SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY

Search headlines

Find the stories shaping the conversation.

Search mode
Refine results
Active filters Keyword All time

Results for " Stanford University " 33 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle

CU Denver Researchers Among the Top 2% of Highly Cited Scientists in the World

The impact of CU Denver research is reflected in the 2026 Highly Cited Research lists, published in October by Stanford University and Elsevier.

news.ucdenver.edu logo
Oct 29 • 6:21 PM EDT • Science • news.ucdenver.edu
11 Marquette faculty members among top 2% of world’s most-cited scientists

According to research at Stanford University, 11 current Marquette faculty members are listed among the top 2% of cited scientists in the world.

today.marquette.edu logo
Oct 26 • 11:59 AM EDT • Science • today.marquette.edu
Several S&T researchers among top 2% cited scientists in their fields

A total of 94 current and former researchers affiliated with Missouri S&T are among the world’s top 2% most-cited scientists recognized either for their career-long impact or for their 2025 metrics, according to a Stanford University analysis of the Elsevier Data Repository....Continue Reading Several S&T researchers among top 2% cited scientists in their fields

news.mst.edu logo
Oct 20 • 5:13 PM EDT • Science • news.mst.edu
Harvard and Yale miss top 10 for computer science in 2027 US university ranking

Carnegie Mellon University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Stanford University tie for first in U.S. News & World Report's 2027 ranking of undergraduate computer science programs, released Sept. 22.

e.vnexpress.net logo
Sep 29 • 12:00 AM EDT • Science • e.vnexpress.net
Bucket List Provides an Experiential Introduction into a World of Electronic Musical Entertainment

Bucket List, an experimental music band conceived at Stanford University, performed in Ring Family Performing Arts Hall a little over a week ago. The band consists of Mark Applebaum on keyboard and guitar, Andy Meyerson on percussion, and Travis Andrews on guitar. All members perform vocals. Their performance was titled “Achievement: Presented by the Achievement […]

wesleyanargus.com logo
Sep 28 • 11:48 PM EDT • Entertainment • wesleyanargus.com
Arzana raises $4.3M to automate factory paperwork

Growing up around manufacturing in Okoboji, William Alexander wondered if there were ways to make administrative tasks more efficient to give manufacturers more time to focus on their specialties. After graduating from Stanford University, Alexander teamed up with classmate Marshall Kools to develop Arzana, which builds custom artificial intelligence models around client workflows and data,…

businessrecord.com logo
Sep 25 • 7:00 AM EDT • Business • businessrecord.com
Stanford Scientists Find That the Human Brain Is Actually Two Separate Organs

A team led by scientists at Stanford University determined that the human brain is technically made up of two distinct organs.

futurism.com logo
Sep 24 • 9:41 AM EDT • Science • futurism.com
Fewer computer science students graduate from Stanford. What comes next?

The number of undergraduate computer science bachelor degrees conferred by Stanford University in 2026 decreased by 70 people – almost 14 percent – compared to the year before.

paloaltoonline.com logo
Sep 22 • 10:08 PM EDT • Science • paloaltoonline.com
Part-human part-mouse brain developed in science breakthrough

Researchers at Stanford University genetically altered mice to be able to receive and function with human brain cells.

ca.news.yahoo.com logo
Sep 16 • 11:58 AM EDT • Science • ca.news.yahoo.com
Part-human part-mouse brain developed in science breakthrough

Researchers at Stanford University genetically altered mice to be able to receive and function with human brain cells.

bbc.com logo
Sep 16 • 11:53 AM EDT • Science • bbc.com
What Comes Before Stomach Cancer? Researchers Are Finding Out.

Call it a “gut feeling.” For some stomach cancers, the first signs may appear years before a diagnosis. At Sutter Health Research Institute, Dr. Su-Ying Liang is helping lead that work. Through Gastroshare, she and researchers at Stanford University are using artificial intelligence and electronic health record data to study early changes in the stomach […]

vitals.sutterhealth.org logo
Sep 15 • 8:27 PM EDT • Health • vitals.sutterhealth.org
😐 Neutral (9%)
wow
100%
Fully Funded Stanford Science Fellowships 2027: $98,000 Stipend for Early-Career Scientists

Stanford University has opened applications for the Stanford Science Fellowships 2027 selection cycle, offering an exceptional opportunity for early-career

globalsouthopportunities.com logo
Sep 12 • 2:25 PM EDT • Science • globalsouthopportunities.com
Seattle Children’s names new CIO

Dr. Natalie Pageler has been appointed senior VP and chief information officer after years spent as a pediatrician and clinical informaticist at Stanford Children’s Health and Stanford University School of Medicine.

healthcareitnews.com logo
Aug 21 • 9:56 AM EDT • Health • healthcareitnews.com
Reimagined night-call model boosts interventional radiologist well-being

Stanford University Medical Center has sought to alleviate burnout by rearranging its call model to minimize strain on physicians.

radiologybusiness.com logo
Aug 11 • 2:22 AM EDT • Business • radiologybusiness.com
Hands-On Learning, Mentorship Launch Science Grad’s Next Chapter

A chemistry grad’s next stop is Stanford University, but the path that led him there was shaped in the classrooms, labs and research groups at the University of Guelph. Peter Kim’s love for science…

news.uoguelph.ca logo
Aug 10 • 8:31 AM EDT • Science • news.uoguelph.ca
Stanford lecturer says red light therapy has real science behind it — but not every device works

Red light therapy has become a fixture on social media, with influencers claiming it can improve skin, reduce pain and speed recovery. Rachele Pojednic, faculty at Stanford University and chief science officer at Restore Hyper Wellness, said the science behind it is more solid than many people assume.

ktvu.com logo
Jul 26 • 12:46 PM EDT • Science • ktvu.com
Red Light Therapy - social media fad or real science?

