SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " longer " 1,303 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
The Woolly Mammoth’s Comeback Is Taking Longer Than Expected
Colossal Biosciences now estimates that it will de-extinct a woolly mammoth sometime in the 2030s.
One Of Our Most Detailed Views Yet Of Betelgeuse Reveals Unexpected Long-Lasting Structures In Its Inner Atmosphere
There are hot spots that have been there for longer than models predicted.
A deep dive into climate change
Some policymakers continue to question the science of climate change, despite the growing evidence of significant damage to life on land and in the ocean.Katja Matthes, director of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel in Germany, believes the ongoing attempts to politicise climate science and discredit researchers are hindering international cooperation and public understanding. The ocean provides clear evidence of the extent to which changes are occurring, she says.“We are seeing severe, unprecedented and accelerating changes in the ocean — warming ocean temperatures, acidification and oxygen depletion — that are destabilising the most important system that makes life on this planet possible,” Matthes explains. Visible signs of these changes include the melting of ice sheets in the Arctic and Greenland. Deeper down, the growing frequency of hypoxia — or oxygen-deprived “dead zones”, where marine life can no longer survive — in the Baltic and record-high Mediterranean surface temperatures are indicators of the “dramatic warming” of the ocean, she adds.The ocean, which covers around 70% of the Earth’s surface, acts as a vital carbon sink, absorbing around 30% of the planet’s carbon dioxide (CO2) and 90% of the excess heat. However, the global ocean surface temperature has risen by an average of half a degree Celsius since 1982, according to the EU Copernicus observatory. More significant rises have been recorded in the Mediterranean, Black, Baltic and other shallower seas.Some ocean temperature increases do occur naturally, such as during El Niño events. But sustained rises can trigger extreme weather on land — including droughts, floods and catastrophic storms — while also harming marine ecosystems. Only 10% of marine species have been studied, Matthes notes, “so the consequences might be even more severe than we know.”Fostering European cooperation amid uncertaintyMatthes, who holds a doctorate in meteorology, is a professor of atmospheric physics as well as director of GEOMAR. She serves as one of Kiel’s ambassadors to Science Comes to Town (SCTT), an EU-funded programme that aims to promote science’s role in society and strengthen cross-border collaboration in research, innovation and sustainability. SCTT is hosted by the coastal cities of Kiel, Brest (in France) and Split (in Croatia).The SCTT project also provides a platform for raising awareness and understanding between scientists and the public about major issues, such as climate change. Having worked on both sides of the Atlantic, Matthes is frustrated by recent attempts to erode decades of international climate collaboration and question the credibility of research. Earlier this year, the US administration delivered a major blow to global cooperation by withdrawing from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and other global climate organisations, claiming they were “contrary to the interests of the United States.”In addition, a US Department of Energy (DOE) report cast doubt on the latest IPCC climate assessment, which was published in 2024. As a contributing author to the IPCC study, Matthes says the DOE sought to discredit scientists like herself. “Climate change is not a matter of opinion, it really exists and we are witnessing dramatic changes,” she notes. “It’s not climate change as a whole that is being targeted, but scientists and their research.”Other US actions have also hit home for Matthes, who spent three years at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. The White House has announced plans to close the facility, a move that was “pretty tough” due to the German scientist’s personal connections with the staff and their reputation for excellence.Changing the narrative on climate changeEurope’s scientific community remains a driving force on climate research and collaboration. As one of the world’s leading marine research institutions, GEOMAR attracts students from more than 50 countries and plays an important role in global observation initiatives that contribute to understanding and protecting the ocean basins. At a European level, GEOMAR works closely with other top marine research facilities, including France’s Ifremer, an SCTT partner in Brest. GEOMAR has also developed innovative and safe strategies for removing unexploded wartime munitions from the seabed, which release toxic substances that pose a danger to humans and the marine environment. Through the Horizon Europe MMinE-SwEEPER project, this knowledge has been transferred to the European level.These initiatives are examples of how local action can have a global impact, Matthes says, and how Europe can strengthen climate research and partnerships. “This is a chance for Europe to step up and work on climate cooperation and agreements,” she notes. “Climate change is an international problem and a real threat, and we need more speed on climate action than we have now.”Matthes believes her fellow scientists need to communicate that climate change is not only a threat, but an opportunity to find solutions. “We need to change our narrative and expand our strategic alliances with those who are willing,” she says, “and luckily there are a lot of willing people and countries.”Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
A deep dive into climate change
Some policymakers continue to question the science of climate change, despite the growing evidence of significant damage to life on land and in the ocean.Katja Matthes, director of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel in Germany, believes the ongoing attempts to politicise climate science and discredit researchers are hindering international cooperation and public understanding. The ocean provides clear evidence of the extent to which changes are occurring, she says.“We are seeing severe, unprecedented and accelerating changes in the ocean — warming ocean temperatures, acidification and oxygen depletion — that are destabilising the most important system that makes life on this planet possible,” Matthes explains. Visible signs of these changes include the melting of ice sheets in the Arctic and Greenland. Deeper down, the growing frequency of hypoxia — or oxygen-deprived “dead zones”, where marine life can no longer survive — in the Baltic and record-high Mediterranean surface temperatures are indicators of the “dramatic warming” of the ocean, she adds.The ocean, which covers around 70% of the Earth’s surface, acts as a vital carbon sink, absorbing around 30% of the planet’s carbon dioxide (CO2) and 90% of the excess heat. However, the global ocean surface temperature has risen by an average of half a degree Celsius since 1982, according to the EU Copernicus observatory. More significant rises have been recorded in the Mediterranean, Black, Baltic and other shallower seas.Some ocean temperature increases do occur naturally, such as during El Niño events. But sustained rises can trigger extreme weather on land — including droughts, floods and catastrophic storms — while also harming marine ecosystems. Only 10% of marine species have been studied, Matthes notes, “so the consequences might be even more severe than we know.”Fostering European cooperation amid uncertaintyMatthes, who holds a doctorate in meteorology, is a professor of atmospheric physics as well as director of GEOMAR. She serves as one of Kiel’s ambassadors to Science Comes to Town (SCTT), an EU-funded programme that aims to promote science’s role in society and strengthen cross-border collaboration in research, innovation and sustainability. SCTT is hosted by the coastal cities of Kiel, Brest (in France) and Split (in Croatia).The SCTT project also provides a platform for raising awareness and understanding between scientists and the public about major issues, such as climate change. Having worked on both sides of the Atlantic, Matthes is frustrated by recent attempts to erode decades of international climate collaboration and question the credibility of research. Earlier this year, the US administration delivered a major blow to global cooperation by withdrawing from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and other global climate organisations, claiming they were “contrary to the interests of the United States.”In addition, a US Department of Energy (DOE) report cast doubt on the latest IPCC climate assessment, which was published in 2024. As a contributing author to the IPCC study, Matthes says the DOE sought to discredit scientists like herself. “Climate change is not a matter of opinion, it really exists and we are witnessing dramatic changes,” she notes. “It’s not climate change as a whole that is being targeted, but scientists and their research.”Other US actions have also hit home for Matthes, who spent three years at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. The White House has announced plans to close the facility, a move that was “pretty tough” due to the German scientist’s personal connections with the staff and their reputation for excellence.Changing the narrative on climate changeEurope’s scientific community remains a driving force on climate research and collaboration. As one of the world’s leading marine research institutions, GEOMAR attracts students from more than 50 countries and plays an important role in global observation initiatives that contribute to understanding and protecting the ocean basins. At a European level, GEOMAR works closely with other top marine research facilities, including France’s Ifremer, an SCTT partner in Brest. GEOMAR has also developed innovative and safe strategies for removing unexploded wartime munitions from the seabed, which release toxic substances that pose a danger to humans and the marine environment. Through the Horizon Europe MMinE-SwEEPER project, this knowledge has been transferred to the European level.These initiatives are examples of how local action can have a global impact, Matthes says, and how Europe can strengthen climate research and partnerships. “This is a chance for Europe to step up and work on climate cooperation and agreements,” she notes. “Climate change is an international problem and a real threat, and we need more speed on climate action than we have now.”Matthes believes her fellow scientists need to communicate that climate change is not only a threat, but an opportunity to find solutions. “We need to change our narrative and expand our strategic alliances with those who are willing,” she says, “and luckily there are a lot of willing people and countries.”Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
Man Had Massive Stroke That Left Him Paralyzed on the Floor. His Wife’s Random Decision That Day Led to ‘Miracle’ Recovery
Todd Meiklejohn was getting ready for his day the morning of Aug. 8, 2025, when he suddenly could no longer walk or see through one eye
You no longer need clean install for a free Windows 11-exclusive performance boost feature
Microsoft removed the mandatory clean install requirement for a Windows 11-exclusive feature that's said to boost performance.
Living better for longer: Israeli fitness experts on how to stay strong and healthy as you age
Longevity, which refers not only to the number of years a person lives but also to the number of years they stay healthy and active, is an increasingly important and popular topic today.
Men face new pressure to stay ‘hot’ as they age — and it’s not just about living longer
Plastic surgeon Dr. Krishna Vyas reveals why men no longer feel stigma around cosmetic procedures and shares the foundational steps for extending 'hotspan'.
This yeast supplement may boost cancer-fighting immunity
A simple yeast-based food supplement may help restore the immune system’s ability to fight cancer, according to new research in mice. Scientists found that yeast beta-glucan reprogrammed early immune cells in the bone marrow, leading to stronger, longer-lasting cancer-fighting responses against colorectal, skin, and breast cancer cells.
