIES Science Center make breakthrough on solar enigma
Researchers are closer to unraveling a long-standing solar mystery surrounding the extreme thinness of the Sun’s tachocline layer
Exploring key breakthroughs in VT ablation
Today's sophisticated mapping systems allow clinicians to visualize VT circuits with unprecedented detail.
NASA’s COFFIES Science Center Makes Breakthrough on Solar Enigma
One of NASA's DRIVE Science Centers, COFFIES, enabled a group of researchers to tackle a fundamental question about how the Sun works in a recent paper.
There's no treatment designed for the Ebola strain ravaging DRC. But now there's hope
The strain of the virus that's responsible for the current outbreak has no specific treatments or preventive measures. Three new clinical trials could provide possible breakthroughs.
The SpudCell: Could some 'blobs' in a dish spark the 'Sputnik' moment for synthetic life?
A quivering blob in a dish might not sound like a scientific breakthrough.
Can't Focus? Scientists Just Found the Ancient Brain Cells Responsible for Distracting You
A breakthrough study revealed a primitive brain region that acts as a built-in filter to block out a noisy world.
Researchers Develop AI Test to Predict Recurrence of Breast Cancer
Breakthrough offers potential for faster, less costly predictions to help guide treatment
Engineers solved an airflow mystery hidden nearly a mile underground
Engineers at a deep underground research facility noticed something strange during major rainstorms: airflow underground sometimes reversed direction. Using new sensors and mathematical modeling, they found that water rushing down a shaft was effectively pushing air through the tunnels like a giant piston. The breakthrough explains a long-standing mystery and could help underground operations better predict and manage ventilation during storms and emergencies.
IFT: Proposed US federal grant rules threaten nutrition science funding & competitiveness
The US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently proposed rules to rewrite the Uniform Guidance — the rulebook for all federal grants. Institute of Food Technologists (IFT) chief science and technology officer tells Nutrition Insight that these rules are set to undermine the nation’s scientific research for food and nutrition and hinder global competitiveness.
Is this a breakthrough moment for soccer in the US?
Victory for the national team against Belgium on Monday could mean the sport takes further strides among American audiences.
How society feels about breakthrough science
Greater knowledge and visible everyday benefits are driving optimism towards breakthrough science.
How the Supreme Court has changed on transgender rights since 2020
In 2020, when the Supreme Court declared that transgender workers were covered by federal anti-discrimination law, the opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch marked a legal breakthrough.
New York Jets Flight Connections 07/04/26
Happy Independence Day, Jets fans! Below are your daily Jets links as we celebrate 250 years of our wonderful country. Bent – Jets 2026 Position Breakdown: Can the interior d-line still be a strength with Quinnen Williams gone? NY Jets – Which Young Jets Player Could Be Poised for a Breakthrough Season? Connor Long – […]
Scientists make quantum time flow backward in stunning physics breakthrough
Researchers have created quantum control techniques that can make a system appear to run backward in time. By precisely managing quantum measurements, they can reshape the system's arrow of time and even harvest energy from the measurement process itself. The breakthrough could lead to more powerful quantum computers, quantum batteries, and other advanced technologies.
Inside UT’s Quantum Ecosystem: From Breakthroughs to Possibilities
The University of Texas at Austin is charging ahead with quantum innovations that could be even bigger than the building where some of the world’s most exciting and cutting-edge research in this field is just getting underway.
Ancient cave paintings can harbor human DNA for millennia, scientists find
The breakthrough could reveal previously hidden ancient human activity inside caves, acting as ‘genetic archives’
Protecting Science. Advancing HIV Prevention. Preparing for What's Next
Global health is being reshaped by rapid geopolitical shifts, scientific breakthroughs and the growing role of artificial intelligence — creating both new opportunities and new challenges. Translating scientific breakthroughs into impact requires protecting research, advancing equitable access and ensuring communities are at the center. Explore AVAC’s latest resources to help navigate and shape what comes […]
Scientists say they have built a cell from scratch for the first time
Scientists say they have built a cell from scratch for the first time that feeds, grows and replicates like a natural cell, a breakthrough in synthetic biology.