Red light therapy has become a fixture on social media, with influencers claiming it can improve skin, reduce pain and speed recovery. Rachele Pojednic, faculty at Stanford University and chief science officer at Restore Hyper Wellness, said the science behind it is more solid than many people assume.

ktvu.com logo
Jul 26 • 12:30 PM EDT • Science • ktvu.com
😐 Neutral (16%)
ahah
100%
Science on Target: Q2 2026 Research Spotlight

Basic Biology Consortium breaks new ground in ALS In 2022, Target ALS awarded funding to Drs. Jonathan Cooper-Knock (University of Sheffield, project lead) and Michael Snyder (Stanford University), along with fellow consortium members Drs. Ophir Shalem (University of Pennsylvania) and Eran Hornstein (Weizmann Institute), for their project “Exploring the landscape of ALS genetics with machine […]

targetals.org logo
Jul 8 • 11:38 AM EDT • Science • targetals.org
😐 Neutral (0%)
California dad who drove family off cliff has charges dropped after mental health treatment

A judge dismissed the charges Monday after Dharmesh Patel completed a two-year mental health diversion program with a Stanford University psychiatrist and a family therapist.

nbcnews.com logo
Jul 7 • 6:37 PM EDT • Health • nbcnews.com
High-Signal Publisher
WHO Step-by-Step programme recognized as a promising innovation for mental health in humanitarian settings

WHO, in collaboration with the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and Lebanon’s National Mental Health Programme, showcased Step-by-Step at the World Bank Group’s biennial Fragility Forum in Washington, DC. The forum convened more than 1500 representatives from governments, international organizations and civil society to advance the development agenda in the world’s most fragile and crisis-affected communities. WHO was invited to demonstrate Step-by-Step – a digital self-help intervention for depression, alongside innovations presented by Stanford University and Google. The World Bank Group selected Step-by-Step from among more than 50 innovations that they reviewed in the lead up to the Forum.About Step-by-StepStep-by-Step is a free digital tool developed by WHO in collaboration with Lebanon’s National Mental Health Programme and other partners, that helps people manage depression and anxiety on their own, with light guidance from a trained supporter. It uses a picture-based story to walk users through evidence-based techniques for managing common mental health conditions. Users complete five modules, with weekly contacts – of around 15 minutes each – from a trained non-specialist helper, such as a community health worker.Evidence-basedClinical trials in Lebanon involving nearly 1250 participants – including 680 Lebanese participants and 569 Syrian participants – showed that Step-by-Step significantly reduced depression, anxiety and stress, and improved daily functioning. By the end of the programme, a reduction in depressive symptoms of more than 50% was reported by almost half (46%) of Lebanese participants and more than one third (37%) of Syrian participants compared to approximately 14% of those who did not use the programme. Cost-effectiveness analyses further suggest that Step-by-Step may offer a cost-saving response to depression in humanitarian emergencies in low- and middle-income countries.Used globallyStep-by-Step is already in use nationwide in Lebanon and Thailand, as part of each country’s mental health system. In India, the NGO – Kaya Guides – has adapted Step-by-Step for delivery through a widely used messaging app. Together, these programmes have provided thousands of people with evidence-based support for depression. The content is freely available from the WHO website for any organization or country to adapt for their own context.A new implementation guideThe Fragility Forum coincided with the recent launch of WHO’s new practical guide: Psychological self-help interventions: delivering self-help for individuals, featuring Step-by-Step and Doing What Matters in Times of Stress (WHO, 2026). The guide is designed to help governments, health workers, organizations and planners bring evidence-based mental health support to more people, particularly in low-resource and crisis-affected settings.

who.int logo
Jun 16 • 8:00 PM EDT • Health • who.int
Bond breakout? Big effects of bad data. Immigration and thermostatic politics & dad-chat is coming for dad-books.