LB Ty’Anthony Smith no longer with Texas program
The Horns may be without a key contributor this season.
Chase Stokes says he had multiple organ failure after wrapping ‘Outer Banks’
Chase Stokes said that he ‘had so much s--- wrong’ medically after finishing his time on ‘Outer Banks,’ including multiple organ failure: ‘Wouldn’t have been around much longer if I didn’t take care of my body.’
Residential Developers Dive Into Science Of Blue Space
Developers of waterfront properties no longer market the proximity of water as merely a passive asset, preferring to tout the wellness benefits of that proximity.
3 minutes of sprinting does something 90 minutes of exercise does not
A few minutes of sprinting may reshape the bloodstream far more dramatically than a much longer moderate workout. Six 30-second sprints altered nearly a quarter of the blood proteins measured and more than 200 metabolites, while 90 minutes of moderate cycling produced far smaller immediate changes. Many of the proteins affected by sprinting were also associated with lower risks of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other metabolic diseases.
Live Nation Entertainment (LYV) Could Be 10% Undervalued Following Its Recent Pullback
Live Nation Entertainment (LYV) stock was recently in focus after its latest trading session, with investors weighing fresh share price moves against longer term returns across the month, past 3 months and year. See our latest analysis for Live Nation Entertainment. At a latest share price of US$182.02, Live Nation Entertainment has seen short term share price softness over the past week but still carries a strong year to date share price return of 25.26% and a 3 year total shareholder return...
Gold steadies, heads for third straight weekly gain
Gold held steady on Friday but was on track for a third straight weekly gain, buoyed by a weaker dollar and U.S. Treasury Department efforts to hold down longer-term yields.
5 science-backed health benefits of tea, from longevity to brain health
Drinking tea has been consistently associated with a longer lifespan.
5 science-backed health benefits of tea, from longevity to brain health
Drinking tea has been consistently associated with a longer lifespan.
Is Mega Starmie any good for Pokémon GO Raids?
We got a slew of new Mega Evolutions in Pokémon Legends: Z-A and its DLC, but none of them has been as hilarious as Mega Starmie, which just got longer legs and became glossier. And yes, it runs like a human being, leaving players in stitches just by looking at it. Mega Patrick Starmie anyone?! […]
LG Display Introduces FLiPP OLED Technology, Improving Brightness By Up To 1.6X With Longer Lifespan
LG's FLiPP OLED technology offers 1.6x brightness, 2.4x lifespan, and 13% lower power consumption compared to FMM with enhanced manufacturing flexibility.
Josh Radnor says he’s no longer close with ‘How I Met Your Mother’ cast: ‘Not even a little bit’
Josh Radnor said that he’s ‘not even a little bit’ as close with the ‘How I Met Your Mother’ cast as he used to be: ‘Acting is a lot of little love affairs that you have, and then you move on.’
LG Display unveils FLiPP OLED technology with up to 1.6x higher brightness and 2.4x longer lifespan
LG Display says FLiPP improves OLED aperture ratio by 55%. The process supports panels from 1 to 100 inches and can improve substrate utilization by up to 64%.
Gabby Thomas on the rise of women's sports: "People are waking up to the fact that women's sports are an
The three-time Paris 2024 gold medallist believes the growth of women’s sport is helping to challenge deep-rooted societal norms — and wants the next generation of girls to no longer have to fight simply to be seen.
Gran Turismo 7 Update Confirmed for August 20: Three Performance Sedans, Caterham Returns
After an unexpectedly longer wait for more information, we've now got confirmation that the next content update for Gran Turismo 7 lands on Thursday, August 20, along with details on some of its contents. Series creator Kazunori Yamauchi posted his regular teaser some ten days ago now, to inform
⚠️ Franclim Carvalho is no longer Botafogo manager
Franclim Carvalho could not withstand the rough spell in charge of Botafogo.According to ge, the 39-year-old Portuguese coach was fired this Tuesday (18).He leaves the club after the defeats to Cienci...
Israel can no longer deny the shift in U.S. politics
When an Israeli prime minister jets into Washington for a meeting with the president of the United States, the red […]
Steuben County investigating confirmed measles case
Officials say the resident, who was unvaccinated, is safely isolating at home until they are no longer contagious.
amBroadway | Tom Felton extends ‘Harry Potter’ run for final time, reality stars to join ‘Just in Time’ cast and more
Tom Felton will remain on Broadway a little longer than expected, extending his run as Draco Malfoy in “Harry Potter and the Cursed Child” through Jan. 3,
‘The adjustments no longer reflect a change in responsibility’
Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
Sporting KC agrees to mutual contract termination with midfielder Manu Garcia
Sporting Kansas City announced today that the club has mutually agreed to terminate the contract of midfielder Manu Garcia. The club has also exercised a buyout of Garcia’s guaranteed contract, and Garcia will no longer occupy a Designated Player spot on Sporting’s roster. Garcia joined Sporting KC ahead of the
Indie developer of popular stock market game says Sony is blocking a PS5 release and delisting its previous games
STONKS-9800 is no longer coming to PS5 and all of Ternox’s previous games are being pulled…
Cialis is an erectile dysfunction drug. Could it also help you live longer?
In some wellness circles, tadalafil is promoted as a longevity drug. There is evidence showing a link between it and a lower risk of death in men, but there are no well-controlled trials in humans.
Big investors hunt for tomorrow's AI winners as capex angst fades
The rally in AI-linked stocks that marked the latest earnings season has shifted the focus of the AI investment story from whether Big Tech's spending spree will pay off to the kind of companies that will deliver returns over the longer term, investors say.
A little-known protein may be fueling Alzheimer’s — and scientists found a way to block it
An experimental Alzheimer’s compound prevented damaging protein clumps from forming in the brains of mice, helping nerve cells survive longer and reducing amyloid buildup. The treatment also appeared to improve heart health and slow some signs of aging, raising hopes for an entirely new way to combat dementia.
These early career scientists left Boulder’s NCAR. Here’s what they’re doing now
“I suppose I was one of many people who was wondering if I would have this job and this fellowship for much longer, and if there would be a job after,” former NCAR researcher Austin Harris said.
These early career scientists left Boulder’s NCAR. Here’s what they’re doing now
“I suppose I was one of many people who was wondering if I would have this job and this fellowship for much longer, and if there would be a job after,” former NCAR researcher Austin Harris said.
Mark Mitchell Update
Mitchell will have to wait a bit longer to know how his hearing will turn out.
DoD changes transitional health care eligibility for reservists following lawsuit
Reservists no longer need to demonstrate that their period of active duty service was connected to a war to qualify for transitional health care coverage.
Taking the stairs could protect your heart and help you live longer
Simply choosing the stairs could have surprisingly big benefits for your heart and longevity. A large analysis involving more than 480,000 people found that regular stair climbers were 39% less likely to die from cardiovascular disease and 24% less likely to die from any cause than people who rarely took the stairs. They also had lower risks of heart attack, stroke, and heart failure.
Henry Ford Providence Southfield Hospital loses Level II trauma status
Henry Ford Health says ambulances can no longer bring trauma patients to its Providence Southfield Hospital because it lost its trauma center status.
Pokemon Bank is shutting down, announcement released
Today, The Pokemon Company announced that it’s shutting down Pokemon Bank. The service goes offline on February 26, 2027. Once we reach that day, players will not be able to transfer Pokemon from Pokemon Bank to Pokemon Home. It will not be possible to store Pokemon there any longer. Players are advised to send their creatures to Pokemon Home before...
The Pixel Watch 5 no longer ships with a carcinogenic band, and the Apple Watch must follow
No more forever chemicals in Google's strap
Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital CEO is no longer with Memorial Healthcare System
Caitlin Stella, who has been the CEO for Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital for the past eight years, is no longer in that position as of Tuesday, the South Florida Sun Sentinel has learned..
Northrop's robot space mechanic is a new way to keep satellites at work longer
The Mission Robotic Vehicle is making the first attempt to attach a new thruster to an aging satellite.
U.S. Businesses No Longer Face Corporate Transparency Act Reporting
A final rule from the U.S. Treasury eliminates reporting requirements for U.S. companies and persons under the Corporate Transparency Act, which remains on the books.
Apple Extends 2026 Back to School Promotion Until September 24
Apple today extended its 2026 Back to School Promotion until September 24, which means it will last almost a month longer than planned. The extension is applicable in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and multiple countries in Asia. The Back to School promotion offers a free item or gift card when students or educators purchase an eligible Mac or iPad model, plus an educational discount.
Alphabet's AI Story No Longer Runs Through The Business That Funds Everything Else
The advertising line management once pointed to for AI money has been speeding up, not slowing down.
Business Owners Are Asking the Wrong AI Question. Monday.com's Stock Drop Shows the Better One
Investors are no longer rewarding AI adoption on its own. They want proof that it is changing revenue, margins, and customer value.
Robinhood Now Has 13 Separate Business Lines Above $100 Million in Annualized Revenue. Here's Why Crypto No Longer Decides the Quarter.
The company is expanding to capture its share of a $84 trillion opportunity in the next 20 years.
Brad Pitt no longer sober, talks feeling 'suicidal' amid family drama
Brad Pitt opened up about his mental health journey amid his legal troubles with ex-wife Angelina Jolie in a new interview with Esquire.
Long waits to see the doctor? This SC health system is working toward a cure.
Experts say there is a shortage of health care workers that’s causing patients to see longer waits. This Upstate health care system has a program to help with that.