Your menstrual cycle may affect how well vaccines work
Women who were vaccinated against covid-19 in the luteal phase of their menstrual cycle reported having a breakthrough infection sooner than those vaccinated during their follicular phase
Political Control of Research Funding Threatens Sound Science
Decades of federal research funding have led to breakthroughs in medicine, technology, and environmental science. A new OMB proposal aims to derail all of this through political interference.
Breakthrough could lead to ‘big leaps’ in battery performance, scientists say
Researchers studied lithium-ion batteries, which are used for electric vehicles as well as portable electronics such as mobile phones and laptops.
Michelle Pfeiffer reveals why she felt 'humiliated' auditioning for her breakthrough film role
Magnetic sperm and the ugliest shark: science stories of the week
From a lupus breakthrough to why humans drift left when they walk, here are the most interesting scientific developments of the week
Magnetic sperm and the ugliest shark: science stories of the week
From a lupus breakthrough to why humans naturally move anticlockwise, here are the most interesting scientific developments of the week
Soccer meets nature at Vancouver mountaintop watch party
The match between England and Panama was shown on a big screen atop Grouse Mountain, a 4,100-foot mountain that's part of the Pacific Ranges with a sweeping view of British Columbia. When Jude Bellingham scored England's breakthrough goal in the second half, the fans roared. Both Toronto and Vancouver are hosting matches during the tournament.
Medical breakthroughs collide with the health system
The buzziest advances — like personalized gene therapies or AI-discovered drugs — may not deliver.
Making Our Own Luck
We are cross-posting a piece that former NIH official Kris Willis wrote for Macroscience. Kris is now the President and Founder of the Woodley Park Institute, for which I’m a board member. Picking winners or hedging bets? Federal science agencies have long wrestled with the question of how to ensure their billions of dollars of grants and contracts result in maximum benefits for Americans. On the surface, it might seem that a goal-oriented, interventionist style of management would be the best policy: prioritize our most pressing problems and distribute funding accordingly.This top-down strategy creates a unique hazard, though: bad choices can send resources in the wrong direction, resulting in slow progress that impedes the delivery of tangible benefits to citizens. Moreover, if decision makers pursue an applied advance when the underlying scientific principles remain poorly understood, they risk costly failures and a loss of support for the research enterprise at large. Examples include Nixon’s 1971 War on Cancer, undertaken on the premise that a cure could be achieved in less than a decade, the drive to build an operational commercial fusion plant by the mid-1990s, and the National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease, which failed to produce the effective treatments and prevention strategies promised by 2025. The contrasting laissez-faire approach is to hedge your bets. If the path to an advance is impossible to predict, then the wisest choice might be to distribute funding to as widely as possible. The main risk of this strategy is that spreading funding thinly may limit the resources available to the most promising research, resulting in the same negative outcomes as the interventionist approach: limited support for the most promising topics, slow progress, and delayed returns. In reality, at science agencies like the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, program managers navigate between these two extremes, setting some funds aside to target high-priority areas and using the rest to cover the widest possible range of meritorious proposals. This middle path seems like the most rational way to proceed, but it still requires making choices. How much should be set aside for high priority topics? What should those topics be? How should we define merit? Expert opinion can provide a helpful guide, but leading experts can have remarkably different opinions about what matters and what should be prioritized. Moreover, experts and administrators alike can be risk averse, giving an edge to high-profile, well-established concepts. What’s really needed is a data-driven framework to help guide decision-making, one that doesn’t simply repackage prestige or incumbency. Recognizing breakthroughs years in advance Many breakthroughs fail to attract funding or recognition at the earliest stages of development. Katalin Karikó, for example, spent years struggling to win grants for work on mRNA that would eventually win her and Drew Weissman a Nobel Prize. Similar stories can be told about Jim Allison’s groundbreaking studies leading to the development of cancer immunotherapy, Stan Pruisner’s demonstration that prions can self-replicate without DNA, or Robin Warren and Barry Marshall’s