Thank you for opening your Chartbook email. Anna Airy, A Shell Forge at a National Projectile Factory, Hackney Marshes, London, 1918 Bond breakout - John Authers Across the developed markets, bond markets are staging a slow-motion car wreck. Looking at the drastic moves in the US, Japan, the UK and France, Barclays’ Ajay Rajadhyaksha commented: “Last week, long bonds broke. Not in one country. In all of them. Simultaneously. Four countries. Four different political systems. Four different central banks. But the same trade — “get me out of duration!”” Each country has its own contributing political problems, but the uniformity of the shift out of long-term bonds with high duration makes clear that something broader is afoot. For Rajadhyaksha, it is “simple and uncomfortable.” The developed​ world “has too much debt, too little fiscal discipline, and no political appetite for fixing either.” If there’s a trigger, it has been the Iran war and the resulting shock to oil supply. Source: Bloomberg G7 countries are now borrowing at rates that were enjoyed by EM in the early 2020s For contributing subscribers only. Subscribe Trade between China and Russia has grown in recent years For contributing subscribers only. Subscribe Big effects of bad data A decade ago nearly nine in ten Americans, when approached, agreed to fill out the Current Population Survey, which is administered to about 60,000 households each month and asks about, among other things, employment. Fewer than seven in ten do so now (see chart 1). For the Consumer Expenditure Survey, which tries to capture 3,700 households monthly, the response rate is down from 68% to 40%. … When the information becomes less reliable, investment decisions get more difficult to make. Some may be delayed, creating a potential drag on the economy. A new working paper by Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University, Erica Groshen, former head of the Bureau of Labour Statistics (BLS) now at Cornell University, and Duncan Hobbs and Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank, hazards an estimate. Preserving trust in “the integrity and quality of official statistics”, the authors claim, generates economic benefits of about $25 for every $1 spent on the BLS, the agency with an annual budget of $700m that is responsible for many of these data. To arrive at their conclusion the quartet analysed an ignoble episode in the BLS’s recent history. On August 1st 2025 Donald Trump sacked Erika McEntarfer, appointed as the agency’s commissioner by his predecessor, Joe Biden. The president alleged, without evidence, that the BLS’s steep downward revision to recent jobs numbers had been “RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad”. In fact, it was the wanton dismissal that looked bad in the eyes of many observers. In the following seven days there was a 50% leap, relative to the week before, in the average value of the index of Economic Policy Uncertainty (EPU), which tracks the number of articles mentioning such uncertainty that are published daily in American newspapers. This was a discernible jump even when compared to the chaos caused by Mr Trump’s trade war in April 2025 and his real one in Iran in the past two months (see chart 2). Based on Mr Bloom’s earlier study with other colleagues of the EPU’s impact on business investment, industrial production and employment, the authors estimate that the jump reduced American GDP by over $100bn (0.3%) and non-farm payrolls by 168,000 (0.1%). Source: The Economist Immigration and thermostatic politics (Sarah O’Connor in the FT) A strange thing happened a year and a half ago. No sooner had Americans elected Donald Trump as president on an explicitly anti-immigration platform than US public opinion began to swing much more favourably towards immigration. … to political scientists who study “thermostatic” politics, this development is no surprise at all. Public opinion often moves against the prevailing party, especially if they are perceived to have gone “too far” in one direction. The phenomenon was first explored in the 1990s with reference to fiscal policy, but in recent years it has been particularly evident in the realm of immigration policy. While these swings in opinion polls can make it seem as if people don’t know their own minds, they can be a useful democratic check on governments by sending bright flashing warning lights when policies stray too far from the public’s comfort zone. The problem comes when politicians misinterpret those signals. When people tell pollsters they want less immigration, or think it is bad for the country overall (or the converse), they are often expressing an opinion about how things appear to be going in that moment relative to their preferences, rather than a deep shift in their underlying views. According to Alexander Kustov, a political scientist, most Americans’ views are quite stable and moderate: they support immigration that is controlled and in the national interest, and oppose flows that are disorderly or under-enforced. In the US, he argues the Trump administration over-interpreted dissatisfaction with high immigration under Joe Biden, and implemented policies that went too far for many voters. “People don’t necessarily change their idea about their ideal immigration policy, but they can react to what the government is currently doing,” he told me. “A lot of people are not happy with what the Trump administration are doing — right now we’re not talking about border enforcement, we’re talking about people not just getting harassed, but killed.” But similarly, he added, pro-immigration advocates would be making a mistake to interpret the recent, more favourable swing towards immigration as a deep-seated ideological shift in attitudes. The recent history of UK immigration policy offers another cautionary tale. After the 2016 Brexit referendum, public concern about immigration fell. This was partly because net migration statistics declined, but also because people felt a sense of catharsis and control, says Sunder Katwala, director of British Future, a think-tank. By 2019, the public ranked immigration as only the ninth biggest issue of concern, according to Ipsos polling. But when the Conservative government liberalised visa routes for students and care workers between 2019 and 2022, that helped net migration to surge. And so, too, did public concern. Today’s Labour government has