SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Harvard University " 24 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Statistician Susan Murphy to present 2026 Chemerda Lectures in Science Nov. 4, 5
Susan Murphy, Mallinckrodt Professor of Statistics and of Computer Science, and associate faculty in the Kempner Institute for the Study of Natural and Artificial Intelligence at Harvard University, will present the 2026 John M. Chemerda Lectures in Science on Nov. 4 and 5 at Penn State University Park. The free public lectures are sponsored by the Penn State Eberly College of Science.
Anthropic adds former Harvard science dean to oversight body
Anthropic said on Wednesday that Christopher Stubbs, former dean of science at Harvard University, had joined its oversight body, which holds the power to appoint a majority of the AI startup's board.Here are some details:
Concern after Europeans endorse US science agenda
Germany’s biggest research funder has said it is “concerned” after Berlin, plus several other European countries, endorsed a controversial US-led science policy statement. On October 4, the White House announced that 16 countries, including Germany, the UK, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Poland, Japan and South Korea had backed the Kyoto Vision for a Golden Age of Science.The document, agreed on the margins of the annual Science and Technology in Society forum in Kyoto, which gathers science ministers from across the world, appears uncontroversial at first sight. It’s a one-page statement, without any concrete measures, that touches on reducing administrative burden on scientists, experimenting with new funding models and the use of “super intelligence” in science, the Trump administration’s preferred term for artificial intelligence. However, what’s controversial is that much of the language in the Kyoto Vision reflects Science: A New Golden Age, a major policy document released by the White House in July.That document attracted criticism for deriding universities as “legacy institutions” and suggesting money be diverted to new research labs. In a speech in Kyoto on October 4, Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office for Science and Technology Policy and the report’s author, said that the US was seeking to “diversify the ways that we support research to meet our best scientists where and when they do their best work.” The worry is that the Trump administration may be using genuine dysfunctions in academia as a pretext to defund and disempower universities, which US vice president JD Vance has labelled “the enemy.” Many in Europe also want more experimentation and reform of how science is organised and funded, and agree with criticisms of academia made by Science: A New Golden Age. But some also fear that if the US pushes for reform partially in bad faith, it could politicise and undermine the whole agenda. Washington is currently trying to change federal funding rules so that political appointees can block and cancel scientific grants. It has cut grants mid-project on topics related to diversity and other politically forbidden areas. And last year, it threatened to cut Harvard University’s federal funding unless it admitted a “critical mass” of new faculty and students to create campus “viewpoint diversity.” “Particularly concerned”Because of this wider US political context, the Kyoto Vision’s otherwise innocuous sounding statement that “we encourage experimentation with new institutional models for science that provide varying levels of autonomy, resources and direction” has caused consternation in Europe, particularly from some of Germany’s biggest science organisations. A spokesperson for the German Research Foundation (DFG), the country’s biggest funder, said that it would “closely monitor whether the current US administration uses the Kyoto Vision to restructure research funding to the detriment of research institutions such as universities and their autonomy.” The DFG was “particularly concerned” with the statement’s references to Science: A New Golden Age, they continued. A spokesperson for the German Rectors’ Conference, which represents the country’s universities, said that the reference to “new institutional models” raises “questions on the underlying understanding of academic freedom and autonomy.” Research funding must “guided first and foremost by scientific not political principles,” they went on. Dampen criticismEuropean endorsement of the Kyoto Vision might dampen domestic criticism of the Trump administration’s science policy, some in the US fear, by suggesting international support. “What we saw from Germany, Japan, the UK and other countries, is an impulse that the administration has exploited with our own science reform movement, a belief they can use dialogue to make things better,” said Cole Donovan, director of science policy at the campaigning group Stand Up for Science. “In practice, the administration has done the opposite.” Not a binding statementThere’s been so much concern in Germany that the country’s federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space put out a statement defending its endorsement of the Kyoto Vision, which it has posted on its website. Related articlesIs metascience being co-opted?European researchers sound the alarm that Trump rule changes will hit cooperationThe US ‘golden age’ science strategy: what Europeans need to know The ministry said that it “should be regarded as a basis for discussion and does not constitute a binding statement.” Backing the statement gives Germany the chance to raise “issues and concerns” with the US during upcoming talks on science and technology scheduled for November. “Although these intentions appear, in principle, to be worthy of support, they will be scrutinised and examined more closely as the process continues,” the statement continues. Super intelligence?A ministry spokesperson confirmed to Science|Business that Germany had broadly endorsed the Kyoto Vision.However, they said Berlin had not agreed to final changes in the statement to refer to AI as super intelligence. In September, facing protests against data centres and polling that suggests US citizens are far more concerned than excited by the technology, Trump issued an executive order that attempts to rebrand AI as super intelligence, following polling on social media.The name change is to “reflect the transformative capabilities of these technologies and the limitless opportunities they create for the American people,” the order says. EU askedThe UK and Italian science ministries did not respond to a request for comment on their endorsement of the Kyoto Vision. Although most EU countries did not endorse the statement, it’s not clear which states the US asked. The White House Office for Science and Technology Policy did not return a request for comment. A European Commission official, speaking under condition of anonymity, said that the US had approached the EU, but too late for the EU to quiz all its member states on whether Brussels should endorse the statement.