proof that Helicobacter pylori, not stress, causes ulcers. Yet at some point, the scientific community recognizes and responds to transformative breakthroughs like these. How does that change happen? And what if science funders could identify the areas that are on the cusp of a breakthrough? Those questions led my collaborators and me to study how scientists responded to past breakthroughs. Based on patterns in that data, we developed a means of predicting future breakthroughs, using biomedicine as a proof of concept. It’s worth taking a moment to describe how our approach works. Briefly, our prediction process begins by grouping the 18 million or so peer-reviewed papers in PubMed, the authoritative database of biomedical research, into roughly 50,000 unique topics. A small subset of these topics are so widely acclaimed as breakthroughs that they have been recognized with a major prize like a Nobel or a Lasker Award. We theorized that studying the development of these outliers over time, especially before they gained acclaim, was the key to identifying future instances of them. After defining topics, we chose 21 representative breakthroughs and asked what they looked like before they won prestigious prizes. To answer that question, we re-ran our topic-mapping algorithm repeatedly, winding back the clock one year each time, stringing together the years to follow the progress of each field as it grew and advanced. We found that in each case, the years leading up to a discovery followed a pattern: a burst of papers on a new, rapidly evolving topic, many of which quickly became influential. These characteristics—the percent of papers that are new, the percentage of papers that are brought in from other topics, and the influence of each individual paper—can all be measured separately for any given topic. Together, they act as a predictive signal that is detectable an average of five years before a transformative discovery is made, and up to thirty years before the discovery receives a major prize. Scanning the current research landscape for topics that display this signal allows us to predict what work will likely produce a future breakthrough. Each year we analyzed includes four or five signals, a number that appears to have remained constant across a twenty year time frame. In their classic work on the sociology of science, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar established that the desire to participate in a major discovery is an important motivator for scientists as they consider whether they should take up (or abandon) a research problem. Although further work is needed, the simplest explanation for our results is that this behavior is widespread enough to detect at scale. A foundational advance, or something like it, draws the attention of scientists and causes them to change the direction of their research. They vote with their feet, staking their own reputation and careers by publishing on and citing the new idea. That upswell of interest is the foundation of our breakthrough signal. What kind of research does our model identify as a breakthrough? After building a model based on the patterns in our 21 preselected breakthroughs, we tested it by identifying all early signals of discovery from 1994 through 1997. Of the 18 signals we found in that time period, 17 can be traced forward in time to a breakthrough. Examples include super-resolution fluorescence microscopy (see the image above), the directed evolution of proteins and enzymes (Chemistry Nobel, 2018), and sequencing the human genome (National Medal of Science, 2008). The discovery of the role of leptin signaling in obesity is a particularly interesting case study. Around 1950, scientists noticed the existence of a type of lab mouse that suffered from a unique inherited form of obesity. When given the freedom to choose their own diet, these mice ate more than normal and preferred food that was high in fat. Researchers had few clues as to why the animals overate; early experiments pointed to the existence of a soluble ob factor found circulating in the bloodstream that regulated appetite, but its identity was unknown. In 1994, Jeffrey Friedman and colleagues identified and sequenced the ob gene, noting that the protein it encoded appeared to fit the profile of a circulating factor. A year later, a trio of high-profile publications demonstrated that ob was a hormone that regulated body weight and fat deposition by regulating appetite. One of these was co-authored by Friedman, who christened it leptin from the ancient Greek word for thin. Using our model, the data from 1996 make it clear this advance would become a breakthrough. Scientists had flocked to study the biology of the new hormone, generating the flurry of new papers and citations required to produce a signal. One of these demonstrated that serum leptin concentrations reflected the amount of adipose tissue in the human body, providing clinical validation of the earlier mouse studies. Before the identification of leptin, scientists