SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " scientific " 1,712 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
NIH Chief Defends His Management of the Agency
National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya hit back Thursday at critics of funding cuts and other shifts at the agency, accusing them of resisting the kind of “fundamental change” he believes is necessary for modernizing the NIH and improving scientific research. Bhattacharya said that ...
Massachusetts school students discover the magic of scientific research at Clark
Hundreds of middle and high school students from throughout Massachusetts visited Clark to test out their research skills this spring.
Mount Sinai to Lead Aspen Discussions on Youth Mental Health, and Healthspan Science and Practice
Will explore innovative approaches to mental health and new frontiers in healthspan, longevity science, and personalized care during Aspen Ideas: Health and the Aspen Ideas Festival.New York, NY and Aspen, CO, June 18, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Mount Sinai Health System experts will lead discussions on innovative community-based approaches to youth mental health and emerging scientific advances that are transforming how we understand healthy aging and healthspan at the 2026 Aspen Ideas: Health an
The surprising science history behind New York City’s ticker-tape parades
On Thursday Knicks fans are flocking to Manhattan for a ticker-tape parade. But where did ticker tape even come from?
NASA Announces Public-Private Partnership to Advance Mars Science
NASA Wednesday announced a new public‑private partnership to advance Mars science by combining the agency’s scientific leadership with commercial innovation.
Discovery Supercomputer’s first applications selected for Day-One Science
Scientific computing experts at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory have selected the first nine research projects that will run on Discovery, the nation’s next flagship supercomputer, slated for deployment in 2028. The projects will be developed through the Discovery Center for Accelerated Application Readiness program at ORNL’s Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility. The program is designed to ensure that a suite of leading-edge scientific applications is optimized and ready to deliver results as soon as Discovery becomes operational.
Discovery Supercomputer’s First Applications Selected for Day-One Science
Scientific computing experts at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) have selected the first nine research projects that will run on Discovery, the nation’s next flagship supercomputer, slated for deployment in 2028.The projects will be developed through the Discovery Center for Accelerated Application Readiness (CAAR) program at ORNL’s Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF).
AI for discovery science and healthcare delivery
AI's effect on scientific R&D and healthcare delivery and how policy can support further innovation and responsible growth.
Science, Public Health, and the Politics of Truth
Presented as part of the McCloskey Speaker Series.Peter Hotez, M.D., Ph.D., professor and dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, joins the Aspen Institute for a keynote lecture on the intersection of science, medicine, and public trust. A leading authority on vaccines and neglected tropical diseases, Hotez reflects on the challenges facing public health today, the growing politicization of science, and what it will take to rebuild trust in scientific institutions in the years ahead.Paepcke Auditorium, doors at 5:00 pmRegistrationThis event is free and open to the public, but registration is required, and capacity is established on a first-come, first-served basis. Once an event is at capacity, we will have an in-person waitlist at the door.Public registration is now open for summer 2026. Please click here to register.ParkingParking is very limited. Please carpool, walk, bike, or ride RFTA.Book signing will immediately follow the event. To learn more about his book or to order a copy, please click here.
Science, Public Health, and the Politics of Truth
Presented as part of the McCloskey Speaker Series.Peter Hotez, M.D., Ph.D., professor and dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, joins the Aspen Institute for a keynote lecture on the intersection of science, medicine, and public trust. A leading authority on vaccines and neglected tropical diseases, Hotez reflects on the challenges facing public health today, the growing politicization of science, and what it will take to rebuild trust in scientific institutions in the years ahead.Paepcke Auditorium, doors at 5:00 pmRegistrationThis event is free and open to the public, but registration is required, and capacity is established on a first-come, first-served basis. Once an event is at capacity, we will have an in-person waitlist at the door.Public registration is now open for summer 2026. Please click here to register.ParkingParking is very limited. Please carpool, walk, bike, or ride RFTA.Book signing will immediately follow the event. To learn more about his book or to order a copy, please click here.
Latvia pilots citizen engagement in research grant evaluations
Latvia has introduced an element of citizen engagement to the evaluation of nationally funded research grants. The aim is to both create more connections between science and society, and to improve the quality of its evaluations. The move comes as research funders across Europe are experimenting with ways to improve evaluation processes in the face of a sharpened focus on science’s impact on society. Evaluators of grant applications submitted to Latvia’s Fundamental and Applied Research Programme (FLPP), the country’s main research funder, will this year have the option of consulting citizen feedback on challenges the public thinks science should focus on to inform their decisions. “In recent years, both public discussions and policy-level debates in Latvia have highlighted the importance of demonstrating how publicly funded research contributes to society, the economy and the resolution of real-world challenges,” said a source at the Latvian Council of Science (LCS), which manages the FLPP. “At the same time, research institutions themselves expressed interest in improving the project evaluation framework while continuing to ensure that funding is awarded to the highest-quality projects,” the source added. The citizen input comes from a survey that was conducted between 25 February and 16 March 2025, to which 1,737 people responded. It gathered information on what the public views as problem areas for Latvia, and the role of science and technology in providing solutions to these problems. A summary of these responses has been included as an annex to the FLPP 2026 call for proposals that evaluators can refer to, purely in an advisory manner, when judging proposals. Results from the survey show that the main problem areas identified by the public were in healthcare and public health, followed by the development of new treatment methods and medicines, and then digital technology, data security and cyber security. At the bottom of the list was research aimed at acquiring new knowledge about the universe, matter and the laws of nature. Further analysis looked at the public view of the possible role of science in solving these problems. The survey charted 4,167 individual responses based on open-ended questions that were derived from the participants’ answers. The analysis again found that medical and health sciences topped the scoring, with 788 responses referring to the field. Humanities and the arts were bottom of the list, with 625. Digging further into the details, the survey suggests citizens are aware of and concerned about a number of research areas. This includes technologies and innovation to improve the environment or reduce pollution, the development of modern military technologies and cybersecurity tools, and the development and application of artificial intelligence, among others. “We hope this initiative will help strengthen public trust in science and create a more meaningful dialogue between researchers and society,” the LCS source said, adding that it offers benefits to researchers, evaluators and to the general public. More space for citizen engagement in evaluationsThere is a gradual but increasing use of citizen engagement in research evaluation processes around Europe, especially in healthcare, but it remains relatively rare, said Henry Sauermann, a professor at the European School of Management and Technology in Berlin and an expert in citizen science.