What higher education can do to get students involved in politics.
A recent national poll conducted by Harvard University revealed that young Americans are a pessimistic bunch. People between ages 18 and 29 view inflation and the rising cost of housing as national crises. More than a quarter of young adults believe they’ll end up worse off financially than their pa...
From paleo to intermittent fasting: are any diets actually good for us?
As diet trends proliferate on social media, it can be hard to work out which are backed by science and which should be ignored. From paleo to keto, raw food to intermittent fasting, each attracts a tribe of ardent followers. Now Daniel Lieberman, professor of biological sciences at Harvard University, has written a book to try to cut through the noise. In Fed Up, he uses his background as an evolutionary anthropologist to scrutinise the evidence, turning himself into a guinea pig in the process and trying various diets. In this podcast, he tells Ian Sample which one has remained part of his routine
How geopolitical rifts cut scientific collaboration
Researchers have measured how worsening geopolitical relations hobble scientific collaboration, at last quantifying the impact of rifts between governments on cooperation between labs. Over the last decade, a tenser world has thrown up new barriers to cross-border science. Collaboration between the US and China has dimmed as the two countries have sunk into an ever-deeper rivalry. Links between Russia and Europe have collapsed following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. But while a concern, the magnitude of the damage is less than might be expected. For all the geopolitical turmoil of the last decade, international scientific collaborations are near a record high. “Some part of the story is positive,” said Shreyas Gadgin Matha, a social scientist at Harvard University and an author of the new study. “Research collaborations are largely resilient.” Matha and colleagues looked at data on cross-border research papers and patents in the period 2000-23, and analysed how they were impacted by countries’ political relations, as measured by how often states voted together in the United Nations. They found that when states drift apart at the UN by the median difference in votes between all countries, joint scientific papers decline by 3.1% over the next three-year period. To put that in context, over the last decade, the US and China have diverged by around a third of that difference in votes every three years. In other words, on average, it takes quite a significant diplomatic rift even to trigger a small single-digit percentage drop in joint papers. “In the short term, even something like a 3% reduction [in joint papers] is, in some ways, not that big of a number,” said Matha. Research remains more international than ever, according to an analysis extending to 2023 released by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2025. We’re still living in an era of unprecedented scientific globalisation, the analysis says, with 27% of papers in OECD countries written across borders. In 1970, just 2% of articles had authors from different countries. Longer-term damage?However, this trend towards increasing international collaboration “has lost momentum and might be partly breaking down,” the OECD analysis says, largely due to a fall in the intensity of US-China joint papers since 2018. Matha and his colleagues stressed they are not complacent about the global science system. For now, “it's pretty resilient,” said co-author Muhammed Yildirim, director of academic research at Harvard’s Growth Lab. But if links are weakened, through the denial of study visas, for example, then this could have a much longer-term effect, cascading through generations of scientists, he added. Related articlesChina becomes Russia’s biggest collaborator after war decimates science ties with the west US scientists prefer German to Chinese collaborators, study finds Horizon Europe is now truly global. But what comes next? Another finding of the study, Burning bridges or bridging divides: Geopolitics and collaboration in research and innovation, is that trust appears easier to destroy than create.The hit to scientific collaboration when countries drift apart is around three times as big as the growth in joint papers when they move closer, the paper finds. “It's far easier to break these ties than to mend them, and that that also perhaps has some larger policy lesson,” said Matha.PatentsThe results around patents were less clear cut. Some methods of analysis found a statistically significant link between a diplomatic rift and a drop in co-patenting, but others did not. According to Yildirim, patents with cross-border inventors are often developed by multinational companies, which may have invested heavily in global R&D facilities, so are less likely to change how they operate simply due to a change in the geopolitical weather. “That's why we might not be seeing the effect immediately in technology,” he said.By contrast, researchers might be more sensitive to geopolitics, because visa policies can quickly affect who meets who at academic conferences, he went on. International collaboration on patents is much lower than for academic articles, the study shows. It peaked at around 10% in 2010, and has since fallen back to around 8%. This could be because China dramatically ramped up domestic patents in the 2010s, said Yildirim, squeezing the international share.