were unable to point to a specific molecule that controlled appetite and adiposity, so that it was impossible to rule out non-physiological causes of obesity; its characterization fundamentally changed our concept of weight gain. In 2010, Friedman and fellow pioneer Douglas Coleman were awarded a Lasker for the discovery. Our work also identifies breakthroughs in clinical practice and behavioral and social sciences, even though these areas are less likely to draw the attention of major prize committees. One example that falls into this category is the introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair, a minimally invasive surgical procedure for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm, a leading cause of death among Americans over the age of 65. Relative to the previous standard of care, it reduces in-hospital mortality by almost four-fold. In 2017, Timothy Chuter received the American College of Surgeons’ prestigious Jacobsen Innovation award for his multiple refinements to the technique. Another under-recognized breakthrough identified by our model is the development of standardized survey instruments to assess the quality of life for HIV+ patients. The antiretroviral cocktails introduced in the mid-1990s reduced AIDS mortality, but treatment came with serious side effects. The new evaluations showed that patients whose disease progressed had worse physical functioning than Americans with other chronic diseases, while those who were asymptomatic maintained a health-related quality of life on par with the overall US population. This evidence made it possible for patients and activists to argue that even in the absence of a total cure, and in spite of the side effects, alleviation of symptoms was a worthwhile priority for clinicians. My colleagues and I have failed to identify any significant recognition for the physicians and health policy experts who pioneered this advance, although in 2016, researchers called for the World Health Organization to set targets for good health-related quality of life as part of its framework to end the AIDS pandemic. From forecasting to funding How should science funders use our predictions? Any serious discussion of what we should do with this new capability needs to begin with an understanding of its limitations. We can’t (and shouldn’t) invest all of our resources in the small number of topics predicted to produce breakthroughs. Innovative new fields are born from existing ones; they rarely arise de novo. If funders don’t maintain a diverse portfolio, the breakthroughs of tomorrow will have no antecedents. Think of this as eating the seed corn, or killing the goose that lays the golden egg. There are also multiple goals of funding beyond basic scientific discovery, including translating discoveries into clinical practice, developing new technologies, supporting economic development, and training new scientists. The investments needed to accomplish these goals are likely different from those required to support emerging breakthroughs. Finally, we must be aware that we may not capture every instance of a breakthrough. The concept is fuzzy, and not every significant discovery is recognized with a major award. Further, breakthroughs are rare, meaning that our dataset is, by necessity, small. This makes formal estimates of accuracy challenging. Although our overall success rate appears to be high, any one signal may turn out to be a false positive. We found one apparent example: the development of the third generation COX-2 inhibitors, Vioxx and Celebrex, which were much celebrated in the early 2000s as effective but non-addictive pain relievers, meets all the algorithmic criteria of a breakthrough. Five years after it received FDA approval, researchers demonstrated that Vioxx was associated with serious cardiovascular complications, and the manufacturer voluntarily pulled the drug from the market. Celebrex remains available, although like other NSAIDs, it carries an FDA warning for increased cardiovascular risk. Decision makers who were overly focused on the breakthrough potential of this research might have wasted substantial resources nurturing an area that ultimately proved to be a failure—but so would those who relied on expert opinion at the time. That said, the potential benefits of funding the next mRNA vaccine or cancer immunotherapy years earlier than we might have are large. When we can’t assume the outcome of an action, it’s worth conducting an experiment. Can targeted support for areas that are poised to produce a breakthrough increase the return on scientific investment without cannibalizing future advances? With the necessary administrative infrastructure in place, conducting this experiment would be straightforward. First, identify all the breakthrough signals between 2018 and 2023, select half at random, and commit to a decade of investment. For biomedicine, a six year window should yield about 30 topics with the potential to produce a breakthrough. Providing strong support to half of