“Given that we are at a point where citizen involvement is extremely limited, there is presumably space for more, but it's not that we should do it just because we want to do it,” he told Science|Business. He said some research lends itself better to having citizen input, and this usually tends to be on the applied end of the science spectrum where the public can offer useful feedback based on their experiences. He added that advising scientists on certain topics to study is also a useful approach, in the way that Latvia is doing. “The public does fund a lot of science, there's a lot of tax money going into this. We of course do want to preserve academic freedom, but it's also not unreasonable to incorporate more feedback or input from citizens where possible,” he said. Related articlesCitizen science: where, when, and how to let the public contribute to researchHow can Europe cope with a flood of AI-assisted research grant proposals?Data Corner: Horizon Europe’s AI, digital and data call success rate is 5.2%There are several ways of involving citizens in science funding. The most minimal way is having a few representatives on a panel, such as members of a patient group or union. The most direct way is crowdsourcing funding for specific projects. There is an increasing number of online platforms that allow the public to chip in to support scientific proposals.Sauermann studied this in a recent paper and found that it can have its uses, but it still is not clear if there are benefits to it. There are various assumptions linked to citizen engagement, for example that it increases public trust in science, or that it provides a representative view of what the public thinks about science. These are not necessarily true, Sauermann found. People who participate in engagement activities tend to already be very trusting of science, and, on the whole, it is generally the well-off and well educated who contribute, giving a narrow view of public opinion. On whether citizen input can help manage the increasing number of proposals that are being submitted due to assistance from AI, Sauermann is more sceptical. “The obvious answer to the flood of AI-written proposals is AI-driven evaluation,” he said, adding that it doesn’t mean citizen engagement shouldn’t be a part of evaluations in a well thought-out manner. Southern Denmark’s successful approachOne successful example of citizen engagement in science evaluations was implemented in southern Denmark. Between 2019 and 2025, citizens in the region were invited to vote to fund one of five pre-selected projects in the field of healthcare. The project, called A Healthier Southern Denmark, was a collaboration between regional authorities, the University of Southern Denmark, and two media partners. Over the seven years, there were 75,000 votes and significant public engagement online and on social media. “It was a bit of a wild project, we’d never done something like that before and we were a bit nervous about what would be said in the media about it. But actually, people were very positive,” said Anne Kathrine Overgaard, one of the main organisers of the project from the University of Southern Denmark. The university and its researchers have learned a lot from the experience, particularly about engaging with society and shaping their research to match real-world needs. This is important with Europe’s increasing focus on competitiveness and bringing innovations to market faster, Overgaard said. She hopes to see more citizen engagement in evaluation processes and in science more broadly. “For many years, citizen engagement has been a bit of an add-on to proposals, just to check a box. But I think things are changing,” she said. It’s less about citizens just gathering data and more “about the dialogue between the public and the scientists,” she said. The initiative ended last year as the team wanted to regroup to find fresh momentum. The development of AI and AI-written proposals has made Overgaard reflect on how the project could be reworked to help evaluators. She hopes to bring it back in the future. “It could be a good idea to try this initiative again in a slightly re-worked format,” she said.
Merchants of Doubt and the attacks on Extreme Event Attribution science
Last week, I attended a meeting at Columbia University on attribution science and climate law, hosted by the Sabin Center. It was a fantastic event, bringing together scientists and legal experts working at the intersection of extreme event attribution and climate law. Subscribe For those unfamiliar with it, extreme event attribution attempts to quantify the contribution of climate change to an extreme event. For example, several groups analyzed the impact of climate change on Hurricane Harvey’s enormous rainfall totals over Houston, Texas and they found that climate change increased rainfall by 15 to 38%. One thing that came up again and again was how terrified fossil-fuel interests are of extreme event attribution science. They are acutely aware that this research could land them in court. And losing those cases would leave them legally liable for billions of dollars in climate damages. Because the legal stakes are so high, the blowback has turned ugly. I spoke with several scientists at the meeting who are facing ongoing harassment over their work. This blowback is a coordinated campaign to make the entire field look suspect. The goal is to create the impression that attribution science is too uncertain, too political, or too conflicted to be useful in court or in public policy. The strategy is not based on actual science or evidence of misconduct, but on the generation of doubt. The new Merchants of Doubt We’ve seen this before. In fact, not that long ago: We only have to go back a year to the Department of Energy (DOE) Climate Working Group (CWG) report to see an example of using doubt as the tool to push back against well-established science. This strategy is laid out in an email from a member of the CWG, Dr. Roy Spencer, that was released during litigation over the Climate Working Group process. The key quote is: About all I can hope is that what we write will provide sufficient “reasonable scientific doubt” regarding the science claims in the 2009 TSD [technical support document], based upon almost 2 decades of new science, to call into question the original reasoning for the EPA Administrator’s decision that CO2 presents a threat to human health and welfare. This statement is strong evidence that at least some members of the committee were working to support a particular policy outcome: revoking the Endangerment Finding. The email also explains how they planned to do it: by attempting to generate “reasonable doubt”. This is going to be hard, Spencer implies. Despite falsely claiming that “2 decades of new science” weakens the case, Spencer explicitly acknowledges that the actual peer-reviewed science of climate change overwhelmingly rejects his position: But if the science argument is decided upon by a vote, or by the number of published citations, we lose the science argument. We can go back even further: This CWG email shares unmistakable DNA with the infamous 1969 tobacco memo that declared: “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” The tobacco memo also acknowledges the limit of this strategy: Like the CWG, they knew the science was not on their side. Share The new new Merchants of Doubt The people attacking the IPCC chapter on extreme event attribution are the newest iteration of the Merchants of Doubt. Their goal, like all Merchants before them, is to introduce doubt into the process. Because the report is not even out yet, they cannot attack its conclusions. So they are attacking the authors instead. Here is a press release from the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee: In the letter, the Chairmen express concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving members of the Attribution Committee, stating that “publicly available information suggests a troubling pattern” in which committee members are affiliated with nonprofits that support climate accountability lawsuits, “raising the appearance of impropriety and member bias.” To be clear, this is just innuendo. There is no actual evidence of bias. And given the robust process that these reports go through, including multiple lines of peer review, it seems very unlikely that significant bias can survive into the report. When the report comes out, critics will have the opportunity to make legitimate criticisms of the report — if any exist. If none do, however, they’ll still make criticisms, but they’ll be bogus, simply designed to generate doubt. We’ll see. A note to the press: Fix your frame To any journalists reading this: The public debate over extreme event attribution science is not going away. The science is simply too dangerous to fossil-fuel interests for them to stop fighting it. You very well might be assigned to write an article about this area of research in the future. When you do, do not automatically adopt the framing that climate misinformers want you to use. They want you to frame the story around questions like: Are climate scientists trying to put their thumb on the scale to achieve a predetermined, politically motivated result? Are climate scientists improperly letting their politics invade the science of the IPCC? That frame is a trap. Instead, you need to view this through the historical lens of the Merchants of Doubt. How does the ecosystem of doubt operate? Who funds it? What methods do they use to misrepresent science and slime researchers? What scientific results are they trying to keep people from understanding are legitimate? Ultimately, you instead need to focus your article on the generation of doubt as a way to maintain the fossil fuel industry’s social and legal license to keep burning oil, gas, and coal. If you treat the misinformers’ frame as a legitimate, good-faith scientific critique, you are helping them produce doubt. Don’t do it. Don’t be a Merchant of Doubt. Thanks for reading The Climate Brink! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe other stuff The Staying Curious Substack has an interesting post about the different flavors of climate sensitivity. This is crucial information if you want to understand how scientists think about how much warming the Earth will experience. I’d be grateful if you could hit the like button ❤️ below! It helps more people discover these ideas and lets me know what’s connecting with readers.