I used Gemini to plan and budget my vacation; I'm never doing it any other way
I no longer plan short trips extensively
Voyager 1 is down to two working science instruments, and the fix that just bought its twin, Voyager 2, another year of power is now being tested on a probe NASA says no longer behaves quite like its sibling
After nearly fifty years in the void, NASA is attempting an untested power trick on a probe that's increasingly unpredictable—and may be running out of time.
How much sunshine do we really need?
Some people just need a few minutes per day in the summer – while others require much longer.
Taylor Swift songs removed from several White House TikTok videos
Taylor Swift's music is no longer available on several videos posted by President Donald Trump's Team Trump TikTok page.
Allegheny Health Network first in Western Pa. to offer GammaTile brain cancer treatment
Trailblazing technology offered at Allegheny General Hospital in Pittsburgh’s North Side is helping patients with operable brain metastases live longer. Allegheny Health Network neurosurgeon Matthew J. Shepard is the first physician in Western Pennsylvania to use GammaTile, an FDA-approved treatment that uses collagen disks about the size of postage stamps
These 'five pillars' for living healthier longer are easy and affordable
Longevity has become a bit of a buzz word, and has become increasingly aligned with the tech industry. But while it remains unclear whether the billions of US dollars being invested in life-extending bioscience is something any of us can access, a timely report from Harvard Medical School reminds us what we can do on our own – and it's backed by a huge body of evidence.
‘Destiny 2’ Players Are Miraculously Unvaulting Cut Content From The Game
It is one of the most infamous moments in Destiny history, when Bungie announced that it could no longer support the enormous mountain of content the game was amassing.
Medicaid cuts stand to hit everyone (yes, even you). Here’s why
Even privately insured Californians could see longer ER waits and rising premiums as hospitals absorb Medi-Cal cuts.
Avoiding these 3 risk factors might buy you 13 more dementia-free years
New research finds that people who steer clear of key cardiovascular hazards at midlife live much longer before developing dementia.
Wearable ultrasound patch boosts REM sleep without drugs or surgery
A new wearable patch may help people reach REM sleep faster and remain there longer without medication or surgery. In a study of 28 participants, the device shortened the time to REM by 43 minutes and extended it by about 16 minutes. Researchers also observed signs of improved stress regulation and changes in brain circuits tied to emotion.
Data centers shaping Mississippi's politics and workforce
The Mississippi Marketplace: The state's data centers boom is no longer just a business story. It has also crept into politics and education.
American Airlines will stop upgrading elite flyers to business from coach on long domestic flights
American Airlines will no longer give elite frequent flyers free upgrades from economy class to business on some of its longest domestic routes
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.
CEO Jackson to leave Flutter Entertainment
As of October 1, Peter Jackson will no longer be CEO of Flutter Entertainment. He will stepping down at the end of September, to be replaced by Flutter Internat
Chartbook 464 The"China squeeze" - the politics of development counterfactuals.
There are three types of China shock discourse. Each has a distinct temporal register. China shock 1.0 was a phrase coined by US academics in the 2010s to retrospectively summarize the impact on particular US labour markets, which they identified through painstaking empirical investigation. China shock 2.0 on everyone’s lips in Europe in the mid 2020s is an alarm raised by trans-Atlantic policy thinkers warning of a coming disaster which they project onto Europe’s ailing car industry. The third type of China shock discourse - commonly known as the “China squeeze” launched most recently by Indian economists Shoumitro Chatterjee and Arvind Subramanian in the pages of Foreign Affairs - mobilizes a different, more speculative temporal register: the counterfactual realm of alternate history. The China squeeze argument asks not what has happened, or what is going to happen, but what might have been. Specifically, what options for economic development might have been open to Global South economies like India or the economies of sub-Saharan Africa, had it not been for China’s spectacular industrialization since the late 1990s and the persistent competitiveness of China’s manufacture in low-skilled segments. Chatterjee and Subramanian’s argument is that whilst China has built a powerful position in electrical machinery and other high-skill manufacturing, which is now delivering China Shock 2.0, it also continues to run a trade surplus in low-skill, labour-intensive manufacturing. This surplus is large and has remained largely unchanged in fifteen years. Indeed, in the 2010s, in trade with low-income countries, China’s surplus rapidly increased. On their reading, this squeezes low-income producers in low-skill sectors in which they “should” be able to compete. Source: “China’s Mercantilist Squeeze on Developing Countries” Shoumitro Chatterjee and Arvind Subramanian. Peterson Institute for International Economics 26-7 May 2026 Chatterjee and Subramanian’s wording is telling: (emphasis mine) The canonical trajectory of economic development in the post-World War II period is for countries to transition from agriculture to manufacturing, first in low-skilled manufacturing and then later on to high-skill manufacturing (Herrendorf, Rogerson, and Valentinyi 2013). At the global level, this implies that high-income countries (HICs) that once specialized in low-skilled activities cede manufacturing export space to poorer countries that come along to occupy that space. In 1965, advanced economies accounted for about 60 percent of global value-added exports in four key low-skilled manufacturing sectors, i.e., apparel, leather, textiles, and footwear. Over time this share declined and began to be occupied first by the East Asian tigers and, beginning in the late 1990s, by China. Today China accounts for about 50 percent of the global market. The question is whether China, with its rising prosperity, is continuing to behave like its richer counterparts and ceding export space to poorer followers or to behave unlike them and continuing to occupy space. In terms of the conceptual maneuvers it performs, of the three China shock discourses, the “China squeeze” argument is by far the most ambitious. After all, it bases its critique of China on a counterfactual imagining of the world. Like any counterfactual argument, to construct this alternative reality it must rely on a heuristic model. To make their argument Chatterjee and Subramanian mobilize two key claims. The first reference point is the actual history of rich-country industrialization, what they refer to as the “canonical path”. The idea is that countries transition from agriculture to light industry and low-skilled manufacturing and from there up the value chain. To make this useful as a standard of comparison and a means to construct a normative standard, they adjust sectoral export shares for two factors: 1. the underlying level of economic development of the exporting country, as measured by national income and 2. the degree to which the sector in question is internationalized. The idea being that for a high income country to have a high export share in low-skill sectors is anomalous and even more so if that particular product is highly internationalized and thus suitable for being “conceded” to lower-income competitors. Where should this process end? Here Chatterjee and Subramanian introduce their second benchmark. Their normative idea of a global development path is one in which, in due course, low-skill manufacturing exports are distributed in proportion to a country’s share in the global labour force. They imagine, in other words, a world of proportional, polycentric global development without much national specialization in low-skill manufacturing. A useful benchmark is that, in labor-intensive manufacturing sectors, a country’s share of world exports should be broadly commensurate with its share of the world’s low-skilled labor endowment. … In the Heckscher-Ohlin model, this would be true if value added per worker and export propensities, i.e., fraction of output that is exported, are the same across countries. It is this pleasant liberal vista of orderly global development, progressing towards a general distribution of low-skilled manufacturing against which they judge reality and conclude that the low-income countries are suffering a “China squeeze”. China is not exiting low-skill sectors fast enough Allowing for its gdp level and the degree of globalization, China’s share of low-skill manufacturing exports is far higher than it “should” be. Relative to population, its low-skill share of exports is far too high. That in turn yields the conclusion that huge numbers of jobs - the authors suggest tens of millions - are being hoarded by China. For the four sectors captured in figure 4, this excess in value-added exports is $110 billion in 2022. For all low-skilled sectors overall captured in appendix figure D.1, excess value-added exports amount to $365 billion. The crowding out of LMIC exports by China is therefore substantial. Both these claims have in common that they are strong structuralisms. The first is that development paths ought to resemble each other. The second is that broadly speaking as far as low-skilled manufacturing is concerned, all countries are alike. If the world currently diverges from the distribution of trade implied by these assumptions, if China is not following the advanced economy path and has huge exports, this must be the result of “policy”, which the authors then put in question as illegitimate or unfair. Thus the naturalistic construction of a canonical path leading to a “level” distribution of low-skilled manufacturing reveals itself to be a polemical tool. From the point of view of China shock polemics, this discourse is no doubt welcome. But as an account of economic history, it must surely be regarded as nothing short of bamboozling. Development paths do not follow a regular, natural sequence. As David Fishman put it aptly, “development is not a queue”. They are always and everywhere, through and through political. Development is not so much a process, as a project. Each such project is more or less well adjusted to its context. As Gerschenkron taught uneven and combined development implies differentiation rather than simple imitation on a single parth. It may be true that Europe and the US exited relatively early from low-skill work. But clearly technology has changed. As C&S themselves point out, China no longer enjoys a low wage environment. Do they really believe that such huge differences can be accounted for either by industrial policy, which as they admit does not operate powerfully in low-skill sectors, or by exchange rate manipulation? What is overwhelmingly dominant in explaining the persistence of “low-skill” manufacturing in China are surely the network effects of complex supply chains. Indeed the label of “low-skill” may miss the point. The degree of globalization which Chatterjee and Subramanian decide to conjure away in their model of the development path - to allow for the fact that Europe and American textiles exporters did not enjoy just-in-time logistics in the 1950s - obscures the point that the networks through which Chinese factories supply the world are themselves key parts of the low-skill industrialization project. China isn’t knocking out 1970s style “cheap”. It has redefined the entire product cycle. C&S’s casual reference to “T-shirts” is telling. In today’s “fast fashion”, there is weight on both terms. Fashion and fast. China’s success in delivering on both at unprecedentedly high speed and at unprecedentedly low cost, isn’t a low-skill operation at all. If we see development trajectories not as the serial repetition of the same, but as distinctive, crafted projects that cumulate in complex agglomerations of skill, technology and labor, then this explains why the assumption that low-skilled manufacturing should follow the distribution of population flies in the