implemented another sharply restrictive turn in immigration policy. As Kustov and researcher Caitlyn Yates argue, thermostatic public opinion should be a useful check on politicians. Instead it seems to have helped to magnify the pendulum swing in the UK. The government over-interprets and overreacts to a change in public opinion, which reacts in turn, prompting a sudden swing the other way. Source: Financial Times HEY READERS, THANK YOU for opening the Chartbook email. I hope it brightens your day. I enjoy putting out the newsletter, but tbh, what keeps this flow going is the generosity of those readers who clicked the subscription button. If you are persuaded to click, please consider the annual subscription of $50. It is both better value for you and a much better deal for me, as it involves only one credit card charge. Why feed the payments companies if we don’t have to. Subscribe Anna Airy, Shop for Machining 15-Inch Shells: Singer Manufacturing Company, Clydebank, Glasgow, 1918 Racing for a vaccine … we have been here before! The deadly Ebola outbreak in two African countries driven by a virus species with no vaccine has triggered an urgent search for a potential jab, in a test of troubled global efforts to avert threats posed by emerging diseases. A World Health Organization advisory group is due to would meet on Tuesday to recommend candidate jabs to prioritise for clinical trials, the global health body said. It will assess data including an analysis by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (Cepi), which was set up after failures in the international response to a previous Ebola crisis. The latest Ebola outbreak in Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda has infected hundreds of people and killed more than 80, health authorities say. Cepi’s reaction will be a crucial indicator of its progress towards its wider goal of producing vaccines for pandemic threats in just 100 days, despite steep cuts to international health funding. “If there was ever a time that we could show the world why Cepi is needed and show the world why the 100-day mission is needed, it’s now,” Nicole Lurie, the organisation’s executive director for preparedness and response, told the FT. “We’re happy to accept that responsibility, but obviously we need help from partners — particularly financial help in the long run.” DR Congo and Uganda would make the final decision on whether to press ahead with any vaccine candidates endorsed for clinical trials by the WHO experts, the global health body said. “Other ethical and community acceptability issues will be considered,” said the WHO, which declared the latest outbreak a public health emergency of international concern on Sunday. “This will be important to make sure that the trial, if it happens, will be adequately communicated to the population.” Lurie said Cepi had provided information from a survey of research teams and companies working on drugs that might be effective against the Bundibugyo virus behind the outbreak. The organisation hoped soon to announce partners in the quest for a jab, she added, although she declined to give a timescale for when one might be developed. Cepi’s Nicole Laurie said global health bodies were ‘getting some live-fire drills’ with hantavirus and the latest Ebola outbreak. The hunt for a vaccine should be helped by scientific advances including the use of artificial intelligence to find drugs active against viruses, Lurie said. Existing jabs against the Zaire Ebola virus responsible for many previous outbreaks might provide a basis for tackling the Bundibugyo species, she added. “We’ll see how far and how fast we can get,” Lurie said, adding that Cepi had done preliminary work recently on a possible jab for the rat-borne hantavirus responsible for a recent fatal outbreak on a cruise ship. “Both with hantavirus and now with Ebola, [we] are getting some live-fire drills.” Source: Michael Peel in the Financial Times Dad-chat is coming for dad-books. (By Pamela Paul and Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg in the WSJ) They were the go-to gifts for Father’s Day: a book about some little-known chapter of World War II, the sweeping narrative of a shipwreck, perhaps the latest presidential biography. These days, dad books are a dying breed. Nonfiction book sales have been in decline for the past four years, and are now the most challenged segment of the print book market. Publishers say certain types of books still fare well—including celebrity memoirs and religious titles. But in recent years, print sales in such categories as biography, current affairs and business and economics—what publishers refer to as “serious nonfiction” and which tend to resonate especially with men—have fallen considerably. Sales of nonfiction print titles were down nearly 8% through May 9 this year, and sales of books about politics and current affairs were down 19%, according to book tracker Circana BookScan. Publishing has long been subject to cyclical changes, with trends in format and genre taking over bookshelves in grand sweeps. (Remember the adult coloring-book craze? Or the stratospheric rise of romantasy?) But many in publishing believe the decline in serious nonfiction is more existential. “The trend couldn’t be clearer,” said Jonathan Karp, the former chief executive of Simon & Schuster and publisher of the new Simon Six imprint. “This is a sea change and people should wake up and realize we’re living in a new world.” One culprit for the shift: a new media diet for fans of more serious nonfiction. … Sixty-two percent of men and 54% of women consumed a podcast in the prior month, according to a recent survey by Edison Research at SSRS, up from 46% and 39%, respectively, in 2023. “When we have internal meetings to talk about this problem, it always comes around to podcasts,” said Jonathan Burnham, president and publisher of the Harper Group at HarperCollins Publishers. “The man who wants to read American history is now tuning into one of the many good podcasts about history that lends the quiet attention to a serious subject he’s looking for. It makes the idea of sitting down with a 700-page Ron Chernow book less appealing. You’ve scratched that itch.” Source: Wall Street Journal Remarkable report by Novara from the nationalist rally in London in mid May. Anna Airy, Leopard Moth and Plums, 1915 If you’ve scrolled this far, you know you want to click: Subscribe