The Courtroom Battle Over Baby Formula Isn’t About Science
A jury in a Cook County, Illinois, court awarded families $70 million in April after concluding that infant formula caused a devastating illness in premature babies. However, that conclusion hinged on a scientific theory that lacks validated evidence. While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said its recent study of chemical contamination in infant formula produced by Abbott Laboratories … Continue reading "The Courtroom Battle Over Baby Formula Isn’t About Science"
The Science of Team Science: Lessons Learned from the International Brain Laboratory
The International Brain Laboratory offers insights into how large-scale scientific collaborations can be supported and how the model itself can be improved.
Fund honoring late meteorologist to assist in global student experience
Jenni Evans, a world-renowned meteorologist whose research transformed the scientific understanding of tropical cyclones and strengthened storm forecasting worldwide, considered her students’ success her proudest accomplishment. The newly established Jenni Evans Fund in the Department of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science will ensure that those successes continue in perpetuity.
Berkley and Royal Oak Students Studying Science Earn DAR Scholarships
Two high school seniors will go to the University of Michigan in the fall with scientific publishing credits already on their resumes.
Scientific American Unveils Inaugural Class of Young American Scientists, Celebrating the Next Generation of Innovators
NEW YORK, June 16, 2026--Scientific American announces The Young American Scientists Class of 2026.
Trump’s war on science is in the fine print
A fresh attack on the U.S. scientific infrastructure could be the most damaging yet.
The Science and Health Breakthroughs Shaping a New American Era
TIME asked Bill Nye, Emily Oster, Kizzmekia Corbett-Helaire, and 22 others to tell us about the scientific advances defining the U.S. at 250
The Science and Health Breakthroughs Shaping a New American Era
TIME asked Bill Nye, Emily Oster, Kizzmekia Corbett-Helaire, and 22 others to tell us about the scientific advances defining the U.S. at 250
Three Lehigh University materials science students awarded 2026 NSF Graduate Research Fellowships
Three students from Lehigh University's Department of Materials Science and Engineering have received National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowships, one of the nation's most competitive honors for emerging STEM researchers. Their success highlights the impact of a course designed to strengthen scientific communication, proposal writing, and fellowship preparation.
July/August 2026: Science history from 50, 100 and 150 years ago
Natural fission reactor uncovered; geometry of soap bubbles
These young scientists are on our radar
These young scientists are making waves in their own ways. Keep an eye on them—great things are ahead
Alan Lightman on his childhood in science
The story of the author’s extremely early career
Elizabeth Blackburn
On fighting for truth, inclusion and the next generation of scientists
Science is under pressure again. Here’s what that means for young researchers
When Emma Scales decided she wanted to be a scientist, it seemed logical—simple, even. Now a Ph.D. candidate at Cornell University, Scales is studying symbiosis, specifically the way bacteria can gro...
U.S. scientists are being lured abroad—and they aren't looking back
The great American brain drain could define science for a generation
Why U.S. science funding needs reform
The federal funding system for scientific research in the U.S. is crumbling. Here’s how it can be rebuilt
Autonomous labs are running science experiments 24/7
Robots and AI are running experiments around the clock, from battery chemistry to cancer therapies. But can they be trusted to get it right?
Science’s rising stars
There are bright futures ahead for our first-ever Young American Scientist honorees
James Manyika
The Google senior vice president talks about the need to reset the relationship between the government and academic and industrial science
Geoffrey Hinton
The machine-learning guru discusses how politics is undermining U.S. science
Michael M. Crow explains why scientists need to learn how to talk about their research
Michael M. Crow is an American academic leader and science and technology policy scholar who has served as president of Arizona State University (ASU) since 2002. How would you describe the current s...
Emery Brown
The computational neuroscientist on how scientists themselves need to better advocate for government support
Ted Budd
The North Carolina senator shares why the U.S. needs to remain globally competitive in science and technology
Rochelle Walensky
The former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention talks about threats to U.S. science and ways they can be stopped
Alan Guth
The M.I.T. cosmologist shares his thoughts on physics, the federal funding of science and the resilience of the scientific community
Eric Topol
The famed cardiologist discusses how AI has transformed biomedical science
Sally Kornbluth
The university president and biomedical scientist talks about the hope and doubt in U.S. science today
RFK Jr under fire for ‘bullying’ letter to scientific journal
Health advocates criticized Kennedy’s move demanding answers from journal that removed ‘flawed’ vaccine study
Times Opinion: Trump’s war on science is being waged in the fine print
A fresh attack on the U.S. scientific infrastructure could be the most damaging yet.
NASA Flights Map Tropical Ecosystems, Water, Ice
Data from a NASA campaign in Panama and Peru will help communities prepare for tropical floods in cloud-covered areas, improve scientific understanding of
Janelia’s Two Big Bets: Decoding the Brain and Reinventing How Science is Done
HHMI’s Janelia Research Campus is launching a decade-long scientific effort to pursue two coequal goals: understanding how the brain generates complex behavior, and developing a new mode of scientific discovery in which biologists and AI work together as partners in discovery.
Writing science that humans and machines can read
Large language models are now routinely used to search, summarize and synthesize the literature at scales impossible for any individual researcher—yet scientific publishing has not adapted to that reality.