face of all experience. As countless cases attest, low-wage, low-income developed economies are not by themselves the makings of a competitive production base. As Leon Liao puts it quite fairly: “International trade has never been allocated according to population. A country’s population gives it no natural claim to an equivalent share of global exports." And the remarkable fact is that Subramanian alone and with co-authors has long been making this point, not to pillory China, as is the case of the tendentious _Foreign Affair_s and Peterson pieces, but to highlight the great counterpart to China’s industrial success, namely India’s relative failure. The much-quoted Foreign Affairs piece showed low-skill export shares only for China, not for India. If you put both countries in the picture as Chaterjee and Subramanian have done on other occasions, the picture looks like this. China is far above the line, but India, almost as large in terms of population, is no less anomalous, just in the opposite direction. As far as global populations are concerned, and the imagining of tens of millions of “squeezed” jobs, it is this Sino-Indian pair that account for a huge share of the action. What this graph reveals is not China’s cheating, but India’s “greatest development failure”, at least this is the argument made Arvind Subramanian, this time in co-authorship with Devesh Kapur, in their major book, A Sixth of Humanity. Independent India’s Development Odyssey which appeared with Oxford University Press earlier this year. In this highly critical work on India’s development, China is repeatedly evoked, not to criticize but as a benchmark against which to illuminate what India’s political economy has not delivered i.e. large-scale formal employment for hundreds of millions of citizens. Kapur and Subramanian leave no doubt, if you want to understand why China, not India was the main driver of manufacturing globalization from the 1980s, don’t look to slots opening up in the division of labour thanks to the liberal mindedness of advanced economies, look to the contrasting political economy of the Maoist PRC and India’s post-independence political economy. As Kapur and Subramian note: The great divergence between China and India did not begin in 1978 with the Deng reforms—it was well underway by then. In one of the great ironies of modern history, the conditions created by Maoism turned out to be a great launching pad for industrial globalization. As the comparison of India and China in 1980 makes clear, to imagine manufacturing would be equally distributed when populations are so differently endowed in terms of educational and nutritional is fanciful. Here is the data from Kapur and Subramanian, data which I explored back at the very beginning of Chartbook. As Kapur and Subramanian insist, the striking fact is that even as India’s growth accelerated from the 1980s, structural change has not. Formal employment in India lags woefully behind. Why? As Kapur and Subramanian note, the path-dependent impact of India’s poor early start was devastating. The list of factors they mention is long and weighty: We argue for a new five-fold explanation applicable at different stages of Indian history: in the initial stages, the legacy of two key pre-1980s policies, the neglect of agriculture and the strangling of the domestic private sector, were critical. The failure of broad-based agricultural growth militated against rural industrialization, which would have been devoted to satisfying local needs that would have necessarily been labour intensive. Then, when the boom came after 1980, the thicket of regulation and broader labour protections that were legislated prematurely in a nascent democracy, underpinned by a deep ideological aversion to private capital in general and big capital specifically, became a barrier to attaining the size that would be necessary to compete globally. Similarly, the reforms after 1991, while wide-ranging, did not quite encompass non-tradeable inputs critical to manufacturing, namely, land, logistics infrastructure and power. A combination of low investment (logistics infrastructure), regulation (land) and the continued monopoly supply by state governments (power), combined with residual socialism, kept costs at 75–100 per cent above efficient supply. These factors were compounded on the supply side by the government, which dominated the formal labour market and established exorbitantly high wages at the lower end of the skill spectrum. This made their employment in the labour-intensive sector by the private sector less attractive. Finally, when the services sector and its exports boomed, wages soared even further via a Dutch Disease effect: one successful tradeable sector killed and cannibalized another less-skilled tradable sector, namely, manufacturing. Thus, scarcity-inducing policies of the planning era, precocious democracy and a Gandhian aversion to size; inefficient, monopolistic supply of critical non-tradable inputs; the behemoth of government; and super-successful skill-intensive services successively undermined India’s unskilled labour employment opportunities. The employment failure seems to have been over-determined. … Less quantifiable but no less important are some of the sociological factors that have undermined manufacturing and factory jobs. Take the impact of the success of the IT sector—located in urban areas with better working conditions, such as air-conditioned offices, good schools for children and attractive entertainment options. It became a more attractive place for engineering and management graduates to flock to. … Consider manufacturing and female employment. Indian society makes it difficult for women to work, reflected in India’s unusually low female labour force participation (elaborated in Chapter XIII). Indian society, in particular the routine harassment of women in public spaces, makes it even more difficult for them to travel long distances to take up work.37 Combined with onerous regulations on creating hostels and dormitories for women—which, in turn, prevents multiple shifts of operation—factories need to be located in areas with a large female labour pool. While firms can take apparel plants to female labour or bring them to the plants by building large-scale dormitories, this raises costs. If there was a case for subsidies to encourage labour-intensive manufacturing, housing subsidies to build dormitories for women workers would be a good place to start. All of this meant, that when opportunities did open up, in part thanks to adjustments in China, India was in no position to take advantage. Here is the account of the 2020s from Kapur and Subramanian. It stands in dizzying contrast to the one-sided, “China squeeze” argument delivered in the Peterson and Foreign Affairs pieces: In 2022, for example, India’s share of global exports in clothing (the canonical labour-intensive sector) was 3.1 per cent compared to 32 per cent for China. This is extremely disappointing because China started vacating export space in this sector after the Global Financial Crisis as its wages started rising; it then vacated further space in the aftermath of geopolitical developments that led investors to seek alternative investment locations. Between its peak and today, China lost about 7.5 percentage points of global export share (worth about $43 billion in 2022); over this period, India’s export share remained stagnant at 3 per cent, while that of Vietnam and Bangladesh rose by 3.5 to 4 percentage points. China’s loss did not translate into any gain for India in terms of low-skill exports and employment. Put differently, when the conditions for dynamism and prosperity were established after 1991, and even more tantalizingly when the global export opportunities opened up, it was as if India was a high-wage economy and only skilled labour could benefit from the dynamism. It had converted its physically abundant unskilled workforce into an economically expensive resource, penalizing its use. It is not my mission here to argue for or against Kapur and Subramanian’s interpretation of India’s development trajectory. The point in this context is simply that the “China squeeze” such as it is can only be understood, in relation to the heavy burden of domestic constraints that Kapur and Subramanian so unsparingly enumerate. I am concentrating here on India because it is the great counterpart to China and the unspoken reference point of the “China squeeze” discourse. But the point is more general. Can anyone with a straight face suggest that the main problems afflicting the development of South Africa or Nigeria, the great centers of mass underemployment in sub-saharan Africa, are cheap competition from China driven by Beijing’s industrial policy and an undervalued RMB? Likewise, is the main problem of the American working-class the threat of Chinese competition or the manifest crisis of social reproduction in the United States itself? The point here, as in the discourse around China shock 2.0 in Europe, is to insist that we should not normalize the world and pathologize China, without actually investigating what is going on in America’s industrial wastelands, the German car industry, or India’s lopsided labour market. One-sided pathologization should be understood for what it is, a polemical gesture. Concepts like China shock and China squeeze are, what Reinhart Koselleck, following Carl Schmitt, would have described as “asymmetrische Kampfbegriffe”, or “asymmetrical counter-concepts” or “asymmetrical combat concepts”. If the function of arguments like the “China squeeze” is to alert elites in the rest of the world of the need to rejuvenate and energize their development projects, so be it. But let us see the resulting discourses as the mobilizing interventions that they are. Interestingly, a significant slice of China’s public sphere - the so-called industrial party - have been obsessed for the last twenty years with precisely these questions of counterfactual economic history. Since the mid 2000s, a massive online discourse developed around an alternative history in which Chinese techno-patriots were asked to imagine how they would proceed if they had the possibility of traveling back in time to transport modern technology into the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) thus averting the “great divergence” of the 18th and 19th centuries. It is a fantasy of course, but also a goad. The point was not directed at Westerners. The alternate history is dramatically nationalist, but few n the West had even heard of it until recently. The adherents of the industrial party are not liberal moralists. They don’t project natural ladders of international development and ask why others don’t cede space. They take the Realpolitik of global economic development for granted. Their pointe was directed against fellow Chinese. The rallying cry of the alternative narrative was this: Now that we are beginning to gain steam and push forward on our national development path, now that we are breaking out of the inferior position assigned to us even in the early years following WTO accession, do not lose yourself in humanistic imaginings about better futures. In the spirit of Deng, they called on China to embrace the hard truth of development. Perhaps one might of the Industrial Party as a cultural trend born out of desire for symbolic revenge against those who had inflicted the century of humiliation. In terms of the various temporalities of the “China shock” - retrospective, prospective and counterfactual - one might think of the Industrial Policy discourse as truly speculative, conjuring up the China shock that never was. Or perhaps one might better think of it as imagining a world in which a powerful China was no shock at all, but simply a defining fact of modern history. I love putting out Chartbook. I am particularly pleased that it goes out for free to thousands of subscribers around the world. But, writing this newsletter takes a lot of work. If you are enjoying it and would like to support the project, sign up for one of the subscription options here. It is the equivalent of a fancy cup of coffee per month! Subscribe
Pediatricians and Health Departments Sidestep Trump’s CDC on Vaccine Guidance
When the Trump administration upended years of vaccine advice, it left pediatricians in a quandary. Many say they can no longer direct families to the CDC as a trusted source of information. So some are creating their own.