these might be accomplished for $300 million a year. That’s roughly half of the recent annual budget of the NIH Common Fund or around 20% of the fiscal year 2025 budget for ARPA-H. After five years, then again at ten, compare to see which group — the one that was actively managed, or the control — produced more breakthroughs, and on what timescale. Although we used biomedicine as an example, the same experiment could just as well be run for physics, materials science, or any other discipline. Any attempt to undertake such an experiment should keep three points top of mind. First, we can predict the topic of future breakthroughs, but the people and vision for how to move the work forward are still important. In practice, this means success requires active program managers with the expertise to develop the science and the authority to do so, including by recruiting investigators. Second, we would be wise to learn from the failures of past attempts to fund transformative research. High among these are funding modestly repackaged work, confusing the genuinely novel with the merely unfamiliar, and relying too much on incumbent investigators. All of these risks can be mitigated by thoroughly and intelligently integrating high quality data into portfolio management. Finally, we need to have patience. Even with strong funding support, producing a breakthrough takes time. If supporting breakthroughs is the best way to nurture the birth of new fields, we also need to accurately describe and properly manage the other two stages, so that we invest wisely throughout the productive lifetime of ideas and divest once they reach the point of diminishing returns. We would benefit from more study of all of these phases, especially the transition from one to another. More research could answer questions like: When does a breakthrough become an established field? How do the availability of funding, the size and characteristics of the available workforce, and the accumulation of evidence that disagrees with prevailing models affect a field’s decline? Exactly how do old ideas give birth to new ones, and can we speed up the process? The more we understand about the dynamics of scientific progress, the better we can maximize the odds that our curiosity leads to results. I’d call that finding a way to make our own luck.
Entrepreneurs pitched business ideas to Yahoo Finance
Yahoo Finance Executive Editor Brian Sozzi is on the hunt for the next big business breakthrough. Check out the absolute best pitches and standout moments from the innovators making waves at Cannes Lions.
FDA's breakthrough pipeline fills up with generative AI devices
In this edition of STAT Health Tech: FDA drops enforcement against Whoop, more AI devices get FDA 'breakthrough' label, and more.
The biotech founder asking why good science gets stuck
As an undergraduate, Alinta Furnell led student societies, pitched startup ideas and built biotechnology ventures. Now, the UNSW alumna is investigating one of innovation’s biggest challenges – why so many scientific breakthroughs never make it beyond the lab.
Microsoft's quantum computing technology called into question, again
A new critique in the scientific journal Nature is raising fresh questions about Microsoft's claimed quantum computing breakthrough last year, which underpinned the company's announcement this month that it will have a working quantum system by 2029.
FSU computational scientist helps advance targeted drug-delivery systems using coding, modeling
A Florida State University computational scientist is paving the way for future medical breakthroughs by developing mathematical models and simulations to
What an abandoned heart failure trial says about 'breakthrough' devices that don’t reach patients
An abandoned heart-failure trial offers a rare window into devices that the FDA deems "breakthrough" but never reach patients.
Meet the doctor building tiny tools for big science breakthroughs
UCLA's Steven Jonas uses nanotechnology in his lab to explore cancer and other disease-fighting tools.
Senate passes landmark housing affordability bill after bipartisan breakthrough
The Senate passed a bill aimed at lowering housing costs on Monday after a major breakthrough and rare bipartisan consensus.
Breakthrough Science Meets Market Skepticism: Insight Molecular Diagnostics Inc. (IMDX)’s Defining Moment
Insight Molecular Diagnostics Inc. (NASDAQ:IMDX) is one of the high-growth micro-cap stocks to buy now. On June 11, Insight Molecular Diagnostics Inc. (NASDAQ:IMDX) announced the online publication in the American Journal of Transplantation of new data demonstrating the statistical superiority of its flagship GraftAssure transplant rejection monitoring assay. The study showed that the novel GraftAssure […]
Gov Sanders reveals 'major breakthrough' on education as red state positions itself as 'blueprint' for nation
Arkansas students show 7% proficiency gains under Gov. Sarah Sanders' LEARNS Act, with the governor hoping red and blue states will follow the blueprint.