Mark Gongloff: The White House’s top science goal is ignorance
Shutting down scientific inquiry because it discovers things you don’t like is a bit like turning off all the instruments on your plane because they warn you there’s a mountain
A novel belief-degree-based uncertain Tchebycheff norm DEA model for the case study of risks prioritizing in e-business projects
Scientific Reports - A novel belief-degree-based uncertain Tchebycheff norm DEA model for the case study of risks prioritizing in e-business projects
Scientists warn US proposal would politicize federal science funding
Scientists warn an OMB proposal would give political appointees control over federal research funding, end peer review and ban DEI and gender studies, threatening US scientific progress.
Column: New federal rules threaten scientific research
Proposed changes to US research funding and administration threaten public health and scientific progress. Political oversight and restrictions on research topics.
Trump admin’s policies negatively impacting U.S. science research
OPINION — The American academic research engine has long been the envy of the world. Generally well-funded, labs in the United States have been able to attract the best minds who generate breakthroughs and train the next generation workforce that powers the U.S. economy. But since the start of the second Trump administration in January 2025, new federal policies have destabilized the American scientific enterprise.
FDA clears new computer-assisted device for removing clots in stroke patients
The Thunderbolt device from California-based Penumbra uses modulated aspiration to detect and remove blood clots. Back in January, Boston Scientific agreed to acquire Penumbra for approximately $14.5 billion.
Redo TAVR with balloon-expandable valves linked to positive outcomes, key improvements
Researchers tracked real-world data from more than 140 patients who originally received a transcatheter heart valve from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic or Boston Scientific.
Former U.S. health official explains why the Trump administration ‘ignored’ a key alcohol study
A study finding that even one drink a day causes health risks was deliberately sidelined by the Trump administration, a former federal public health official alleges
New federal rule proposal threatens to reshape how U.S. science research is funded
A proposed White House rule would let political appointees override scientific peer review and control science funding decisions, writes Jeffrey Woytach of LaGrange in a letter to the editor.
Tilly Edinger: The paleoneurologist saved by her science
Johanna Gabriela Ottilie “Tilly” Edinger dedicated her career to studying ancient brains. It saved her life
Fermilab storage infrastructure enables AI-driven scientific and research discovery for DOE’s Genesis Mission
The U.S. Department of Energy’s Genesis Mission is building a new era of AI-driven scientific discovery — and it requires far more than powerful supercomputers to succeed. To support this national effort, Fermilab’s Fermi Data Platform is providing secure, large-scale data infrastructure needed to make advanced AI research possible across the American Science Cloud.
The New Republic of Science
The scientific community functions as a republic—with its own governance of rules and norms, internal politics, and relationships with the states and publics that fund it.
What AI-herding scientists can learn from watching ‘sheepdog YouTube’
Controlling a small group of “noisy” sheep holds hints for computer algorithms
Feds will abruptly dismantle system monitoring climate change, oceans
Critics say the move to retire the $360 million system doesn't make sense. The National Science Foundation cites new scientific priorities.
Opinion: Risk Aversion in Science Stifles Innovation
The scientific enterprise must be willing to reflect on and dramatically overhaul its processes if they do not work.
The ‘commander’s intent’ and science
Proposed changes to the federal grant guidance could let political appointees override scientific peer review. The implications for American research are enormous.
The UN’s AI Panel Could Shape Global Governance. Can It Balance Science and Politics?
The United Nations’ new Scientific Panel on AI could give governments a shared evidentiary basis for policymaking—but only if it can balance independence, expertise, and political legitimacy.
The UN’s AI Panel Could Shape Global Governance. Can It Balance Science and Politics?
The United Nations’ new Scientific Panel on AI could give governments a shared evidentiary basis for policymaking—but only if it can balance independence, expertise, and political legitimacy.
How to tell if your dog is left-pawed or right-pawed, according to science
A step-by-step guide to the “Doginburgh Inventory,” a new pawedness test developed by dog behavior researchers
SAVE THE DATE: COSPAR 2026 – The World’s largest Space Science Assembly heads to Florence (1-9 August 2026)
Registration is now officially open for media representatives, bloggers, and freelance communicators to attend the 46th COSPAR Scientific Assembly in August 2026. The event will gather over 3,000 global experts to unveil and discuss the latest groundbreaking discoveries shaping the future of space research
The World Cup could be a petri dish for disease. Wastewater could sound the alarm
As millions of soccer fans pack FIFA World Cup venues, public health scientists created a wastewater monitoring network to forecast potential disease threats—from measles to Ebola
New OMB rule could break science in the United States
The drug that saved your mother. The treatment your doctor recommended. The clinical trial that bought someone you love more time. None of it was inevitable. It required a system built to operate outside politics and sustained over decades, because science doesn’t operate on the timeline of a politician. That system is now under direct threat. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a new rule to regulate all federal grants, not just science, but housing, education, defense, NASA and everything in between, that would fundamentally change how research is conducted in the United States. There have been a lot of fires in the past 16 months, and if everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency. But this is a very big deal. These rules would strip away the independence that has kept science from becoming a political tool. The good news is there’s still something we can all do. How the grant system was designed to work When I was a new faculty member, I was full of millions of ideas, so I sat down and wrote an NIH proposal. I worked on it for months and thought it was so good. Then I sent it to my mentor. It came back covered in comments. Places where my reasoning wasn’t as airtight as I’d thought, methods that could be stronger, gaps in my thinking that I had been too close to the work to see. It stung, as honest feedback always does, but peer review almost always makes the work better. In fact, it’s the backbone of how American science has functioned for generations. At NIH, submitted proposals go to a panel of scientists who have experience in the field. These are the people who can read research methods and spot their weaknesses, who understand when an experiment is designed well and when it isn’t. Applications are scored rigorously, and often only the top 3-20% of proposals receive funding. The people making funding decisions are required to justify them based on these reviews. To be clear: this is not a perfect system, and good science still goes unfunded more often than any of us would like due to limited resources. There is also criticism that peer review may undervalue bold ideas that are risky but could have high payoffs. But the peer review system is nonetheless a meaningful part of the grant selection process. While thoughtful and careful changes could improve the system, the changes being proposed by OMB will not make things better. The rule that could change everything Through this OMB proposal, the system that helps decide what gets funded is being dismantled. There are many troubling elements buried in this proposal, but three provisions stand out in particular. Each would be damaging alone. Together, they would change what kind of science gets done in America, and who it serves. 1. Political appointees would decide which science gets funded, and peer review would be explicitly sidelined or ignored. The guidelines your doctor follows, the standards that determine what’s in your air and water, the drugs that get approved for your family: all of it starts with a funding decision. Right now, that decision is made by scientists who can evaluate whether the work is actually sound and whether it could move the needle forward. Under this proposal, funding decisions could be made by political appointees. The careful, expertise-driven review process that shapes grant funding would be effectively sidelined. That means that a poorly designed study could get funded simply because someone in a political office liked the sound of it, while rigorous, important work doesn’t get funded because it no longer aligns with the administration’s priorities. In other words, critical work that benefits all of us could now be missed just because it has become politically inconvenient. 