adamtooze.substack.com logo
May 23 • 6:45 AM EDT • Politics • adamtooze.substack.com
Deep dive
😐 Neutral (6%)
wow
51%
ahah
49%
2026 National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship Award

Undergraduate senior biochemistry student Lillian Ott (Mohanty group) has been awarded the 2026 National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship, one of the country’s most prestigious honors for graduate students in the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). The program, jointly sponsored by the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, supports doctoral students across a broad range of scientific and technological fields of strategic importance. This highly competitive fellowship provides full tuition, fees, and a monthly stipend for three years. In 2026, only 102 fellowships were awarded nationwide. Lillian also received an honorable mention for the prestigious National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP). Studying biochemistry at UCLA, Lillian became excited about how her physical science background could be applied to solve environmental issues. She joined the Subsurface Engineering Analysis Laboratory (SEA Lab) led by Professor Sanjay Mohanty in the Samueli’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. In the SEA lab, she has studied the fate and transport of per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS are ubiquitous “forever chemicals” and known carcinogens that impact water quality worldwide. This fall, she will begin her Ph.D. in Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University with Professor Nina Zhao. Her research will be focused on metabolomics and the discovery of unrecognized chemical determinants of environmental and human health. “I have seen the serious and unforeseen environmental and health consequences from man-made chemicals like PFAS and microplastics, which are often only appreciated after the damage has been done. I hope that my research can lead to more sustainable chemical design and inform policy and solutions-based innovation in public health and water quality engineering,” Lillian said. Penny Jennings, UCLA Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, penjen@g.ucla.edu.

chemistry.ucla.edu logo
May 19 • 5:20 PM EDT • Science • chemistry.ucla.edu
Whole Hog Politics: Idiocracy alert

It is easy — indeed, too easy — to see the damage that the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns did to America’s young people. I say “too easy” because, as the most recent estimates from Stanford University’s Educational...

aei.org logo
May 15 • 4:00 PM EDT • Politics • aei.org
2026 National Science Foundation Graduate Research Awards & Honorable Mentions

Congratulations to our current graduate and undergraduate students and alumni who have received prestigious 2026 National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowships (GRFP) and Honorable Mentions. The National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) recognizes and supports outstanding graduate students in NSF-supported STEM disciplines who are pursuing research-based master’s and doctoral degrees at accredited U.S. institutions. The five-year fellowship includes three years of financial support including an annual stipend and a cost of education allowance to the institution. Left to right: Row 1 – 2026 NSF Graduate Research Fellowship recipients: Jasmin Bioteau, Kasey Chung, Daniel Cohn, Michael Eng, Tyler Martinez. Row 2 – Henry Shavel, Breanna Sprague, Abigail Wilson, ofia Ando, Daniel Kendall. Row 3 – Rebecca Lee, Lauren Van Auken, Tim Duong. NSF Honorable Mention recipients: Evan Baerg, Isaac Hendrix. Row 4 – Nathan Palmer, Paul Saucedo, Helen Elmer and Maximilian Floridia. 2026 NSF Graduate Research Fellowships (GRFP) were awarded to current graduate students Jasmin Bioteau (Kwon), Kasey Chung (Garg), Daniel Cohn (Kappel), Michael Eng (Doyle), Tyler Martinez (Barber), Henry Shavel (Alexandrova), Breanna Sprague (Garg), Abigail Wilson (Garg); undergraduate researchers Sofia Ando (Shafaat, headed to Princeton for graduate school), Daniel Kendall (Barber, headed to MIT for graduate school), Rebecca Lee (Chen, headed to Stanford for graduate school) and Lauren Van Auken (Garg, headed to the Caltech for graduate school). Former undergraduate researcher Tim Duong ’25 (Neuhauser/Caram, now a graduate student at Princeton) also received the fellowship. 2026 Honorable Mentions by NSF, also a significant national academic achievement, were accorded to current graduate students Evan Baerg, Isaac Hendrix (Tinoco Valencia), Nathan Palmer (Conway),and Paul Saucedo (Doyle). Also receiving Honorable Mentions are former undergraduate researchers Helen Elmer ’25 (Gelbart/Knobler, now a graduate student at the Stanford University School of Medicine), and Maximilian Floridia ‘25 (P. Weiss, now a graduate student at Caltech). Congratulations again to all the recipients! Penny Jennings, UCLA Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, penjen@g.ucla.edu.

chemistry.ucla.edu logo
May 1 • 3:50 PM EDT • Science • chemistry.ucla.edu
Research commissioner pitches EU to US scientists and investors

Research Commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva is just back from a two-day trip to San Francisco, where she pitched the EU as the place to be for US researchers looking to move and US venture capitalists looking to invest. A Commission spokesperson told Science|Business that Zaharieva used the trip to “promote Europe as a stable, rule-based and vibrant innovation destination.” She emphasised Europe’s excellent infrastructure and predictable funding, particularly through the European Research Council (ERC) and Europe Innovation Council.These are already proving tempting, with applications from US-based researchers to ERC and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) calls increasing substantially over the past few years. According to the Commission, the number of US-based applicants for the annual ERC Consolidator Grant call rose from 19 in 2025 to 64 in 2026, while US bids to the ERC Advanced Grant call rose from 23 in 2024 to 114 in 2025. Meanwhile, US applications to the MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships scheme rose from 352 in 2024 to 998 in 2025.Pressure on US scientists to seek alternative employment has increased since Donald Trump’s return to the White House. Jobs at federal science agencies have been slashed, funding cut in some research areas and international scientific partnerships turned upside down. He has also made unprecedented attempts to control university affairs.During her trip, Zaharieva made a point of highlighting the protection of academic freedom in Europe, “especially in areas like climate change, renewable energy, and health, where US funding has faced cuts,” the spokesperson said.She also underlined the EU’s “attractive long-term career opportunities and relocation support for top researchers from anywhere in the world,” especially through its new Choose Europe for Science initiative.“Transatlantic cooperation remains essential to tackle global challenges while safeguarding shared values such as academic freedom and openness,” Zaharieva wrote on social media ahead of her visit.Related articlesERC walks back stricter resubmission rules for 2027Don’t feel guilty about poaching scientists fleeing Trump, US science body tells EuropeHer itinerary took in Stanford University’s business school and school of medicine, where topics for discussion included entrepreneurship and interdisciplinary collaboration. She also met with venture capital firms, including Playground Global, Forgepoint Capital and Akkadian Venture Capital, as well as the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the largest public pension fund in the US.Other meetings included Jensen Huang, the chief executive of AI chip manufacturer Nvidia, and local business associations such as the Bay Area Council and EuroCham. European delegations in the area also received visits, including Advantage Austria and France’s La French Tech, and the Consulate General of Ukraine in San Francisco.