Keeping Colorado’s kids’ trust online
By Stuart Jenkins Almost every day, the kids and teens we serve across Colorado are introduced to new generative artificial intelligence and other emerging technology, including conversational AI systems designed to simulate human conversation. These tools are no longer a novelty; they’re a fixture of daily life. At the Colorado Alliance for Boys & Girls […]
Vikings Training Camp Notes: 8/4 Edition
The Vikings held another training camp practice today, this one in shells. Overall it was a lighter practice- tomorrow’s practice is to be a longer, padded practice, so not as many things to report from this practice, but certainly some tidbids here and there. On the Quarterback Competition Other Notes That’s all I have for […]
Longer careers may leave younger, disadvantaged workers spending more years in poor health
The average age of the German population is rising. Coupled with the growing labor shortage, these demographic trends pose major challenges for pension systems. According to proposals from the Pension ...
Aaron Donald looks to establish a media and entertainment footprint
As defensive tackle Aaron Donald focuses for now on whether he'll end a two-year playing hiatus in pursuit of a second Super Bowl ring, he's activating a longer-term vision for his post-football future.
The Beauty Of Settled Science
Commenters convinced me I made a subtle mis-step in my framing of Psychology Research Is Mostly Fine. My framing emphasized that social priming studies had failed to replicate, but that many other subfields of psychology hadn’t. This naturally led commenters to point to failed replications in other subfields. Although none of these were as bad as social priming, few or none were entirely problem-free. Instead of emphasizing the difference between social priming and other subfields, I should have emphasized the difference between settled science and novel research. Here are some of my favorite psychology findings: The brain is sculpted by reinforcement learning, and a key driver of this learning is a prediction-error-based algorithm located in the nucleus accumbens and implemented through dopamine. Psychedelic drugs exert their effects through 5-HT2A receptors, pointing to a role for these receptors in some sort of construct like the balance between priors and new evidence. Certain cognitive functions are localized to certain brain areas (for example, impulse control to the frontal lobes; linguistic structure to Broca’s area, linguistic meaning to Wernicke’s area. But injure one of these areas, or render a certain function useless (eg a blind person having no more use for their visual cortex), and these mappings can gradually shift - suggesting that neurons are general-purpose compute whose specialization is a contingent fact about convenience and efficiency rather than a necessity. Most personality traits and general capabilities are about 50% genetic and 50% random, with little role for family environment or childhood history, with a few notable exceptions like partisan preference. Recent research complicates this story, but the further you go from this basic picture, the gnarlier the chains of indirect causation you require. Neurons fire together in “brain waves”, whose exact frequency corresponds with the character of consciousness; These divide neurons into natural subpopulations and linked graphs. The gamma rhythm corresponds surprisingly well to items in conscious awareness. GABA receptors seem to be involved in something like relaxation. By hitting different GABA receptors in different ways, you can modulate the exact type of relaxation you produce. Hitting GABA-A directly is too powerful and can cause dangerous levels of sedation, but allosteric modulation of GABA is an incredibly fruitful strategy that underlies drugs from benzos to barbituates to alcohol. If you know your GABA-A subunits, you can target specific subtypes of relaxation; for example, Ambien hits GABA-A1 and induces sleep. Memory divides somewhat fuzzily into bins of immediate-sensory, short-term, and long-term, with separate retrieval and storage functions, and separate systems for declarative vs. procedural learning. These can be harmed selectively, usually by hippocampal injury, so that some patients can remember their life stories but not form new long-term memories, or learn new skills like bike-riding but not new facts. The exact substrate of memory is unclear but seems to involve new synaptic connections between neurons in at least some way. The ability of modern psychology and psychiatry to treat mental illness is real but limited. SSRIs work for half or slightly fewer than half of patients; antipsychotics work with extreme side effects; benzodiazpines work but produce addiction and tolerance in many (not all) people. Most supplements are stuck in Poor Quality Study Replication Crisis Hell, but melatonin and l-theanine stand out as especially promising. Psychotherapy works with moderate effect size, but (with a few exceptions) seems to be more about the relationship with the provider than the details of the therapy itself. Mental hospitalization can sometimes defuse immediate crises but work less well than mental hospitals would like, with some studies showing overall negative effects. Schizophrenia is mostly genetic, but risk also increases with prenatal infection (especially rubella) and obstetric complications; there is suggestive evidence for roles of social stress and drug use (with psychedelics and marijuana making things worse, and nicotine if anything making things better). Bipolar and schizophrenia are so closely linked on a pathophysiological level that it seems like they might be the same disease; on the clinical level, they do seem to follow two separate courses/prognoses but can sometimes surprise clinicians by eg someone who seemed condemned to permanent schizophrenia unexpectedly recovering. The brain’s native reinforcement learning algorithms cash out in the phenomena of classical and operant conditioning; different reinforcement schedules reinforce at different levels, which can be exploited by bad actors to make especially compelling products (eg slot machines). None of these are immune to doubt. A few are speculative; one or two are genuinely unorthodox. But they’re all a step above one p = 0.049 paper that might not replicate. If they get overturned, they’ll be overturned by the same sort of genuine scientific shift that replaced Ptolemy with Copernicus or Lamarck with Darwin, not some sort of sordid discovery about someone entering random numbers into a spreadsheet. In 2008, Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote about The Beauty Of Settled Science: If you only care about scientific issues that are controversial, you will end up with a head stuffed full of garbage. The media thinks that only the cutting edge of science is worth reporting on. How often do you see headlines like “General Relativity still governing planetary orbits” or “Phlogiston theory remains false”? So, by the time anything is solid science, it is no longer a breaking headline. “Newsworthy” science is often based on the thinnest of evidence and wrong half the time—if it were not on the uttermost fringes of the scientific frontier, it would not be breaking news. Scientific controversies are problems so difficult that even people who’ve spent years mastering the field can still fool themselves. That’s what makes for the heated arguments that attract all the media attention. Worse, if you aren’t in the field and part of the game, controversies aren’t even fun. Don’t be embarrassed to read elementary science textbooks, either. If you want to pretend to be sophisticated, go find a play to sneer at. If you just want to have fun, remember that simplicity is at the core of scientific beauty [...] A steady diet of science news is bad for you: You are what you eat, and if you eat only science reporting on fluid situations, without a solid textbook now and then, your brain will turn to liquid. Psychology isn’t centrally the new paper in Annals Of Recently-Breaking News saying that an n=5 study showing that large portion sizes increase support for terrorism. Psychology is centrally ideas like brain waves, GABA receptors, reinforcement learning, twin studies, and connectionism. People who think differently are worrying too much about BREAKING NEWS!!!, and should stop. The key distinction isn’t “recent research in social psychology” vs. “recent research in cognitive/bio/behavioral psychology”, as my essay last week unfortunately implied. It’s recent research in general vs. the deposit of settled science, battle-tested hypotheses, and carefully-earmarked speculation. And part of the reason social priming in particular was such a disaster was that it defied that heuristic, building itself up over hundreds of studies until it approached or even entered the pantheon of settled science - before collapsing (5-HTTLPR was also sort of like this). This isn’t a claim that settled science is always right - Freud was “settled science” for a long time - just that there’s an intuitive distinction between the level of credence you should have in the existence of power posing vs. the existence of Broca’s Area. (I compounded this error by calling the last post “Psychology Research Is Mostly Fine”, which suggested I was talking about the new research rather than the settled science. I actually meant to distinguish between research-psychology-the-field vs. clinical-psychology-aka-therapy, but this framing unintentionally pushed against the point I wanted to make) Some commenters on the previous article understood this point, but challenged its weight. It’s very cool, they said, to know how many neurons are in which brain lobe, but the main way that Psychology affected their lives was through bad clickbait studies used to buttress dumb policies; some p = 0.049 study says that exposure to microaggressions makes minorities’ brains shrivel into raisins, and now their company has to implement punitive DEI or be sued for hazardous work conditions. I won’t dispute this as an accurate description of how the sausage gets made, but it’s worth examining the trains of thought that connect this observation to a campaign against psychology in general: The dumb woke psychology was wrong and bad, and I don’t have good heuristics for distinguishing dumb woke psychology from other psychology, so I’m going to assume it’s all wrong and bad. The dumb woke psychology was wrong and bad; it seems useful to punish/discredit psychology as a whole to assist my campaign against it, so for propaganda purposes I will try to discredit psychology as a whole. To people in the first camp, my response is: come on, your heuristics aren’t that bad. “Microaggressions makes minorities’ brains shrivel up like raisins” is in the woke category; “the hippocampal theta rhythm seems to be associated with both memory and pathfinding, suggesting an unexpected yet surprisingly compelling relationship between the two” is in the not-woke category, don’t play dumb here. To people in the second camp, my response is: deliberately exaggerated propaganda campaigns are bad and this is a confession, not an excuse. Inability to view science through anything but a political lens was what got us into this problem; doubling down on it is a temporary solution but a recipe for permanent disaster. If you pronounce entire fields of science to be acceptable collateral damage in your campaign against bad political actors, you will alienate not just scientists but patients, clinicians, and general lovers of truth. Instead, you can say the thing you mean - that woke partisans shouldn’t try to occupy and exploit the otherwise-noble science of psychology for their own political gain - and wage the same campaign with a halo rather than a comic-book-villain goatee. From the font of oracular wisdom that is Weird Sun Twitter: [ Vessel Of Spirit@VesselOfSpirit i love you all conditionally but i love the good part of you unconditionally. even if it becomes a very small part 2:11 AM · Jan 22, 2015 1 Reply · 5 Reposts · 29 Likes ](https://x.com/VesselOfSpirit/status/558084551772471298) This is how I feel about psychology1, too, but with a touch more optimism. The good part of psychology is enormous, a hoard of endless treasures. You just have to look past the headlines! 1 To play devil’s advocate - should one always be so magnamious? Astrology? Phrenology? These seem different in that their entire orientation was flawed from the start; they didn’t simply fail to find the correct constellation-personality connections, the whole project of searching for connections between constellations and personality was doomed from the start. More difficult might be asking the same question about education research, which is notoriously bad. I don’t know enough about education research to know if there’s some settled science of correct and enlightening results lurking in the background beyond the day-to-day froth of poorly-conducted and politically-motivated studies. I think if it’s 90% bad, 10% good, it’s correct to call it bad as a compact way of communicating a useful truth; I think psychology is better than that, but admit it’s a tough judgment call.