2. Grants could be canceled at any point, without warning, in the middle of ongoing work. Say your tax dollars have been paying for a cancer study for two years. The grant was awarded for five years, so the team is mid-experiment. There are three additional years’ worth of answers that could change how the disease is treated for hundreds of thousands of people. With this new rule, the federal government could cancel the remaining funding tomorrow, walk away from the commitment it made with your money, and have no legal obligation to finish what it started. This is a huge waste of money. There are rarely other sources of funding for this work, which means the team, the graduate students, postdocs, and research staff who have dedicated years of their careers to this project could lose their jobs. Patients who have contributed their time to studies may not see it turn into useful learnings for others. Every hour of work already completed could result in nothing useful. Science can take decades to get to tangible outcomes. It needs a stable funding system to flourish. 3. Researchers would have a harder time communicating their findings without pre-approval from the federal government. There is a saying from Sir Mark Walport: “Science isn’t finished until it’s communicated.” Science is no use to anyone if it is kept locked away in the labs that produced the data. The proposed rule could make communicating research findings harder in a number of ways: Make it harder for scientists to widely share their findings in scientific journals. Publication costs, including journal fees that allow for broad public access, could not be paid for by federal funds which is often how scientists pay these costs. Restrict researchers from engaging publicly about how their findings should inform policy or public health guidelines. This would restrict scientists from doing the work that transforms years of lab work into decisions that actually affect people’s lives. Make it harder for scientists to attend conferences. Conferences would now need to be approved by the federal agency at the time of grant award. This disadvantages conferences or publications that are not politically aligned. Conferences are a key way in which scientists learn about work happening in their field so they can collaborate and build on each other’s findings. What good is science with a muzzle? The long-term impact These changes could (and hopefully would) be reversed under the next administration. But by then, damage has been done. Once projects are halted or denied funding by political appointees, people leave their science careers for other paths or even leave the country to do their amazing science elsewhere. You cannot pause a scientific study the way you pause a subscription you decided isn’t useful anymore. You cannot freeze a research team that depends on salaries to feed their families, causing a scramble for replacement funding that, in most cases, simply does not exist. When the money stops, everything stops, and all the work in progress and its potential are lost. Despite all of the language about reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, this new proposed rule increases the administrative burden tremendously. Every researcher watching this unfold will make a rational decision: don’t start anything that will take a decade to finish. This includes not building a team around funding that could vanish, or asking the big questions that need patience and stability to answer. The most consequential science, the kind that produces the treatments and the breakthroughs that reach your doctor’s office twenty years from now, is exactly the science that would be abandoned first. This is still a proposal, so we can all do something Some worry this rule is already a done deal. But by law, OMB is required to open a public comment period. Those comments matter because they inform members of Congress, they can be used in litigation, and they create a public record. So here’s what you can do: Submit a public comment. The public comment period on this proposed change is open until July 13. Anyone can submit a comment, and OMB is required to respond to substantial ones. Each comment must be different to count as distinct; identical comments will be counted only once. Comment as an individual, not on behalf of your organization. Here’s a full resource to help you, with useful examples, but in general: Share a story about how science or federal funding has benefitted you or is involved in your work. Are you or someone you loved a cancer survivor? Do you know someone with Alzheimer’s? Have you received NIH/NSF or other federal funding? All of these can be stories you use to highlight why you care. Explain why you’re worried about these proposed changes. You can use the wording found here or in other resources to help you. Ask them to withdraw this proposed rule. Contact your elected representatives. Congress allocates money to federal agencies to spend, and it has oversight of how that process works. You can let your representatives know this proposed change concerns you and ask them to intervene. There are levers they can push that can help at this moment. Let others know why federal funding matters. This isn’t just about science, but ALL federal grants, including for education systems, defense projects, and more. The process, including the importance of federal funding, is invisible to many. We can all make it more visible by sharing how science benefits us and why we value it. You can also share this article, or any of the resources linked here, to help spread awareness! Bottom line We are quickly losing ground in scientific research in the U.S. More changes, like the proposed rule by OMB, would decimate our ability to conduct research here, leaving us all worse off: fewer treatments for pancreatic cancer, less research on pollution impacts, fewer answers for patients with rare disease, and more unaddressed health needs. The impact will be very real for all of us, regardless of where we stand politically. Using our voices for science is more important than ever. Love, LM Big thanks to Dr. Megan Ranney for reading this over and providing brilliant insights, as always. Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective at YLE and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health. You can find her on Substack, LinkedIn, Instagram and Threads. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “Translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Subscribe
The surprising science behind the 2026 World Cup grass
How scientists are engineering the perfect World Cup pitch—one so flawless that players never notice it
The White House’s Top Science Goal Is Ignorance
Shutting down scientific inquiry because it discovers things you don’t like is a bit like turning off all the instruments on your plane because they warn you there’s a mountain ahead. It may satisfy your immediate urge to live in denial but will soon turn deadly.
Could £400m research park plan make Norwich a global science hub?
Experts hope a revamp at the Norwich Research Park could lead to more scientific breakthroughs.
EFSA confirms health concern from dietary exposure to dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in Europe
Dietary exposure to dioxins and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) continues to raise a health concern for the European population, according to a new scientific opinion from EFSA.
Why Model Flows Are the Key for Reproducibility in AI for Science
Reproducibility is absolutely critical in science, but it’s a troublesome characteristic when it comes to AI. Frontier models developed by Big AI may deliver superior accuracy and reasoning capabilities, but they do so largely as black boxes with little regard for reproducibility. If AI is going to turbo-charge scientific productivity, it must do so without […]
The science of seeing inside explosions
During the Manhattan Project, Los Alamos scientists needed a diagnostic tool. Like an x-ray confirming a broken leg bone, the researchers wanted to be able to see into the smoke cloud of detonation products. They needed to verify that the implosion remained symmetric to ensure an efficient detonation. Although it was a time when scientific breakthroughs came quickly, this challenge stumped them, and their initial efforts to use x-rays to visualize the event were limited.