sciencebusiness.net logo
Apr 30 • 8:00 AM EDT • Science • sciencebusiness.net
Land, Power, and Property Rights: The Political Economy of Land Titling in Sub-Saharan Africa -

Land, Power, and Property Rights: The Political Economy of Land Titling in Sub-Saharan Africa By Matthew K. Ribar, Stanford University Only 15% of African households possess a formal title for their agricultural land, despite the [...]

politicalsciencenow.com logo
Apr 23 • 2:00 PM EDT • Politics • politicalsciencenow.com
Shaky political science: using "simulated" elections over real-world elections

[Dear DSOS readers – this article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in early December, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting. We found that many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data, and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first three articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report, the second one analyzing a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report, and a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research]. In this fourth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we shine a spotlight on seven studies that were web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group (the ERRG is an ad hoc committee headed by New America’s Political Reform Program and joined by the American Enterprise Institute, the Unite America Institute and Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law). This research consortium has been led by Lee Drutman, senior fellow with New America’s Political Reform Program. These seven studies are simply not credible from any objective standard about how political “science” is supposed to illuminate our understanding of either ranked choice voting or politics in general. The feature that six of these seven studies have in common is that they all used surveys – artificial, simulated elections -- to attempt to say something cogent or interesting about ranked choice voting (RCV) elections. None of them used real world data from actual RCV elections – either the 1000+ elections in the US or the many thousands of elections from places like Australia, Ireland and elsewhere where RCV has been used for 100 years. While a few of these studies conclude with some mixed positives about RCV, our analysis here is content neutral. The idea that, with a political reform like RCV, you can ask respondents in a mock, artificial election to vote with that method, with only the barest of explanation about how RCV works or its likely impacts (i.e. no spoiler candidates, majority winners, voters liberated to pick their favorite candidates, coalition-building), and then ask them their thoughts/reactions about voting in that system, with fake candidates and no real campaigning, no real exposure to an actual election or actual candidates, rests on some very puzzling assumptions. The findings of these seven studies actually are contradicted by the findings from many other studies based on real-world RCV elections. These New America studies also failed to list the real-world RCV studies in their own citations, instead including those studies that reinforced their conclusions. The seven studies featured in this article were chosen because they form a cohesive cohort which precisely illustrates one of the main points of our research paper, namely that using surveys, i.e. artificial elections, or mathematical/theoretical models, instead of real-world data, is in fact “shaky political science.” Below are summaries of our analysis of five of the seven New America studies. You can read our complete analysis of all seven studies at our paper, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting.” Choosing to “Vote As Usual” by Andre Blais, Carolina Plescia, and Semra Sevi. New America. (Blais et al., 2021). This study, web-hosted and funded by New America’s Political Reform Program and its Electoral Reform Research Group, used two surveys in which respondents completed ballots for simulated elections using plurality, approval, RCV and point (Score) voting. In both cases the authors provided the respondents with only minimal explanation of each method. For example, the entire explanation for RCV was “For this vote, rank the candidates from your first to your last choice (you do not need to rank them all). This is called the ranked vote.” That’s it. The study did not provide any context or explanation to survey respondents about why she/he might want to rank multiple candidates. Participants were not even told that ballots would be tabulated using an “instant” runoff, not to mention any description of RCVs ability to eliminate the spoiler effect or liberate voters to rank their favorite candidates without fear of helping the “greater evil” candidate to win. That’s like taking an iPhone back in time to 1970 and asking someone if they like it better than their rotary phone without explaining how it works. Their first survey targeted states that held 2020 Super Tuesday Democratic primaries and used the real candidates’ names in the survey; the second survey used fictitious candidates. In other words, they surveyed respondents who had only ever participated in plurality elections, had no history or background with using RCV or any of the other methods, had no clue about its likely impacts, and did not communicate how the alternative methods would be counted, and then asked them: “How satisfied are you with using each system?” Predictably, the winner was plurality elections, the system used for president, Congress, gubernatorial and state legislative elections – in other words, the method they have been using, year after year, all their voting lives. With so little explanation of RCV and its impacts, this study is simply not credible in discovering anything useful about real-world RCV elections. It merely shows that a basic voter education campaign is needed when adopting a new election system. Additionally, the result contradicts many other post-election surveys following real RCV elections, asking opinions from voters who had just participated in a RCV election, that showed a great deal of satisfaction with RCV (see details on that in Studies 22-25 in our paper, as well as the four studies cited in the review for Study 28). Share Other studies on “satisfaction” and “understanding” make similar mistakes, in terms of basing their surveys on inadequate explanation to respondents and lack of education about context. How could any survey ever hope to measure accurately, in essence simulate a real-world election, without actual campaigning candidates, the media writing about those candidates, organizations endorsing candidates and voters being inundated with crucial information? More than anything, what these “studies” based on surveys show is that if you ask voters about something they don’t know very much about, and fail to adequately educate them, their responses will unsurprisingly reflect their confusion. Equally puzzling is that New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group, headed by political scientist Lee Drutman, found this to be a credible enough study that they not only published it but highlighted it in Drutman’s own discussion of research related to ranked choice voting. This pattern was repeated in study after study featured by New America’s Electoral Reform Research Group. For example in Ranked-Choice Voting and Political Expression: Voter Guides Narrow the Gap between Informed and Uninformed Citizens by Cheryl Boudreau, Jonathan Colner, and Scott MacKenzie, the researchers based their analysis on a survey which found that respondents who were asked to vote in a simulated