The longevity gold rush: Inside Utah's booming business of living better, longer
The business of living longer is booming in Utah. Here's what's driving it.
The longevity gold rush: Inside Utah's booming business of living better, longer
The business of living longer is booming in Utah. Here's what's driving it.
Living longer could hinge on one surprising dietary change, study review suggests
A review of 350+ studies finds protein restriction triggers the hormone FGF21, delivering longevity benefits similar to calorie restriction.
Geno Segers will no longer join Broadway’s ‘Hadestown’ after online backlash
The actor and producers say they mutually agreed to part ways following criticism over past comments about transgender people. “Hadestown”
Apple finally fixed Siri. So why does it feel anticlimactic?
Apple’s long-awaited AI overhaul finally makes Siri the assistant it was always supposed to be. But after years of delays, the launch lands in an AI landscape where chatbots have evolved into agents that can code, reason, create media, and complete complex tasks. Siri AI is genuinely useful, yet it arrives at a moment when simply being a capable AI assistant no longer feels revolutionary.
Could Eating Less Protein Help You Age Better and Live Longer?
More protein might not be beneficial for everyone, researchers say, as studies suggest protein restriction could boost longevity and health.
Norman Regional Health System no longer in network with Aetna after agreement unable to be reached
Norman Regional Health System is no longer in network with the insurance company Aetna.
Want To Live Longer? Start Tracking Your VO2 Max
A low VO2 max is considered a stronger predictor of mortality risk than smoking, obesity, high blood pressure, and type 2 diabetes.
Ebola outbreak in DR Congo accelerates as experts say Trump and Musk’s aid cuts hamper response
Some health officials have attributed the severity of the outbreak to aid cuts, with key supplies, equipment and operational support no longer reaching responders at the scale needed.
Ariana Grande to step back from public life following scrutiny of her health
The singer and actor, who is on tour, will no longer star in the London revival of “Sunday in the Park With George,” which is set to open in summer 2027.
Predicting How Many Sacks Montez Sweat Will Have in 2026
One player on the Chicago Bears that doesn’t get talked about nearly enough is Montez Sweat. With the Bears offense now being the strength of this roster, Sweat isn’t mentioned in those conversations for the best player on the team. Part of that also likely plays into the fact that at 29 years old (turning 30 on September 4th), Sweat may not be in Chicago for that much longer.
Foldables are sort of boring now — and that’s great news for Apple
Folding screens are no longer novel, but they’re finally good enough for an iPhone.
From occupied Crimea to Oxfordshire: the Kremlin links to new £600m UK theme park
Exclusive: Puy du Fou worked with under-sanctions oligarch on plans for Crimea resort longer than disclosed, and later courted Iran and China
Eating less protein could slow aging, major review finds
A sweeping review of more than 350 studies suggests that the protein boom may be overselling what many people actually need. Eating less protein appears to improve metabolism, reduce inflammation and cellular damage, and activate pathways linked to healthier aging and longer life.
Eating less protein could slow aging, major review finds
A sweeping review of more than 350 studies suggests that the protein boom may be overselling what many people actually need. Eating less protein appears to improve metabolism, reduce inflammation and cellular damage, and activate pathways linked to healthier aging and longer life.
3-Point Stance: Patriots’ training camp expectations have changed
New England’s no longer rebuilding; it’s refining amidst Super Bowl expectations.
Superheated magma may power towering lava fountains
Scientists studying magma from the 2021 Tajogaite eruption on La Palma have discovered that extreme heat can dramatically change how an eruption unfolds. When magma becomes superheated, it can dissolve the tiny crystal seeds that normally trigger crystallization, allowing the molten rock to remain fluid far longer as it rises.
Pediatricians and health officials are sidestepping Trump's CDC on vaccine advice
The rupture of scientific trust in the Atlanta-based CDC has put many pediatricians and health officials in a bind, as they no longer turn to the U.S.'s preeminent public health agency and instead search for ways to fill the information gap.
Sony Says PlayStation Disc Backlash Not Making ‘Any Impact’ On Business
In its new earnings report, Sony says that fans upset about PlayStation no longer making new discs in 2028 has not impacted its business so far, and it doesn't expect it to.
Sony Says PlayStation Disc Backlash Not Making ‘Any Impact’ On Business
In its new earnings report, Sony says that fans upset about PlayStation no longer making new discs in 2028 has not impacted its business so far, and it doesn't expect it to.
Does public health *need* MAHA?
Last week, our friend Dr. Craig Spencer sparked an ongoing volatile discussion with his Atlantic article “Public Health Needs MAHA.” Some have come out in strong dissent, others are cheering, and others are simply lamenting that we find ourselves in such a divided world to begin with. We will dare to dip our toes in these controversial waters, too. Does public health need MAHA? We think in some ways yes, and in other ways, no. MAHA leaders versus the everyday MAHA supporter The vitriol in this debate mostly comes from one collapsed distinction: the leadership of MAHA is not necessarily the same as the people who support it. Say “MAHA” and most people picture RFK Jr. Fair enough, as he coined the term and holds most of the power. And, yes, some MAHA followers treat Kennedy as something close to a saint. But talk to the grassroots, and it’s not a monolith. They’re Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. People who distrust vaccines and vaccine supporters. It’s a wide, eclectic coalition. The data backs this too: 4 in 10 Americans support the movement—that’s a lot of people! But according to polls, vaccines and medical choice (the issues most tied to Kennedy personally) are cited by only 4% as their reason for supporting the movement. For many, the motivations are much broader. Many MAHA supporters are signing up for the idea that “something needs to change” with health in this country. They’re asking good-faith questions about corporate influence on our health systems, health care costs, nutrition, chemicals, and clean air and water. These are all questions that plenty of public health professionals recognize as legitimate and also care about very deeply. Blurring the lines between the leadership and grassroots does real damage in two important ways: It hands the 4 in 10 exactly the narrative already fed—that the health ecosystem doesn’t listen, doesn’t care, and paints every critic with the same brush. It gives the actual bad actor more power. RFK Jr. has done irreparable damage and can’t be trusted. What the MAHA movement gets right A healthy population is something the public health field was literally built on, and many of these topics are things we have dedicated our lives to. Yet the MAHA movement has captivated nearly half the country in a way the public health establishment has failed to achieve. So that means MAHA is doing something right. Some of it may be timing (after a Covid-19 pandemic and deep frustration and mistrust with institutions). The movement also does three other things really well: 1. It gives a new, louder voice to system failures. While MAHA is not a monolith, one theme stays consistent across their stories: the system failed them. For some, it was the system that flooded their communities with opioids and then walked away. For others, it was the system that let their business collapse during Covid with no safety net in sight. For others still, it was the system that failed to help them manage a complex chronic illness, bouncing them from physician to physician without any real answers. And in many ways, our health ecosystems are failing Americans. Why are medical bills so incomprehensible? Why do some kids get a healthy school lunch and others don’t? Why do an epidemiologist and a MD/PhD student have to start newsletters in the middle of the biggest public health emergency in a century, just so people can get straight information? Because the systems failed. This deep-seated frustration driving many Americans to search for solutions elsewhere needs to be recognized. 2. MAHA has brilliant comms central to their efforts. MAHA figured out something most health institutions still have not: the information landscape changed. It’s participatory now, not top-down; influence runs through many nodes in a community, not one institution; and storytelling and telling audiences “what you really think” moves people more than data dumps do. MAHA goes where audiences are listening, using podcasts, social media, and memes in ways most health institutions would scoff at—but it works. 3. They are very good at organizing. A MAHA meeting feels like a rally: energy, speakers, music, and most importantly, an action for everyone. Someone’s writing the next policy brief, someone’s seeding a narrative, someone knows the next legislative deadline, someone’s sending the text messages for a campaign. None of this is new (ask the civil rights movement), but MAHA knows it works and has capitalized on it. What MAHA gets wrong This list could be much longer, and this newsletter has spent a lot of time covering it, but here are a few things: Poor use of scientific evidence. This is the fundamental problem with many MAHA policies: the hype outpaces the science, and experts are often villainized for pointing this out. MAHA leadership has traded real solutions for cheap wins. For example, instead of taking on the powerful food industry and passing real reforms, it has celebrated french fries made of beef tallow and taken out artificial dyes from still very sugary children’s cereal. These changes won’t move the needle on America’s diet. MAHA leadership has tried to dismantle vaccine access in the U.S. While many MAHA supporters emphasize other issues, the effort to change vaccine policy has become MAHA’s signature effort. This is not surprising given RFK Jr.’s extensive track record campaigning against vaccines. It has rallied behind the wrong leader. RFK Jr. has a decades-long track record of villifying doctors, scientists, and public health workers, well before he became HHS secretary. He is known for his decades-long work sowing distrust in vaccines as well as life-saving treatments like antiretroviral therapy for HIV. This is not a serious person who can move the needle on health in the U.S, and he has already done serious damage. Public health needs more than defense Defending the evidence is absolutely necessary so health in the U.S. doesn’t move further backward. The public health establishment is very good at defense. The problem is this defense often sounds like defending the status quo, which has failed many people. Public health needs to offer an alternative to RFK Jr.’s MAHA—one that is rooted in evidence, truly listens to and addresses people’s frustrations, and has innovative solutions and the courage to change the systems. How do we get there? Find common ground. Do you know what most people care most about? The abysmal cost of healthcare. Start there. Fight for the human loudly. Too often, communications and engagement center on science with a capital S, funding mechanisms, or the CDC/FDA/NIH. Not the person. So the public doesn’t see themselves in it. Instead, they see people fighting for the very powerful systems that they feel negatively impact their health and well-being. Let the public feel and hear that you see their frustrations, you get it, and you’re fighting for them within the system. Recognize when pro-science messages are alienating people. Facts absolutely matter, but angrily venting only alienates people further. Our friend Elisabeth Marnik recently wrote a New York Times article about her experience growing up unvaccinated and how listening and empathetic conversation are the only ways to reach people that really work (a position backed by communication science). Her comments section was full of hateful comments from pro-vaccine individuals attacking her for daring to suggest we approach vaccine-hesitant individuals with empathy. It is possible to both stand firm behind scientific evidence and empathize with people who don’t trust it. Lean into politics smartly. Often, public health has shied away from politics: Don’t touch it, lest you get burned. But this fails to recognize that the third rail is what fuels the train: who is elected determines our budgets, our priorities, and our authority. Being political means being very savvy in strategy on both sides of the aisle, knowing your audience, and recognizing that political capital is as scarce as financial resources and needs to be allocated accordingly. Bottom line So does public health need MAHA? That’s not really the right question. Public health has a responsibility not to dismiss 40% of the country who feel heard by this movement and are frustrated that the system has failed them. And it has a responsibility to stick to the evidence and recognize MAHA leadership for what it is: a danger to our nation’s health. Both can, and should, be done. Love, YLE and KP A big thanks to Craig Spencer, who had the courage to put his neck out there to start a much-needed discussion at such a critical moment—one that is determining the identity of an entire field. Kristen Panthagani, MD, PhD is completing an emergency medicine residency and research fellowship focusing on health literacy and communication. In her free time, she writes the newsletters You Can Know Things debunking health myths and rumors and The Public Health Roundup. Views expressed belong to KP, not her employer. 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