A Scientific Achievement That’s Totally Random
Encryption systems rely on “random” numbers, but conventional computers can’t generate them perfectly. New research shows that quantum physics can.
New solar breakthroughs: the unexpected places scientists are finding revolutionary materials - Futura-Sciences
A Closer Look at Chemical Transformations The team’s breakthrough, recently published in the journal Nature Communications, is the scientific equivalent of pausing a movie in slow motion and noticing brand new characters on the screen. Instead of limiting themselves to the finished product of a reaction, the researchers examined every...
The Anatomy of a Conversion: Nicolaus Steno and the Search for Certain
Blessed Nicolaus Steno’s scientific discoveries and conversion to Catholicism emerged from a unified search for truth during the Scientific Revolution.
Opinion | Science Should Not Be Subject to Loyalty Tests
The proposed O.M.B. rules would ravage the world’s most productive scientific enterprise.
Can AI Agents Replicate Science? Argonne's Rick Stevens Puts Them to the Test
Have we reached a point where AI agents can reliably function as scientific collaborators? Can they go one step further and work as autonomous scientists? Stevens is an Associate Laboratory […]
'This is actually taking a page out of the Communist Party playbook': New White House proposal could deny scientists funding based on their political opinions
"It replaces expertise with political appointees, globally decouples the U.S. and completely guts our scientific ecosystem."
The Code As Witness: A Book About Science, Politics & Pandemic Inquiry
The Code as Witness written by Steven C. Quay is part scientific investigation, part policy strategy, and part warning about the future of biological research.
The Code As Witness: A Book About Science, Politics & Pandemic Inquiry
The Code as Witness written by Steven C. Quay is part scientific investigation, part policy strategy, and part warning about the future of biological research.
We’re back: Proba-3 ready for more science
The Proba-3 mission’s Coronagraph spacecraft and its main scientific instrument, ASPIICS, are both at full health, ready to resume routine formation flying operations and deliver more breathtaking artificial eclipses.
The Science Community Is Stepping Up. Let’s Go Bigger.
The scientific community is fighting a proposed change to research funding. Let's keep this momentum going to take on more attacks on science.
History of Science: Why is it important?
“The study of scientific history is vital for modern research, revealing that breakthroughs often stem from continuity rather than isolated revolutions”
The role of peer review
Modern peer review safeguards scientific quality yet is increasingly shaped by incentives, political priorities and funding challenges.
Alcohol study discarded by Trump officials is published in scientific journal
A government-commissioned study had been meant to inform new dietary guidelines, and found risks associated with even light drinking.
BEACON: How Benchmarking Combats the Reproducibility Crisis in Modern Science
A new initiative called BEACON aims to advance scientific reproducibility by uniting siloed benchmarking efforts across biomedical research.
We can create the future of science right now
Paul Litvak is the founder and Executive Director of the Robyn Dawes Institute and a Visiting Scholar at UC Berkeley. He has a PhD in Behavioral Decision Research from Carnegie Mellon where he studied emotions and the sunk cost bias. Over 15 years in industry, he solved a wide range of challenging technical problems. At Meta he created models optimizing the ad review process. At Google he ran experiments to measure social influence. At Airbnb, he was a product manager leading machine learning teams optimizing search ranking and price suggestions. He also co-founded and led product at Rhythmic Health, a venture-backed biosensing startup, creating an accurate low cost system using a color changing strip and a smart phone to measure salivary lactate. The bottleneck At this point, it is uncontroversial to say that science needs to stop using the PDF article as the unit of knowledge and currency. The unbearable slowness of scientific publishing, the profit motive and margins: I’m not saying anything new. The PDF also sucks because it’s hard to extract structured information, which makes it hard to do evidence synthesis. As a result, we do much less evidence synthesis than is needed. And evidence synthesis ultimately undergirds most policy and medical decision-making. I can see second-by-second real-time odds for any sporting or newsworthy event, but a school board can’t see the best evidence on whether their 8th graders should be taught algebra. As a society, we don’t treat this as an important problem. Again, not controversial. Not only is the problem well understood, but the solution has already been laid out. What we need is AI-assisted living evidence synthesis - (1) an open knowledge graph of atomic claims, (2) claims linked to evidence, (3) assessment and synthesis of each piece of evidence, and (4) continuous updating with new data. What few realize (yet) is that the technical capacity to build this vision for a significant portion of science already exists. Not only that, scientists and startup teams are already building many of these components. I know this because I’ve been surveying the space and talking to many of the builders. There are some missing pieces: for example, evaluations of how well some of the components work. But at this point, most of what’s missing is a fully end-to-end working integration of all of these parts. In the rest of this essay, I’m going to lay out all the parts of a working living evidence layer for science and who is working on them, and propose concrete next steps for building this system. What’s now possible The diagram above outlines the components of a living evidence synthesis platform, including some of the teams working on each component1. Scientific PDFs are processed into claims with associated evidence. The evidence is subjected to a forensic audit, methodological evaluation and robustness and reproducibility checks. Finally it’s given a weight in a continuously updating synthesis. What follows is a description and status of each component and a few of the teams working on them. Document understanding The first thing you need to be able to do is turn an article into structured data. Mostly that means parsing PDFs. There are often multicolumn layouts that confuse non-specialized PDF to text processing libraries. For scientific papers, there is the added complexity of parsing formulas and tables and figures. This is a really hot area - there are startups offering APIs, and it seems like a new open source package gets posted to Github every few weeks. What follows isn’t exhaustive. A package called GROBID was the state of the art for a while, they didn’t update their package for nearly two years until very recently. In the meantime reducto.ai released an AI powered PDF extraction API, PaddleOCR became popular, IBM released a model called Docling, and both Mistral and Gemini created models and libraries. I also know of at least one other well-funded psychology research group working on a paper parser. By contrast, there are few open evals in this space, with no extensive evals for complex table comprehension in particular. Nonetheless, I’m confident this will be a solved problem soon, given the combination of LLM advances and developer interest. Hypothesis level extraction There has been increasing interest in comprehending the extracted text of papers and linking information to evidence for each hypothesis. A lot of work has already been done. Trialstreamer (Marshall et al. 2020) and RobotReviewer LIVE (Marshall et al. 2023) demonstrated automated extraction of trial population, intervention, and outcome at scale on clinical RCTs. PaperQA2 (Skarlinski et al. 2024) and Ai2 ScholarQA (2024) extended this to retrieval-augmented question answering with citation grounding. Elicit, Consensus, and SciSpace operationalized claim-level extraction for end