RCV election, with minimal explanation of RCV or how it works, displayed less evidence of being informed about how to use RCV effectively, with the least informed voters ranking fewer candidates. As pointed out under the study above, in a real election voters are informed by a wide variety of methods, including public education by the election administration, by interested political groups, the media, and the candidates themselves who benefit from voters being aware of how to vote in the new system. In Support for Ranked-Choice Voting across Race and Partisanship by Joseph Anthony, David C. Kimball, Jack Santucci and Jamil Scott, the researchers used respondents from different parties and races voting in simulated plurality and RCV elections, who indicated their satisfaction with each voting method. Instead of using real world election results, the authors fell back on the easy, armchair and less reliable academic research methodology of making up mock elections. As with the other studies, little explanation was given of how RCV works or what its implications might be (electing majority winners or eliminating spoilers, for example). Unsurprisingly, this study found that respondents were not very satisfied with RCV. However, when the authors added an explanation that RCV has a tendency to elect more women and people of color, they found that this greater explanation increased the preference for RCV. The more voters were familiar with it, and the more they understood potential positive impacts – surprise! -- the more they were open to switching away from the status quo. Of note, the results from this study are thoroughly contradicted by a number of other studies whose data was obtained from real RCV elections with real voters. Those studies show a great deal of satisfaction with RCV. More “fake election” research An interesting wrinkle on this “research by fake elections” approach, which only served to illustrate how unreliable such “research” can become, was taken in Ranked-Choice Voting, Runoff, and Democracy: Insights from Maine and Other U.S. States by Joseph Cerrone and Cynthia McClintock_,_ also web-hosted and funded by New America’s ERRG. It gets high marks for creativity, but an eye-roll for thinking this could possibly add anything meaningful to our understanding of real world RCV elections. This study tried to determine whether RCV, plurality or two-round runoff elections provided greater voter satisfaction and acceptance of election results. To determine that, the authors conducted a survey asking if voters were satisfied with a fictional newspaper report of an election, with three different versions given to respondents – plurality, runoff and RCV, with variations of Republican/Democrat winners and variations of “come-from-behind” winners,” i.e. candidates not initially in first place but who win the “runoff.” Again, a minimal explanation of RCV or how it works was given, and the survey showed that respondents had the greatest unfamiliarity with RCV than the other methods. The unsurprising result? Respondents were much more satisfied with “come-from-behind” victories in a traditional two-round runoff election than in RCV, even though RCV is also a runoff system but with a single round of counting. Interestingly, the dissatisfaction with RCV disappeared for those who were more familiar with RCV. In fact, among those respondents who were “very familiar” with RCV, they were equally satisfied with RCV, runoff and plurality. Surprise, surprise. Again, what this study revealed, more than anything, is not only the inadequacy of the explanation for RCV given by the authors of this study, but the failure of the research format itself, thinking that such an artificial mock election could somehow simulate what actually happens in the real world in a real RCV election. Those four studies reviewed above are fitting examples of inadequate and shaky political “science.” Other studies reviewed in our paper from the New America/Electoral Reform Research Group cohort which also used mock elections included: Ranked-Choice Voting is an Acquired Taste by Joseph Anthony and David C. Kimball. New America. (Anthony et al., 2021). Ranked-Choice Voting is No Refuge for Extreme Candidates by Melissa Baker. New America. (Baker, 2021). Also included in this New America cohort is Does Ranked-Choice Voting Reduce Racial Polarization? by Yuki Atsusaka and Theodore Landsman, which actually did use real-world election results data but applied an odd and unconventional methodology to the data which relied on shaky assumptions and non-real-world scenarios that were too divorced from reality. To determine levels of “racially polarized voting,” the researchers imagined “ethnic parties,” by which they mean political parties for each ethnic group, which was especially odd since the election data they were using came from nonpartisan RCV races. But then they made an even odder assumption, namely that since race and ethnic characteristics of studied voters were not available, the authors tried to infer that information based on who voters selected and the racial make-up of voters in each district. This amounted to little more than vague and ambiguous guesswork dressed up with a bunch of mathematical equations used to give it a veneer of scientific appearance. Indeed, it seemed to assume racial polarization in order to prove racial polarization. Based on this questionable methodology, the authors concluded that RCV doesn’t reduce racial polarization. But the premise of this study missed an obvious reality: since RCV incentivizes more candidates to run and can result in more diverse fields of candidates, one would expect more racially-polarized voting in voters’ top rankings, not less, because more voters would have someone on that ballot who represents their racial or ethnic identity and more freedom to vote for their real first choice. By encouraging more diverse candidates and eliminating the spoiler effect, RCV facilitates voting for a favorite candidate of your own race and then selecting a second choice with the best likelihood of winning. The real measure is what voters do with their additional rankings – do they consider other candidates and vote “for the best of the rest”? This study didn’t tell us anything useful about that. But readily available data shows this is common in real RCV elections, and candidates act on this knowledge by engaging with voters outside their racial group. So the authors of this study failed to consider or account for what actually happens in real-world elections, and their conclusions are tainted by this failure. New America has contributed a great deal over the past 2.5 decades to our understanding of many policy areas, including politics and political reform (full disclosure: Steven Hill, one of the authors of this article and of the “Shaky Political Science” research paper and series, is a former senior fellow and former director of New America’s political reform program, 2005-2010). So it was especially disappointing that New America funded and published such a large batch of dubious studies about ranked choice voting. The stated praiseworthy goal of its Electoral Reform Research Group was to inspire new academic research about ranked choice voting that would shed light and help the public better understand the impacts of RCV. Instead, the ERRG research did just the opposite. It produced dubious research that created more confusion and misinformation. In so doing, New America’s political reform program contributed to “shaky political science.” Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS, a reader-supported digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe

democracysos.substack.com logo
Apr 21 • 9:31 AM EDT • Science • democracysos.substack.com
A new approach to brain health, one neuron at a time

Neuroscientist Paul Nuyujukian likens the brain to a stadium full of people. To eavesdrop on the crowd you could put a microphone in the middle of the stadium. But to understand the conversations you need to record individual people. He thinks about the brain the same way. To understand brain disease, he studies neurons—one at a time. And his insights are shedding light on a big global issue—stroke. The World Health Organization predicts one in four adults will have a stroke in their lifetime. Strokes can cause death, or lead to paralysis or speech problems. But there’s still a lot researchers don’t know about how the brain recovers from an event like a stroke. Nuyujukian directs a lab at Stanford University that studies how the brain controls movement, including after neurological events like stroke. We get into how he does this, and why he hopes his research could eventually help people who’ve been paralyzed. Email us your questions about the brain – or anything else to do with science at shortwave@npr.org. We may turn it into an episode in the future!Listen to every episode of Short Wave sponsor-free and support our work at NPR by signing up for Short Wave+ at plus.npr.org/shortwave.

npr.org logo
Apr 15 • 3:00 AM EDT • Health • npr.org
High-Signal Publisher
😐 Neutral (9%)
wow
50%
ahah
30%
love
20%
Huck Distinguished Lecture Series brings leaders in AI, biodiversity and cryo‑EM

The Huck Distinguished Lecture Series in April will feature Tanya Berger-Wolf of The Ohio State University and Wah Chiu of Stanford University, highlighting advances in artificial intelligence for biodiversity research and cryogenic electron microscopy for biomedical discovery.

psu.edu logo
Apr 8 • 10:05 AM EDT • Science • psu.edu
Abramson advancing research at intersection of health, inequality and AI

Corey Abramson's research earns him a year in residence at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS) at Stanford University.

news.rice.edu logo
Mar 20 • 8:00 AM EDT • Health • news.rice.edu
The science behind exercise and why it's good for our bodies

This will come as a surprise to no one, but exercise is really good for us. But why it works and how it works are far less understood. Horizons moderator William Brangham explores that with Stanford University’s Euan Ashley. He's a professor of genomics and cardiovascular medicine and is part of a team trying to understand, at the very molecular level, how exercise changes our bodies, and why.

pbs.org logo
Feb 20 • 7:00 PM EST • Science • pbs.org
🙂 Positive (35%)
The science behind exercise and why it's good for our bodies

This will come as a surprise to no one, but exercise is really good for us. But why it works and how it works are far less understood. Horizons moderator William Brangham explores that with Stanford University’s Euan Ashley. He's a professor of genomics and cardiovascular medicine and is part of a team trying to understand, at the very molecular level, how exercise changes our bodies, and why.

pbs.org logo
Feb 20 • 7:00 PM EST • Science • pbs.org
🙂 Positive (35%)
Column | My toxic relationship with my stove — and how to fix yours

Stanford University scientists’ new model estimates exposure to the pollutant nitrogen dioxide based on home size, how often the stove is used and where people live.

washingtonpost.com logo
Jan 25 • 5:00 AM EST • Health • washingtonpost.com