Science, Systems, and Communities: Turning Progress into Impact
As the AIDS 2026 conference enters its second half, one message has emerged above all others: the barriers to ending HIV are no longer primarily scientific; they are political. In one of the “most spectacular plenaries”, Raphy Landovitz argued that the field now faces “a challenge of political will” and “moral decision-making,” asking whether the world will choose […]
The new "science golden age" looks suspiciously like a grift
This edition of PN is made possible by paid subscribers. Become one ⬇️ 🚀 Subscribe to PN 🚀 The Trump regime is trying to usher in a “Golden Age in Science” where scientific research is run like a Trump family business, artificial intelligence is all that matters, profit is everything, and expertise is for chumps. Or at least that’s the vision emerging from a new 123-page “Report to the President” from Michael Kratsios, the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In a normal administration, you could probably skip over learning about a science policy document — but this is no normal administration, and this is no normal science policy document. Instead, it’s Trump’s attempt to end the actual golden age of science that was kicked off in 1945 with the publication of '“The Endless Frontier” by Vannevar Bush. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) [ Harmeet Dhillon demonstrates danger of posting through it ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) Liz Dye · Jul 29 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) Bush, at President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s request, laid out a vision of federal support for science that centered on funding universities to do basic research, saying that as long as those institutions were “vigorous and healthy and their scientists are free to pursue the truth wherever it may lead, there will be a flow of new scientific knowledge to those who can apply it to practical problems in Government, in industry, or elsewhere.” Kratsios’s report is supposed to be the successor to Bush’s, and even apes the format, but this isn’t really a document about science policy. It’s one about ending science research as we know it in favor of shoveling cash at big tech companies. While it might be temping to wave this away as an aspirational policy document, Trump has already begun to shift billions in research funds to AI projects and has taken a hatchet to science funding across the board. He’s teed up the shift Kratsios proposes here, and since neither Congress nor the Supreme Court seem inclined to stop him from doing whatever he wants with taxpayer money, it isn’t doomering or hyperbole to say we are staring down the barrel of a world where the only “science” the government intends to support is for-profit tech and defense advancements. Science for dummies Part of how you can tell this isn’t a document about science is that you are immediately faced with an absolute wall of business-speak of the worst sort. Did you know we must “tightly couple our science and technology enterprises to ensure that groundbreaking ideas invented in the United States are rapidly prototyped, tested, manufactured, and scaled domestically”? You do now! That tone isn’t surprising, because Kratsios has no background in science or research. He has a bachelor’s in political science and spent most of his career working for Peter Thiel at Thiel Capital. After a stint in the first Trump administration as Chief Technology Officer, where he also did not do any science, Kratsios was tasked in 2020 with overseeing the Pentagon’s research budget for a brief time, a position that, as the Wall Street Journal put it, “carries a great deal of power in terms of dictating investment allocations.” He spent the Biden years at Scale AI as “head of strategy,” which you will also note is neither a science nor a research job. But Scale AI has contracts with the Department of Defense and, as the Washington Post wrote in 2023, “has been aggressively pitching itself as the company that will help the US military in its existential battle with China.” And now you have the necessary background for our new golden age, which is going to be a golden age of taking money away from scientists and universities and giving it to companies like Scale AI. A note from Aaron: Working with brilliant contributors like Lisa takes resources. If you aren’t already a paid subscriber, please become one to support our work. 👇 Subscribe In a genuinely galling move, Katsios spends a lot of time slamming universities because of “administrative burdens on researchers” and the “well-documented inefficiencies” in academia, the message being that those damn universities waste the time of amazing researchers with paperwork. Except it’s the administration that is attempting to impose inefficient, unnecessary burdens on those researchers with a proposed Office of Management and Budget rule that would require senior political appointees to approve every science grant and ensure it aligns with Trump’s personal priorities. Researchers would also have to seek prior government approval to attend conferences or publicize their research. And political appointees could terminate any grant at any time if they feel like it. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) [ The murder of expertise ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) Lisa Needham · Jun 11 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) But when it comes to AI, we’re going to “restore permissionless innovation.” The report proposes to give lucky ducky innovators a pile of cash up front for grants lasting five years or longer, saying “awards should be fully-funded in year one, with all resources earmarked upfront, to minimize administrative burdens and reduce pressure for researchers to generate intermediate results to secure continued funding.” Yeah, wouldn’t want to have to make the Very Special Tech Bros show results or get money parceled out year by year like the plebes at universities. The report also proposes that we should have “fast grants” with “simplified applications requiring just a few pages of writing” because that is definitely how science works, just writing a bit off the dome and getting some cash. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) [ Tech elites are turning AI into ChatGPTrump ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) Paul Waldman · July 29, 2025 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) Oh, and we should have prizes and challenges, where multiple teams compete. The proposed prizes include incentives like “advance procurement commitments,” which means the federal government agrees to buy whatever is being developed. There’s also “regulatory fast-tracking,” making sure all those great AI thingies don’t have to wait too long to be unleashed on a market. These aren’t incentives to do science. These are incentives to develop things with tax dollars that you can then sell to the government for more tax dollars. In the suggestion that might be the most unhinged, the most very opposite of how both government and research work, our new age will include “golden tickets.” That’s where an individual reviewer in an agency — yes, just one person — can “recommend unconventional proposals that may not pass consensus-driven review panels” because somehow this will “surface valuable ideas too divisive for committees and attract higher quality reviewers by empowering them to exercise independent scientific judgment.” Yes, that’s saying that a random person in an agency should be able to shovel money at some idea even if it can’t pass a review panel, and that the opportunity to do so will attract better employees because apparently all the best minds in science are chomping at the bit to be allowed to unilaterally fund AI research based on their personal vibes. But that isn’t at all how actual science works, and actual scientists aren’t unhappy about review panels. They work collaboratively, not siloed in some secret race to create the next AI chatbot. A 2020 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research examined whether peer review panels succeed in helping agencies predict which research ideas will best advance science. Peer review was better at finding “diamond in the rough” applicants than a single government program official. How about that. Trump always wants a taste It’s painfully clear that what Katsios is trying to do here is turn the whole of government science research and funding into the sort of “move fast and break things” paradigm that is the hallmark of big tech. That method works to line the pockets of tech executives, but it isn’t science. There’s a reason the government funds different kinds of research than private tech companies do. What Katsios either fails to understand or deliberately ignores is that the federal government is the main funder of basic research precisely because it can take a long time for it to bear fruit and is not intended to be profitable as such. “Basic” here does not mean rudimentary or simple, but rather research that is designed to advance scientific knowledge instead of achieving a specific outcome or product. Big tech companies don’t widely fund that sort of research, because it doesn’t make them money. Industry dollars account for only about 20 percent of basic research funding, while the government contributes around 60 percent. Big tech companies and startups do, however, rely on and benefit from that basic research. A 2019 study found that 35 percent of all patents obtained by venture-backed startups from 1976 to 2016 cited federally supported research. Basic research funded by the NIH contributed to every single drug the FDA approved from 2010 to 2016. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) [ The Saudi nuclear farce and governance by whim and meme ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) Noah Berlatsky · Jul 27 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) Unlike inventing the next ChatGPT, actual science is slow and iterative. Government funding of research that, on its face, would not appear to lead to any big new invention is actually what underpins those big new inventions. If the government hadn’t funded research into desert lizard venom, we wouldn’t know about semaglutide, and we wouldn’t have Ozempic. If research scientists hadn’t studied how bees optimize nectar foraging within a colony, we wouldn’t have the algorithm that assigns internet traffic across computer servers. The report assiduously ignores that a symbiotic, profitable relationship between the federal government, universities, and private companies already exists. Each federal research dollar generates about $1.50 to $3.00 in long-term economic benefits. The $36 billion the government awarded in NIH research funding in fiscal year 2025 generated $94 billion in new economic activity. Trump’s proposed new golden age is intended to strip those billions from universities, resulting in the dismantling of departments and the shuttering of labs. But Katsios has a plan for that: Universities should just become trade schools to churn out no-show STEM degrees! “Require universities and community colleges to embed practical technical training and externships into STEM curricula. Let hands-on experience and industry credentials count toward degrees.” It’s quite the feat to, on the one hand, strip schools of funding for scientific research while simultaneously demanding to control what is taught and, oh, also, colleges need to give degrees to employees at big tech companies just for being employees at big tech companies. The new golden age would also exacerbate the brain drain Trump’s policies have already caused. Nature found that in the first quarter of 2025, US scientists submitted 32 percent more job applications abroad than in 2024. A March 2025 poll by Nature of roughly 1,600 scientists found that over 1,200 said they were considering leaving the country. Europe is investing $565 million to make it a “magnet for researchers” and provide funding for scientists who relocate. The new golden age is also about embedding Trump’s xenophobia into the fabric of American science. The report complains of an “over-reliance on foreign students” that “creates a security challenge our institutions are ill-equipped to address” and that a “reliance on foreign talent sidelines American students.” This is, to put it mildly, nonsense. International students pay far higher tuition and often receive no financial aid. Their tuition dollars are what make it possible for American students to get financial aid. In the 2023-2024 school year alone, international students contributed $43.8 billion to the US economy and supported over 378,000 jobs. Those 1.1 million international students accounted for only six percent of the total number of students in higher education that year, but were such an economic engine that for every three international students, one job was created or supported. It’s impossible not to wonder whether part of Trump’s loathing for universities and their leading role in scientific research is that there is no way for him to corrupt the process and make money off it in the same way he can by giving millions and billions to Silicon Valley types who, in turn, give him millions in cash. There’s no way for his children to invest in universities that the government then gives no-bid contracts to, fattening the family’s bottom line, which is pretty much the Trump sons’ current venture capital practice. Trump and Katsios’s view of science is narrow, cramped, and wrong. We’re not in a crisis, we’re not a failed state. We’ve been a science superpower for decades, and the only thing that threatens that is Donald Trump. Tech bros are already living high off the hog in this administration. They don’t need any more of our tax dollars. Hopefully this new golden age never comes to pass. Thanks for reading Public Notice. This post is public so feel free to share it. Share We’ll be back with more tomorrow. If you appreciate today’s PN, please do your part to keep us free by signing up for a paid subscription. 🚀 Subscribe to PN 🚀 Thanks for reading, and for your support.
Flawed studies linking hormone therapy to breast cancer made doctors reluctant to prescribe it for menopause relief – especially for breast cancer survivors
Menopausal hormone therapy no longer has the highest-level warning label about the risk of breast cancer, opening a gray area on who would benefit most from treatment.
The US ‘golden age’ science strategy: what Europeans need to know
The US has unveiled what officials claim is the most radical overhaul of the public R&D system in a generation, which if implemented could have significant implications for transatlantic research collaboration. Science: A New Golden Age derides universities as “legacy institutions” and instead wants to prioritise funding on technological challenges, new research labs and funding that follows individual scientists, rather than being linked to their institutions. “Too much of our research enterprise has come to serve itself rather than the scientists within it,” writes Michael Kratsios, director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the only named author of the report. “Federal funding agencies should support a broader range of performers.” But some critics argue that the strategy is a smokescreen, using genuine problems in academia as an excuse to further weaken US universities, which US vice-president JD Vance has labelled “the enemy..”Even as it talks of a “golden age” for science, the White House has proposed halving the 2027 budget of the US National Science Foundation (NSF), and has put forward double-digit cuts for other funding bodies, such as the National Institutes for Health. It asked for similarly steep savings in 2026, but Congress stopped them going through. Science: A New Golden Age says success will be measured by the extent to which scientists are “free” to pursue the most “vital questions,,” painting academia as currently hidebound by bureaucracy, sluggishness and consensual conservatism. And yet the Trump administration is simultaneously planning new rules that will hand political appointees unprecedented powers to screen and cancel grants. The report has pretentions to be the successor to Science: The Endless Frontier, the seminal 1945 document in which presidential science advisor Vannevar Bush set out the case for post-war government funding of basic research, helping to spur the creation of funders such as the NSF. Even the title page font is the same. But it remains unclear if the latest report will leave anything like as lasting a legacy.Here, Science|Business explains some of the biggest proposed changes in Science: A New Golden Age, and how Europeans think it might change the landscape of their biggest science partner.Universities under fireA key target of the report are US universities, which it repeatedly suggests are outmoded as research institutions. It criticises the NSF for channelling resources “overwhelmingly to a single type of performer, the university-based, principal investigator-led research group..” Universities “extract” money from researchers’ grants to support “growing administrative bloat,” alongside legitimate uses. The Trump administration has been trying to cut the overhead costs in federal research grants that flow to universities. Instead, new institutions are being built. In May, the NSF announced it would spend $1.5 billion on two new so-called X-Labs, focused on scientific instrumentation and quantum systems. The idea is that they fill a niche in the landscape, tackling problems that are too big for a university lab, but too early stage for private start-up funding. Parallel with Europe?This shift to new research organisations parallels moves in Europe to set up new innovation agencies, such as Germany’s Sprind, the UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency, and the EU’s European Innovation Council. The Dutch and French governments are looking to set up their own entities too. There’s now an emerging consensus, evident in a number of new strategies, that public R&D needs to be shaken up, Charles McIvor, an economist at the OECD, has written in response to Kratsios’s plans. “What stands out for me across these strategies [in the US, Germany, South Korea and Japan] is that governments are realising that the old ways of delivering STI [science, technology and innovation] programming no longer works,” he said in a LinkedIn post. Metascience wins?The document is, at least on the face of it, also a big win for some policy thinkers in the US who want far more experimentation with new forms of research grant and institution.It name-checks a litany of new public R&D ideas, from focused research organisations and advance market commitments to “golden tickets,” which allow grant reviewers the power to hand applicants money without requiring the consensus of other review panellists.Related articlesEuropean researchers sound the alarm that Trump rule changes will hit cooperationFocused research organisations: what are they, and how do you set them up? NIH turmoil risks reciprocal EU-US access to health research funding In addition, every federal research funding agency should set up a metascience unit, the strategy says, “with authority to run controlled experiments on review and funding mechanisms.” The UK has already set one up, the strategy points out. This mirrors recommendations to the European Commission. In 2024, a report led by former Portuguese science minister Manuel Heitor also advised the EU to set up an “experimental unit” to test out new methods of funding research. So far, however, Brussels hasn’t put forward any plans to do so. Bypass universitiesBut there’s a worry that the Trump administration is using the metascience movement to justify an overhaul of public R&D that punishes universities, which it sees as centres of political resistance. Last year, it threatened to cut Harvard University’s federal funding unless it hired and admitted a “critical mass” of new faculty and students to create “viewpoint diversity” across campus. It’s also attempted to strip academics of funding for working on politically forbidden areas, like LGBTIQ people’s health.The new strategy appears to be a “move to bypass the power of universities full stop and allow funders and political bureaucracies to handpick the projects and people who will execute them,” said Jean-Claude Burgelman, a former senior official in the Commission’s research directorate, on LinkedIn.The EU’s science counsellor in Washington, Florent Bernard, wrote that the plans risk diverting public research funding so that it “solely serves private interests.” “Who, if not independent universities, will do research that demonstrates the impact of tobacco on lung cancer or the role of human activities in our current climate crisis?” he wrote.Should we take it seriously?“I would view the overall document as a bad faith argument,” said Cole Donovan, director of science policy at the campaigning group Stand Up for Science, and a former OSTP official. “I don’t see the project itself as something that can be isolated from the broader attack on the system.” He thinks the argument that academia has become dysfunctional and in need of radical reform is being deployed as part of a “PR argument” to legitimate moves against US scientists. The strategy presents ideas like metascience units as new, whereas there were moves to set them up at the NSF during the previous administration of Joe Biden, Donovan said. The other caveat here is that the OSTP has limited power to carry out any of these recommendations. While Kratsios has issued a memo to research agencies telling them to implement the recommendations in the report, he doesn’t have direct budgetary control. “As a former OSTPer myself, this does not seem like a document that is realistic,” said Donovan.
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.
Nebraska volleyball ends student season tickets for single-match sales
Once again, Nebraska volleyball student tickets are in high demand. This year, it will look a little different, as season packages are no longer offered.
Madjo already compared to Belgium's Lukaku
Aston Villa are still awaiting the outcome of their appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) as they try to register Brian Madjo, who joined from Metz for £10m in January and does not turn 18 until January next year. Under-18s cannot complete international transfers, but Villa have argued Madjo was born in London and should be exempt, despite having three caps for Luxembourg. Fifa does allow some exemptions for minor players to make moves, including if a 16 or 17-year-old transfers within the European Union - something the UK is no longer part of.