How geopolitical rifts cut scientific collaboration
Researchers have measured how worsening geopolitical relations hobble scientific collaboration, at last quantifying the impact of rifts between governments on cooperation between labs. Over the last decade, a tenser world has thrown up new barriers to cross-border science. Collaboration between the US and China has dimmed as the two countries have sunk into an ever-deeper rivalry. Links between Russia and Europe have collapsed following Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. But while a concern, the magnitude of the damage is less than might be expected. For all the geopolitical turmoil of the last decade, international scientific collaborations are near a record high. “Some part of the story is positive,” said Shreyas Gadgin Matha, a social scientist at Harvard University and an author of the new study. “Research collaborations are largely resilient.” Matha and colleagues looked at data on cross-border research papers and patents in the period 2000-23, and analysed how they were impacted by countries’ political relations, as measured by how often states voted together in the United Nations. They found that when states drift apart at the UN by the median difference in votes between all countries, joint scientific papers decline by 3.1% over the next three-year period. To put that in context, over the last decade, the US and China have diverged by around a third of that difference in votes every three years. In other words, on average, it takes quite a significant diplomatic rift even to trigger a small single-digit percentage drop in joint papers. “In the short term, even something like a 3% reduction [in joint papers] is, in some ways, not that big of a number,” said Matha. Research remains more international than ever, according to an analysis extending to 2023 released by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 2025. We’re still living in an era of unprecedented scientific globalisation, the analysis says, with 27% of papers in OECD countries written across borders. In 1970, just 2% of articles had authors from different countries. Longer-term damage?However, this trend towards increasing international collaboration “has lost momentum and might be partly breaking down,” the OECD analysis says, largely due to a fall in the intensity of US-China joint papers since 2018. Matha and his colleagues stressed they are not complacent about the global science system. For now, “it's pretty resilient,” said co-author Muhammed Yildirim, director of academic research at Harvard’s Growth Lab. But if links are weakened, through the denial of study visas, for example, then this could have a much longer-term effect, cascading through generations of scientists, he added. Related articlesChina becomes Russia’s biggest collaborator after war decimates science ties with the west US scientists prefer German to Chinese collaborators, study finds Horizon Europe is now truly global. But what comes next? Another finding of the study, Burning bridges or bridging divides: Geopolitics and collaboration in research and innovation, is that trust appears easier to destroy than create.The hit to scientific collaboration when countries drift apart is around three times as big as the growth in joint papers when they move closer, the paper finds. “It's far easier to break these ties than to mend them, and that that also perhaps has some larger policy lesson,” said Matha.PatentsThe results around patents were less clear cut. Some methods of analysis found a statistically significant link between a diplomatic rift and a drop in co-patenting, but others did not. According to Yildirim, patents with cross-border inventors are often developed by multinational companies, which may have invested heavily in global R&D facilities, so are less likely to change how they operate simply due to a change in the geopolitical weather. “That's why we might not be seeing the effect immediately in technology,” he said.By contrast, researchers might be more sensitive to geopolitics, because visa policies can quickly affect who meets who at academic conferences, he went on. International collaboration on patents is much lower than for academic articles, the study shows. It peaked at around 10% in 2010, and has since fallen back to around 8%. This could be because China dramatically ramped up domestic patents in the 2010s, said Yildirim, squeezing the international share.
How the Cold War US Military Modeled Itself on Private Business
The following is an excerpt from Pentagon Capitalism: How the Cold War US Military Modeled Itself on Private Business by A. J. Murphy, now out at Harvard University Press.