‘If it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming JD’: Vance’s risky gambit on Iran peace efforts
As the Trump administration neared a breakthrough in its negotiations with Iran, Vice President JD Vance jumped at the chance to be the face of a peace agreement designed to end months of unpopular war.
Chinese scientists create record-smashing brain implant electrode array
Breakthrough recorded neural activity with high clarity and remained safely functional for 18 months without a drop in performance.
The Drug That Bought My Father More Time Didn't Happen by Accident
Behind every medical breakthrough are decades of research — and decisions being made right now could determine which discoveries come next.
A daily probiotic may help relieve depression and anxiety
A small clinical trial suggests that probiotics may offer a surprising mental health boost for older adults with depression. Seniors who took a daily probiotic alongside their regular antidepressant treatment experienced slightly greater improvements in depression and anxiety symptoms than those who received a placebo.
Superconductivity breakthrough could unlock ultra-efficient electronics
A clever nanoscale redesign may have solved one of superconductivity’s biggest problems. Researchers in Sweden discovered that by subtly sculpting the surface beneath an ultrathin superconducting material, they could make it stay superconducting at higher temperatures and under much stronger magnetic fields.
Breakthrough to Make Bones Stronger Could Reverse Osteoporosis
A potential treatment for millions.
The Science and Health Breakthroughs Shaping a New American Era
TIME asked Bill Nye, Emily Oster, Kizzmekia Corbett-Helaire, and 22 others to tell us about the scientific advances defining the U.S. at 250
The Science and Health Breakthroughs Shaping a New American Era
TIME asked Bill Nye, Emily Oster, Kizzmekia Corbett-Helaire, and 22 others to tell us about the scientific advances defining the U.S. at 250
Scientists just found a hidden weakness in forever chemicals
Researchers discovered that hydrogen radicals generated by intense UV light can break down stubborn PFAS “forever chemicals” without added chemicals. The breakthrough reveals a key mechanism that could lead to greener and more effective technologies for permanently destroying these pollutants.
A vague Iran deal leaves more questions than answers
Trump hailed the document as a breakthrough after months of negotiations. Yet its broad contours remained unclear over a day after the deal was announced.
Mercy's Kerry Bommarito Earns "Top Women in Health IT" Recognition Again
Behind every breakthrough in healthcare technology is a leader helping move care forward — like Mercy’s own Kerry Bommarito. Mercy’s vice president of enterprise AI and decision intelligence has again been recognized by Becker’s Hospital Review, this time as part of its 2026 list of “Women in Health IT to Know.”
Trump admin’s policies negatively impacting U.S. science research
OPINION — The American academic research engine has long been the envy of the world. Generally well-funded, labs in the United States have been able to attract the best minds who generate breakthroughs and train the next generation workforce that powers the U.S. economy. But since the start of the second Trump administration in January 2025, new federal policies have destabilized the American scientific enterprise.
DC Wrap: U.S. and Iran have apparent breakthrough in talks
A look at the day's biggest stories in national politics
DC Wrap: U.S. and Iran have apparent breakthrough in talks
A look at the day's biggest stories in national politics
Stanford scientists regrow lost cartilage and reverse arthritis in major breakthrough
A new treatment that blocks an aging-related protein restored lost cartilage in old mice and helped prevent arthritis after knee injuries. Human cartilage samples showed similar signs of regeneration, raising hopes for a future drug that could repair joints instead of replacing them.
UT Austin researchers create nanoscale Longhorn using DNA origami
UT Austin researchers folded DNA into a nanoscale Longhorn, demonstrating a breakthrough that could help deliver cancer drugs more precisely and speed up the production of advanced materials.
Johns Hopkins announces major new investment in cutting-edge life sciences research
The Life Sciences Research Initiative will direct $80 million annually over the next two years to fuel breakthroughs and discoveries to improve human health
The 2026 World Cup: Sports and Conflict
As the United States prepares to co-host the largest World Cup ever played, the link between sports and politics is no less relevant than it was during the Cold War. But can it create diplomatic opportunities or even peace breakthroughs?