users. OpenEval (Booeshaghi et al. 2026) is the most recent and most ambitious: 1.96 million atomic claims extracted from 16,087 eLife manuscripts using Claude Sonnet 4.5, grouped into ~299,000 results, with LLM evaluations showing 81% agreement with human peer review on a 2,487-paper subset. None of these solutions link claims to test-statistics, as you would need to evaluate randomized controlled trials. This is why I built the evidence.guide API - to extract hypotheses and associated test statistics from behavioral science papers. The best public eval of this kind of extraction I’m aware of comes from the recent SCORE project - they had humans code thousands of psychology papers to extract their claims by hand. It would be extremely helpful to the world if all scientific PDFs were available as structured open data. I’ve been working to make this happen, both directly at Berkeley and through coordination with large entities I can’t yet speak of; as hard as it is to do, I think it’s possible2. Forensic audit A lot of work has been done on forensic audit, but some gaps remain. Of course, for biology papers that rely on images for evidence, there are a variety of tools (notably Proofig and ImageTwin) to spot anomalies. These are still well short of what sleuths like Elizabeth Bik can do on her own, but these tools are constant companions among fraud analysts. There’s someone working on auditing Excel files for anomalies, and a number of teams are automating numerical checks like GRIM and SPRITE, including Scrutiny project, the INSPECT-SR team as well as statcheck. The regcheck team is building a way to use AI to compare preregistrations to analyses in papers, to ensure there aren’t significant deviations. Nonetheless, there are many other kinds of anomalies to screen for, both public and less publicly known. And there are no formal evals for anomaly detection that I’m aware of. Still, there’s a lot to draw from in this space and I’m pretty certain we will be able to scan papers for most kinds of obvious anomalies in the near future. Methodological review This area has been white hot, though I fear for many of the startups in this space, because this capability may become commoditized. There are at least six different AI peer review companies, including Refine.ink, Reviewer3, ReviewerZero.ai, Q.E.D. Science, Paper Wizard, and Isitcredible. Coarse (a pun on refine) was also recently created as an open source alternative. These systems provide qualitative feedback on the content of papers, spotting methodological weaknesses and mathematical errors. They seem to work pretty well, and many academics report bitterly that they exceed the average quality of typical peer reviewers. But there are few evals here either. What evals exist so far involve using LLM-as-judge (circularity problems abound) or comparing against human reviews of questionable quality. What you’d ideally want is an eval that measures capturing known errors in papers3. Reproducibility and robustness Another active area has been using AI agents to automate computational reproducibility4 and robustness5 checks in papers that report numerical results. For more recent papers where data and code are available, AI agents can see whether they can re-run the analyses and produce the numbers reported in the published paper. In addition to a handful of individual academics who have been experimenting using Claude Code for this, the Institute for Replication is a leading group working on building an end to end system. The evals related to this problem are the most mature, with CORE-Bench (Siegel, Kapoor, Narayanan 2024) and PaperBench (OpenAI 2025) available to benchmark agents on this task. There is also work on getting AI agents to test alternative ways of analyzing the data to ensure the results are robust to small analytic design choices. Synthesis This is the most underdeveloped area where significant investment is required. Although some automated evidence synthesis systems exist — for example, otto-sr is building an AI agent to write systematic reviews — none of these incorporate the full range of paper level signals to weight evidence appropriately. Nor is there anything like an eval or a gold standard for a good systematic review. Arguably Cochrane reviews are the closest we have to gold standard human systematic reviews, though I’ve heard academics in the know complain about their uneven quality. A key question for a synthesis platform is how to weight anomalies and methodological issues in assessing the quality of a piece of evidence. This is an unsolved problem and one I’m very keen to work on. Continuous updating There are many pieces of basic infrastructure available for monitoring for new research and initiating updates. OpenAlex is the current open citation graph. Retraction Watch integrated into Crossref in October 2023. Scite tracks how citations support, contrast, or mention prior claims. The Living Evidence Network demonstrated continuous-update workflows in clinical guidelines. Engineering this is a relatively straightforward task. When you look over this technical architecture and all the progress being made, it’s hard not to be optimistic that a living guide to scientific evidence will be built. The stakeholders are ready The social infrastructure for this is starting to coalesce — it’s not just a pie in the sky academic exercise to imagine this coming into existence. Institutions like the Center for Open Science, the Institute for Replication, the INSPECT-SR, the Living Evidence Network and more are all working on scaling work to improve research quality. Funders are also aligned. The Sloan Foundation has funded living evidence work through COS. Coefficient Giving supports the Institute for Replication and COS. The Astera Institute and the Institute for Progress have shown interest in this space. NIH has established an Office for Replication and Reproducibility. Although there are (very unfortunately) serious headwinds in science funding generally, there is an active group of funders interested in metascience. A brief word about what I’ve been doing at RDI. First, as a Visiting Scholar at Berkeley I’ve been actively figuring out how a non-profit and a public university can conduct and make public the results of large-scale academic article data mining. With some of the money I raised from donors, I commissioned a legal analysis of recent case law and publisher text data mining (TDM) agreements in order to understand whether a massive open data mining of academic articles is possible (with caveats, it is). I’ve also been working to bring together stakeholders in this space, and identify gaps. I’ve also been doing some software development in this space, with more to come. A pilot proposal The assumption undergirding all of this is that an AI, given all this information, would make the right judgment about a scientific claim with lots of conflicting evidence, weighing all the factors appropriately. That’s the hypothesis we need to test. Randomized control trial research is the best place to focus on first. RCTs are used to make many of the important decisions in society - from medical trials to public policy changes. And they use a relatively uniform set of inferential statistics with lots of known and available diagnostics. Behavioral science experiments, within the broader realm of RCTs, should be first used as a testbed whose results can be generalized. Because behavioral science is at the vanguard of open science practices, replications abound (there are thousands of them) to serve as ground truth training data. Key Hypothesis Therefore the pilot would test, in behavioral RCTs that have been replicated, whether the quality of evidence for a claim can be used to accurately predict whether that claim will replicate. Secondary Hypotheses Compared to claims that replicated, non-replicated claims demonstrate a greater share of forensic anomalies in their source literatures. Hypothesis level claim and statistic extraction is accurate enough to scale living evidence without onerous human review costs. Replication prediction is more accurate than prediction markets6 or journal prestige. If all the different quality signals we gather do accurately predict which studies will replicate, then we can use that model to score evidence to power the living evidence layer. Why this is informative regardless of outcome If the pilot succeeds, the architecture extends to medical RCTs (where Living Evidence already operates and integration is mostly about claim representation), then to slices of basic biology with stable replication structure. If it fails, the field learns which quality signals are load-bearing and which ones metascience has oversold. Either result is a contribution to knowing what the literature supports. Implications for funders Because this burgeoning ecosystem of builders already exists, a well-informed philanthropic or government funder could play a crucial catalyzing role in bringing this future about. They could play at least three roles: creating open structured datasets, publishing open benchmarks and incentivizing the solving of key technical challenges. First, open archives of papers that the government maintains, like PubMed, could be turned into structured data amenable to large scale metascience and claim aggregation. I know the US government already has an interest in doing this, though some key open questions remain unanswered. How do you determine the best models and systems for accurately extracting information from papers? How can you establish a robust way to allow researchers to flag errors and correct them? And finally, how do you create a legal regime in working with publishers to maximize the scope of available papers? For the latter, a university or a private philanthropy may be better positioned to make structured data publicly available under journal subscription terms or fair use. Philanthropists or government funders could also coordinate to create or commission benchmarks that evaluate whether important problems have been solved. For example, an open benchmark for claim extraction from a range of different scientific article types would be extremely helpful. Ensuring the underlying data are accurate is vital for creating these evaluations. I’ve discussed opportunistically using various human-created datasets for this purpose, but a consistent problem is that errors in human data make it difficult for them to serve as a gold standard. Finally, with structured data and benchmarks available, the government or private philanthropy could use them to incentivize groups to develop machine learning systems that meet these benchmarks. Prizes are one potentially valuable tool for this. For example, you could establish a prize for a system that accurately updates a living meta-analysis for a small set of claims. Prizes are particularly useful as signals of problem importance, and can help create vibrant ecosystems of public and private research—see, for example the role the government played in kickstarting the current work on nuclear fusion. Conclusion The drawbacks of the current scientific publishing system are known. Scientists agree, metascientists agree, philanthropists agree: the published PDF plus citation graph isn’t the right substrate for maintaining a representation of the evidence base in science. The pieces needed to build the alternative either already exist or are rapidly taking shape. The community is forming around exactly this problem, with concrete partnerships and shared infrastructure. A pilot should start on behavioral science RCTs because that’s the slice of empirical science most amenable to legibility, where replication ground truth is richest, and where the failure modes are best documented. What’s been missing is the galvanizing mission to assemble these pieces into something that works. That’s what I’m proposing to build. *** 1 I have a broader field map that I’ll release publicly soon. This is me, building in public! 2 If this is something that you are excited about, please reach out and talk to me. 3 More on this very soon too! 4 This tests whether, given the code and the data, you can get the same statistics as reported in the published paper. 5 This tests whether the results are the same as a paper’s given alternative analytical decisions in conducting the analysis (like outlier omission). Closely related is the idea of a “multiverse” where you come up with many different ways of answering the same underlying research question with the same data, and test whether the results hold in all those alternative methods. There’s been work on the latter as well. 6 Some of the replications, e.g. those from the SCORE project, had paired the experiments with forecasts from prediction markets. So we get to look at this for free.
Scientific Games and Hellenic Lotteries Partner to Provide World-Class Scratchcard Entertainment Experiences to Greek Players
/PRNewswire/ -- Scientific Games, the world's largest lottery games company, and Hellenic Lotteries, part of Allwyn Hellas, the leading gaming group in Greece,...
Opinion: U.S. lead in science is shrinking fast as China, India and even Iran catch up
A country with one of the fastest-rising scientific profiles operates under sweeping international sanctions, has limited access to Western research infrastructure and is rarely mentioned in American conversations about global
Protecting Heart Health in an Era of Temperature Extremes
Extreme heat and cold are growing cardiovascular risks that can trigger heart attacks, strokes, heart failure and sudden cardiac death, according to a recent scientific statement by experts at Weill Cornell Medicine and other leading institutions.
Why did measuring Earth’s true shape matter for science?
The extraordinary challenge of determining the true shape of Earth reveals the deep value of measurement to scientific progress
Failure is the foundation of science
Amanda Gardiner reflects on why failure is an essential and valuable part of scientific research
A Science Based Look at Fluorination and PFAS.
Are all fluorinated packaging technologies created equal? Or are we oversimplifying risk? Greif examines how process chemistry, particularly oxygen control, fundamentally shapes PFAS outcomes. Backed by validated data and scientific rigor, this paper reframes barrier selection for regulators, engineers, and decision-makers seeking compliant, high-performance packaging solutions.This Technical Paper is brought to you by Greif.
Times Opinion: US lead in science is shrinking fast as China, India and even Iran catch up
A country with one of the fastest-rising scientific profiles operates under sweeping international sanctions, has limited access to Western research infrastructure and is rarely mentioned in American conversations about global innovation. That country is Iran.
US lead in science is shrinking fast as China, India and even Iran catch up
A country with one of the fastest-rising scientific profiles operates under sweeping international sanctions, has limited access to Western research infrastructure and is rarely mentioned in American conversations about global
Ancient Chinese medicine could transform hair loss treatment
A traditional Chinese medicinal root used for over a thousand years is attracting new scientific attention for its potential to combat hair loss. Studies suggest Polygonum multiflorum can block harmful hormones, activate hair-growth signals, protect follicles, and boost blood flow to the scalp. Researchers say the herb’s effects align remarkably well with both ancient descriptions and modern hair biology.
Toxic pollutant from car tires reaching San Francisco Bay, scientists say
A scientific research group here in the Bay Area is generating new evidence about another type of pollution caused not just by cars, but by their tires. It's a chemical known as 6PPD-Q, which is so toxic to some species of fish that it's believed that a single drop in a swimming pool could be fatal.
How prediction markets could forecast the future of science
Online prediction markets are taking bets on everything from climate change to quantum computing. But researchers question their accuracy
The science of Bluey
Bluey quietly incorporates scientifically accurate STEM concepts into stories of childhood and family life,