Hutchins Forum Continues to Put Politics of Race Center Stage
It was 1995, and Henry Louis (Skip) Gates Jr. was four years into his tenure at Harvard University, when he was tasked with building the “greatest center of African and African American studies in
US Stand Up for Science movement expands to Europe
A grassroots movement by scientists in the US pushing back against threats to academic freedom is setting up a Swiss outpost to take the movement global. Stand Up for Science started in February 2025 to protest against politically-motivated grant cancellations by the Trump administration. Since then, it has organised numerous rallies by scientists and turned into a broader campaigning organisation, supporting “pro-science” political candidates and attempting to impeach Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the health and human services secretary the group accuses of advancing “quack” science. Now, Stand Up for Science is establishing a Swiss office to take some of its campaigning beyond the US, and its leader is urging European academics to organise similar pro-science groups in case they face similar threats in Europe. There will likely be “spillover” to Europe from what the Trump administration is attempting in the US, said Colette Delawalla, chief executive of Stand Up for Science, who last month returned from a tour of Europe. “Are we going to see a Trump-style scientific [. . .] take over in the same way?” she asked.Delawalla, who is doing a PhD in clinical psychology, said she was driven to help found the organisation after the Trump administration started cancelling health research grants in politically taboo topics, such as transgender people, diversity and HIV, in early 2025. Since then, the administration has introduced several other measures that infringe academic and institutional autonomy.It threatened to cut Harvard University’s federal funding unless the university accepted a “critical mass” of new faculty and students to create “viewpoint diversity.” And this year, it proposed explosive new rules that would allow political appointees at research funders to screen grants to make sure they “advance the president's policy priorities.”US scientists have been at times stunned by the volume of announcements, and the country’s researchers were relatively unprepared. “We sit in front of the fire hose every day,” said Delawalla. For this reason, European scientists need to prepare now for similar assaults. “If you've got a little bit of extra time to start thinking through, and making those preparations and building community and solidarity,” then European researchers will “start five steps ahead of where we were.” She plans to return to Paris in September to share experiences with concerned French academics. Is Le Pen the same?During her European tour, Delawalla said that French academics were beginning to worry about a National Rally (RN) victory in presidential elections next year. She said there were “chilling similarities” between Trump and Marine Le Pen, the RN’s likely candidate. However, so far, the RN hasn’t proposed anything nearly as radical as the Trump administration has carried out. Its current manifesto is all but silent on university and research policy. Le Pen’s 2022 manifesto bemoaned a lack of French R&D spending, including in fundamental research, and promised to modernise labs and strip away grant bureaucracy. The party’s 2024 European election manifesto explicitly supported the Erasmus+ student exchange programme, scientific exchange and joint European technology projects. However, a Le Pen victory next year could see France drastically cut its contribution to the EU, which would hit the budget for science and innovation. Meanwhile, more restrictive immigration policies could hit university recruitment of faculty and students. Climate science denial?As heatwaves and wildfires have ravaged France, the RN has sought to distance itself from previous comments casting doubt on climate science.In the UK, the radical-right party Reform UK, now second in the polls, denied climate research in a draft of its 2024 election manifesto, but its leader, Nigel Farage, then appeared to quietly U-turn and said he was “not arguing the science.” By contrast, Trump has repeatedly and explicitly denied climate change science, in 2025 calling it “the greatest con job.” Like the RN, Reform UK has been light on research and university policy. However, it did say in its 2024 manifesto that universities should suffer “heavy financial penalties” for allowing “political bias or cancel culture” on campus, building on laws brought in by a previous Conservative government. Ahead of September state elections in Saxony-Anhalt in Germany, the poll-leading Alternative for Germany has proposed abolishing gender studies and postcolonial studies, and promised money for “critical” climate research and studies of Islam. Starts with rhetoricEven if European radical right parties aren’t currently planning the draconian policy measures of the Trump administration, Delawalla said that academics should not be complacent, and fight even small funding restrictions or anti-science talk from the start. “It starts off with sowing distrust about institutions,” she said. “It starts off with these small things, and then all of a sudden it's there.” There are other, more established science and university advocacy groups in the US aside from Stand Up for Science. But the group stands out because of Delawalla’s refusal to attempt to appear politically bipartisan or conciliatory. “I firmly believe that the US is experiencing fascism,” she said. “We’re not trying to win over the super Maga people,” she said, “and we never have been.” The lesson of the US