Why strong health systems are essential to global growth
Breakthrough health innovations can only deliver on their promise when people can reach them. Read about why investing in health is crucial.
Pfizer's 2025 Impact Report Highlights Progress Across Patients, Planet, and Responsible Business
Here at Pfizer, we are in the business of breakthroughs, and while our focus is on making advancements that impact patients’ lives, we are also aware of our work’s broader impact on the world. Every year, we take stock of the impact our work has on the world, the environment, and people themselves in our Impact Report.
Cell Therapy Clinical Trials: Breaking Down the Science
Breakthrough T1D is here to answer all of your questions about islet cell therapies, from the research lab to real-world treatments.
New OMB rule could break science in the United States
The drug that saved your mother. The treatment your doctor recommended. The clinical trial that bought someone you love more time. None of it was inevitable. It required a system built to operate outside politics and sustained over decades, because science doesn’t operate on the timeline of a politician. That system is now under direct threat. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a new rule to regulate all federal grants, not just science, but housing, education, defense, NASA and everything in between, that would fundamentally change how research is conducted in the United States. There have been a lot of fires in the past 16 months, and if everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency. But this is a very big deal. These rules would strip away the independence that has kept science from becoming a political tool. The good news is there’s still something we can all do. How the grant system was designed to work When I was a new faculty member, I was full of millions of ideas, so I sat down and wrote an NIH proposal. I worked on it for months and thought it was so good. Then I sent it to my mentor. It came back covered in comments. Places where my reasoning wasn’t as airtight as I’d thought, methods that could be stronger, gaps in my thinking that I had been too close to the work to see. It stung, as honest feedback always does, but peer review almost always makes the work better. In fact, it’s the backbone of how American science has functioned for generations. At NIH, submitted proposals go to a panel of scientists who have experience in the field. These are the people who can read research methods and spot their weaknesses, who understand when an experiment is designed well and when it isn’t. Applications are scored rigorously, and often only the top 3-20% of proposals receive funding. The people making funding decisions are required to justify them based on these reviews. To be clear: this is not a perfect system, and good science still goes unfunded more often than any of us would like due to limited resources. There is also criticism that peer review may undervalue bold ideas that are risky but could have high payoffs. But the peer review system is nonetheless a meaningful part of the grant selection process. While thoughtful and careful changes could improve the system, the changes being proposed by OMB will not make things better. The rule that could change everything Through this OMB proposal, the system that helps decide what gets funded is being dismantled. There are many troubling elements buried in this proposal, but three provisions stand out in particular. Each would be damaging alone. Together, they would change what kind of science gets done in America, and who it serves. 1. Political appointees would decide which science gets funded, and peer review would be explicitly sidelined or ignored. The guidelines your doctor follows, the standards that determine what’s in your air and water, the drugs that get approved for your family: all of it starts with a funding decision. Right now, that decision is made by scientists who can evaluate whether the work is actually sound and whether it could move the needle forward. Under this proposal, funding decisions could be made by political appointees. The careful, expertise-driven review process that shapes grant funding would be effectively sidelined. That means that a poorly designed study could get funded simply because someone in a political office liked the sound of it, while rigorous, important work doesn’t get funded because it no longer aligns with the administration’s priorities. In other words, critical work that benefits all of us could now be missed just because it has become politically inconvenient. 2. Grants could be canceled at any point, without warning, in the middle of ongoing work. Say your tax dollars have been paying for a cancer study for two years. The grant was awarded for five years, so the team is mid-experiment. There are three additional years’ worth of answers that could change how the disease is treated for hundreds of thousands of people. With this new rule, the federal government could cancel the remaining funding tomorrow, walk away from the commitment it made with your money, and have no legal obligation to finish what it started. This is a huge waste of money. There are rarely other sources of funding for this work, which means the team, the graduate students, postdocs, and research staff who have dedicated years of their careers to this project could lose their jobs. Patients who have contributed their time to studies may not see it turn into useful learnings for others. Every hour of work already completed could result in nothing useful. Science can take decades to get to tangible outcomes. It needs a stable funding system to flourish. 