is that even if universities or other institutions capitulate to government demands, this doesn’t save them from cuts and restrictions. “It doesn’t matter what people do,” she said. Global “pseudoscience”Another aim of Stand Up for Science’s push into Europe is to better coordinate a campaign to protect people in poorer countries from what the group describes as “pseudoscientific exploitation,” trials outside the US used to build a case against things like vaccines. Earlier this year, the group sent an investigator to Guinea-Bissau to investigate a controversial, Danish-run Hepatitis B vaccine project funded by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.The study would have withheld a proven vaccine from newborns, Stand Up for Science argued in a briefing it presented to Congress, risking their health. Significantly, the research group based in Guinea-Bissau, known as Bandim, focuses on the “non-specific effects” of vaccines: impacts on health beyond preventing the target disease. Related articlesEuropean researchers sound the alarm that Trump rule changes will hit cooperationData corner: which fields of health science is the US curbing? The US ‘golden age’ science strategy: what Europeans need to know The suspicion is that the study was funded as part of an attempt to shop around for results that could help build a case against vaccines in the US, said Delawalla. “This is just code for vaccines cause autism,” she said.Bandim has put out a rebuttal of Stand Up for Science’s criticisms, arguing its work has uncovered a number of vaccine side effects, both positive and negative, which need to be taken into account in public health. However, Congressional Democrats took up the Stand Up for Science cause, and in February, Guinea-Bissau said it had permanently halted the study. WatchdogBut for Delawalla, this is not the end of the fight. Kennedy has made a number of health claims that scientists think lack evidence, such as the idea that seed oils cause inflammation, for example. Delawalla worries that more studies could be launched in poorer countries to fish around for evidence to support this agenda. Stand Up for Science is talking to African science organisations to create a kind of “watchdog” to scrutinise any further trials. “Outsourcing the investigation to some of the most vulnerable children in the world who are desperate [. . .] is fundamentally wrong,” she said.
The oldest colleges in every state
The oldest college in the United States is Harvard University, founded in 1636.
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.
Wyss Institute receives Massachusetts Life Science Center award to advance metabolomics and lipidomics research across Massachusetts ecosystem
By Benjamin Boettner (BOSTON) — The Wyss Institute at Harvard University has received an award from the Massachusetts Life Science Center (MLSC), enabling it to host a next-generation metabolomics and lipidomics analytical platform. The platform will allow its researchers to creatively pursue new approaches to biomarker and drug discovery across multiple health challenges the Institute...
The best universities for radiology education, according to US News & World Report
Harvard University is the No. 1 school in the world for radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging, according to the publication.
New science advisory council forms to help US government ‘resolve the UAP mystery’
Theoretical physicist and Harvard University Professor Avi Loeb shared early details about the new UAP Science Advisory Council.
Scientists reveal more than 1.3 million people may share DNA with Maryland’s earliest colonists
According to new findings by researchers from Harvard University, there could be more than one million three hundred thousand individuals living today who share their genetic material with some of the original colonists of Maryland in the United States, as shown in an innovative genetic study titled ‘The genetic legacy of the 17th-century colonial capital of St. Mary’s City’ in Current Biology.
“Public deserves to know”: Harvard Professor says official messaging contradicts hantavirus science
Today, for the first time, passengers started evacuating the cruise ship at the center of the deadly hantavirus outbreak, which has killed at least three people onboard. Joseph Allen, Professor of Exposure Assessment Science at Harvard University, joins “The Weekend: Primetime” to discuss what he sees as contradictory messaging over how people contract hantavirus, and shares what he learned after speaking with a doctor on board the ship.
Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy on American Politics and the GOP
Former U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy participates in a discussion on the state of American politics and the Republican party at a forum hosted by The John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum at Harvard University.
Global health leaders convene to advance innovation, equity, and collective action
The Harvard Global Health Institute (HGHI) has announced the full agenda and speaker lineup for its fourth annual Global Health Symposium, scheduled for April 16 at Harvard University and livestreamed via…
Trailblazing Atmospheric Scientist Was ‘a Titan in the Scientific World’
Harvard University researcher Michael McElroy made groundbreaking contributions to climate science and helped shape global environmental policy.
Actor Michael Keaton to be honored as Man of the Year by Harvard's Hasty Pudding theater group
Actor Michael Keaton is set to be honored as the 2026 Man of the Year by Harvard University’s Hasty Pudding Theatricals. Keaton will receive his Pudding Pot award at a celebratory roast Friday....
The Cost of Ignoring Fossil Fuel Pollution’s Health Impacts
From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Steve Curwood with Dr. Vanessa Kerry at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. Ever since the Six Cities study, led by Harvard University’s public health experts, first found in the 1990s that coal power plant smokestacks were […]
Harvard University Offers 7 Free Data Science Courses, Check Full List
Harvard University offers seven free online data science courses lasting eight to nine weeks with one to two hours of study weekly. Applications close June 17, 2026.
The New WHO Pandemic Treaty and Global Health Governance: Incorporating Common but Differentiated Responsibilities into PABS - Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
On May 20, 2025, the World Health Assembly unanimously adopted the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement, an international treaty designed to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. The product of three years of arduous negotiations, the treaty marks a new era of global cooperation in public health. However, core aspects of the agreement remain unresolved—notably the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) System, which is intended to ensure equitable access to pandemic-related materials and benefits. To support the successful implementation of the WHO Pandemic Agreement, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” should be formally incorporated into the negotiating agenda of the PABS annex. Introduction For the first time, an international treaty has enshrined the principle of “One Health,” the compelling idea that the health of animals, humans, and the environment all contribute to pandemic risks. SARS (2003), H1N1 (2009–10), Ebola (2014–16), and COVID-19 all emerged through zoonotic spillover from animal hosts—respectively, civets, hogs, and bats. Together, they underscore the need for a coordinated, cross-sectoral approach. The Pandemic Agreement responds to this call, requiring state parties to acknowledge the ecological interplay and commit to a comprehensive “One Health” strategy. Specifically, Article 5 charges governments to address “the drivers of pandemics and the emergence and re-emergence of infectious disease at the human-animal-environment interface,” including wild animal markets, deforestation, and antibiotic overuse. Yet the effectiveness of this “One Health” vision depends equally on the free flow of scientific information and data among countries and institutions. Just as environmental and animal health factors have been neglected in past global frameworks, so too has data sharing been marginalized, despite its centrality to timely detection and response. The Pandemic Agreement takes an important step by requiring governments to enhance data collection and cooperate with the World Health Organization (WHO). However, these provisions will remain aspirational without a robust Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) annex. The PABS system will determine whether countries and researchers can rapidly exchange pathogen samples and genetic data while ensuring equitable access to resulting research and development, including diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines. Without such mechanisms, the treaty’s promise to operationalize “One Health” and strengthen global preparedness will risk becoming largely symbolic, echoing earlier failures to translate shared principles into coordinated action. Equity Concerns When the 2025 Health Assembly adopted the Pandemic Agreement, it left the difficult question of access to pathogens and the sharing of resulting benefits to be addressed in a separate agreement. Negotiations on this separate agreement, PABS, are now underway in Geneva. Yet governments remain divided over fundamental questions of equity between the countries that primarily contribute to the system and those that primarily draw from it—and consequently benefit. For example, wildlife in countries bordering the equator is likely to produce PABS materials, but companies in Europe are likely to use them to develop lucrative products. The most likely contributor countries are likely to be those biodiverse countries around the equator, such as Brazil, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Indonesia, where the number of human-mammalian viral host interactions is large. Conversely, countries most likely to benefit from this material are those with the technology, investors, and infrastructure to capitalize on genomic data, such as the United States, EU member states, and Japan. This imbalance reflects a broader pattern seen in prior international frameworks. Now, as in the past, the wealthiest countries in the world (a useful heuristic is membership of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)) disproportionately benefit from systems in which pathogens and genomic sequencing data are contributed to a common source. Under the International Agreement on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (the “Plant Treaty” or “Seed Treaty”) and the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework, companies from Europe and North America disproportionately withdraw biological samples and data for development into lucrative medical products. Their governments and companies have both statutory and contractual claims to the products that those companies correspondingly produce. PABS appears poised to follow the same pattern. The text calls for strong language on access to pathogens and associated data, but the corresponding benefits that should flow to poorer countries are couched in equivocal or non-binding language. Common but Differentiated Responsibilities To address these inequities, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” should be formally incorporated into the negotiating agenda of the PABS annex. Common but differentiated responsibilities are often a feature of climate change negotiations. The basic principle is that, even though