3. Researchers would have a harder time communicating their findings without pre-approval from the federal government. There is a saying from Sir Mark Walport: “Science isn’t finished until it’s communicated.” Science is no use to anyone if it is kept locked away in the labs that produced the data. The proposed rule could make communicating research findings harder in a number of ways: Make it harder for scientists to widely share their findings in scientific journals. Publication costs, including journal fees that allow for broad public access, could not be paid for by federal funds which is often how scientists pay these costs. Restrict researchers from engaging publicly about how their findings should inform policy or public health guidelines. This would restrict scientists from doing the work that transforms years of lab work into decisions that actually affect people’s lives. Make it harder for scientists to attend conferences. Conferences would now need to be approved by the federal agency at the time of grant award. This disadvantages conferences or publications that are not politically aligned. Conferences are a key way in which scientists learn about work happening in their field so they can collaborate and build on each other’s findings. What good is science with a muzzle? The long-term impact These changes could (and hopefully would) be reversed under the next administration. But by then, damage has been done. Once projects are halted or denied funding by political appointees, people leave their science careers for other paths or even leave the country to do their amazing science elsewhere. You cannot pause a scientific study the way you pause a subscription you decided isn’t useful anymore. You cannot freeze a research team that depends on salaries to feed their families, causing a scramble for replacement funding that, in most cases, simply does not exist. When the money stops, everything stops, and all the work in progress and its potential are lost. Despite all of the language about reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, this new proposed rule increases the administrative burden tremendously. Every researcher watching this unfold will make a rational decision: don’t start anything that will take a decade to finish. This includes not building a team around funding that could vanish, or asking the big questions that need patience and stability to answer. The most consequential science, the kind that produces the treatments and the breakthroughs that reach your doctor’s office twenty years from now, is exactly the science that would be abandoned first. This is still a proposal, so we can all do something Some worry this rule is already a done deal. But by law, OMB is required to open a public comment period. Those comments matter because they inform members of Congress, they can be used in litigation, and they create a public record. So here’s what you can do: Submit a public comment. The public comment period on this proposed change is open until July 13. Anyone can submit a comment, and OMB is required to respond to substantial ones. Each comment must be different to count as distinct; identical comments will be counted only once. Comment as an individual, not on behalf of your organization. Here’s a full resource to help you, with useful examples, but in general: Share a story about how science or federal funding has benefitted you or is involved in your work. Are you or someone you loved a cancer survivor? Do you know someone with Alzheimer’s? Have you received NIH/NSF or other federal funding? All of these can be stories you use to highlight why you care. Explain why you’re worried about these proposed changes. You can use the wording found here or in other resources to help you. Ask them to withdraw this proposed rule. Contact your elected representatives. Congress allocates money to federal agencies to spend, and it has oversight of how that process works. You can let your representatives know this proposed change concerns you and ask them to intervene. There are levers they can push that can help at this moment. Let others know why federal funding matters. This isn’t just about science, but ALL federal grants, including for education systems, defense projects, and more. The process, including the importance of federal funding, is invisible to many. We can all make it more visible by sharing how science benefits us and why we value it. You can also share this article, or any of the resources linked here, to help spread awareness! Bottom line We are quickly losing ground in scientific research in the U.S. More changes, like the proposed rule by OMB, would decimate our ability to conduct research here, leaving us all worse off: fewer treatments for pancreatic cancer, less research on pollution impacts, fewer answers for patients with rare disease, and more unaddressed health needs. The impact will be very real for all of us, regardless of where we stand politically. Using our voices for science is more important than ever. Love, LM Big thanks to Dr. Megan Ranney for reading this over and providing brilliant insights, as always. Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective at YLE and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health. You can find her on Substack, LinkedIn, Instagram and Threads. 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: Subscribe