all countries should reduce carbon emissions, governments that became rich and powerful through massive carbon emissions (e.g., France, the United Kingdom, the United States) should have a greater obligation to address the resulting crises. Applied to PABS, it would require that governments hosting and supporting companies developing lucrative products carry greater obligations toward the cost of running the PABS system; share benefits or final medical products; and transfer technology to help countries worldwide develop their own capacities to innovate and manufacture vaccines during an emergency. For example, an annex could mandate that any company based in an OECD country that withdraws PABS material would be obligated to donate the resulting diagnostics, therapeutics, or vaccines to the WHO during a public health emergency or pandemic. Questions remain about how robust those donations would be, but the principle is that they should deliver highly significant lifesaving benefits to be equitably shared. Theoretically, this approach mirrors the PIP Framework, in which companies withdrawing influenza samples are required to pay half of the operating costs. In practice, however, the framework has fallen short. The PIP Framework Secretariat has struggled to secure payments from companies, with companies often disagreeing over how much is owed. Additionally, without another pandemic influenza to test the strength of the agreement during a public health emergency, corporate compliance with sharing mechanisms remains unknown. Even if these limitations did not characterize the PIP Framework, partially paying for operating expenses does not address the inequity in access to genetic data and pathogen samples that left less developed countries last in line for COVID-19 vaccines (and, before them, H1N1). Common but differentiated responsibilities would go further, addressing governments’ legitimate grievances regarding information sharing. It would make withdrawals of PABS material and resulting products more transparent, building trust across the board. Enforcement and Enduring Success A key implication of this approach is that the governing mechanism of the PABS must have real enforcement authority. The WHO Pandemic Agreement delegates its core governance responsibilities to a Conference of the Parties (COP)—a governing body composed of one representative from each participating government, similar to those established under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The proposed WHO Pandemic Agreement COP is charged with oversight functions but ultimately possesses no real authority to compel a government to take any action it does not wish to take. The text does not give the COP the ability to, for example, sanction a party that does not comply with either textual obligations or PABS provisions. In other words, there are no effective mechanisms in place to ensure compliance. Perhaps just as significant, establishing a meaningful enforcement mechanism within the PABS system would strengthen the WHO’s credibility and its ability to ensure compliance across global health governance. By setting a precedent for accountability, such a mechanism could enhance the organization’s authority not only within the Pandemic Agreement but also in enforcing the revised International Health Regulations and other frameworks for public health emergencies. Conclusion The PABS annex can—and should—be different. It should establish clear responsibilities for funding as well as for sharing the diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines that result from contributions to the system. The system, in turn, must include a dedicated body empowered to hold governments and the corporations they sponsor accountable for their responsibilities before, during, and after pandemics. Doing so would restore trust in the broader agreement, which was eroded as commitments were repeatedly diluted while parties scrambled to meet their own self-imposed deadlines during the Pandemic Agreement negotiations. A robust PABS Annex would cement a grand social bargain. Wealthier countries and their corporations would gain unimpeded access to scientific information essential for developing and manufacturing lifesaving medical products. As such, they would stand to gain considerable economic benefit. Yet that privilege must be matched with responsibility. The grand bargain must include not only the right to innovate, but also the duty to ensure that innovation serves all. As medical products are developed and produced through collective contributions, every person must have equal access. All human beings deserve an equitable chance to survive—to save their own life, the lives of their families, and the well-being of their communities. … Sam Halabi, JD, MPhil, is the Bette Jacobs Endowed Professor at Georgetown University’s School of Health and the Director of the Center for Transformational Health Law at Georgetown Law. He serves as the co-lead for the WHO’s Working Group on Regulatory Consideration on AI and Health’s training workstream. He earned his JD from Harvard, his MPhil from Oxford, and undergraduate degrees from Kansas State University. Lawrence Gostin, LLD (Hon.), JD, BA, is University Distinguished Professor and Founding Director and Timothy and Linda O’Neill Professor of the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law. He is the author of Global Health Security: A Blueprint for the Future (Harvard University Press, 2021); Global Health Law (Harvard University Press, 2014); Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint (University of California Press, 3rd ed., 2016); Public Health Law and Ethics: A Reader (University of California Press, 3rd ed., 2018); Law and the Health System (Foundation Press, 2014); Principles of Mental Health Law & Practice (Oxford University Press, 2010). He also directs the WHO Collaborating Center at Georgetown University. Image Credit: United States Mission Geneva, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons