SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " UC Berkeley " 71 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Watch: How UC Berkeley's Space Sciences Laboratory leads NASA missions like ESCAPADE
Perched high in the hills above campus, it's one of only two university-based centers in the U.S. capable of managing the entire life cycle of a satellite mission.
On complex political issues, most Americans take shortcuts to simplicity
A core assumption in any democracy is that citizens with access to information will make reasoned decisions on political candidates and policy issues. But a new study by UC Berkeley social scientists ...
On complex political issues, most Americans take shortcuts to simplicity
A novel study by UC Berkeley scholars finds that when Americans are presented with complex decisions on immigration, climate change or political candidates, they often avoid difficult reasoning.
Student Voices: The Business of Opportunity At UC-Berkeley Haas
UC Berkeley Haas student Carlos Guadamuz-Bielma reflects on how business school reshaped his views on philanthropy, access, and opportunity.
Valley fever spreading to Central Valley cities, linked to oil drilling
Researchers at UC Berkeley have discovered valley fever spores in cities in the Central Valley and linked nearby oil drilling to an uptick in infection risk — challenging the long-held belief that the deadly disease only affects rural areas.
UC Berkeley Engineering rises to No. 2 undergraduate program in U.S. News rankings
The college remains top public engineering program in the nation
Scientists Discover New Compound That Burns Fat Without Killing Your Appetite
Unlike GLP-1 drugs, which suppress appetite and reduce energy intake, a newly identified molecular compound helps cells burn more energy without changing food intake or exercise and has shown promise in mouse models. The most successful new obesity drugs largely work by helping people eat less. Researchers at UC Berkeley are exploring a different strategy:
Science Vs on the 49ers Substation: Anatomy of a Hatchet Job
In August, Pablo Torre Finds Out and Science Vs released an episode about my theory that electromagnetic fields from the electrical substation beside the 49ers facility may be contributing to the team’s run of soft-tissue injuries. As the originator of the theory, I was also a subject of the episode. I sat was interviewed by Wendy Zukerman and Rose Rimler of Sciene Vs. I sent them research, connected them with scientists, and spent hours digging through the City of Santa Clara’s and Silicon Valley Power’s records to help clarify critical details. Both Wendy and Rose came off as affable and professional, showing curiosity during the interviews, with Wendy going out of her way to question the “conspiracy theory” framing itself. Then they titled the episode We Solve the 49ers Viral Conspiracy Theory. I was familiar enough with their catalog that I never expected them to agree with my theory, but I did expect them to give it a fair hearing and to deliver their findings honestly. On both counts they came up short. They were not directly dishonest in anything they said, but rather in what they left out, in how what remained was cut, and in the picture painted by those two things in combination. They asked me to recorded the interview on my phone for better audio quality, and I held on to my copy for reference later. That turned out to be a fortuitous decision. Here is the raw audio of my first interview, unedited*. Only my side was recorded, so their questions aren’t on it, but you can generally infer them from the answers, and every claim I make below about what I said can be checked against my statements in this clip. (Note: Wendy had connection trouble at the beginning of the interview and was cutting in and out, which accounts for the false starts.) 0:00 -1:19:13 Audio playback is not supported on your browser. Please upgrade. Science Vs is a fun show. It is pitched at roughly a high-school understanding of science, for an audience that is skeptical, Snopes-oriented, and worried about misinformation. Take a claim circulating online, interview a supporter of the claim, interview consensus scientists, and then tell people which side of the line it lands on. I have listened to their episodes on raw milk, seed oils, 5G and other contested issues in the wellness space. I have problems with all of them, but each at least made an honest attempt to represent the actual range of scientific opinion by talking to credentialed scientists with differing perspectives. Dissenting researchers were heard from, answered, and often given a chance to respond. This episode did not do that. This article is not a relitigation of the science. I have written extensively about that already. This post is for the record. It is simply an accounting of what was wrong with their episode. Contents Is there a power plant next to the 49ers practice facility? — the clearest single example of getting something objectively wrong For the record — a high-level overview of all of the problems with their investigation Draw your own conclusions — why they had to make this episode at all What they left out about childhood leukemia — the exposure threshold, and playing games with statistics to minimize sick children What they left out about the mechanism — the body of literature they refused to cover, and evidence for the mechanism used against it The scientists Science Vs interviewed and did not air — four credential scientists who support myhe theory, recorded and cut, or not even called How they misrepresented me and my case — an answer severed from its question, and three telling edits How you would actually study the injuries — it doesn’t actually matter which team is the most injured, overall The theory: magnetic fields, oxidative stress, and collagen Since the episode never states my theory, here it is below. Those who are familiar with my work can skip this section. Electrical equipment produces magnetic fields, and those fields induce faint electrical currents in anything that passes through them, including people. My argument goes further than induced current. Mitochondria — the structures that generate a cell’s energy — run on continuous flows of electrons and protons, and those flows carry faint electromagnetic fields of their own. Maxwell’s principle of superposition shows that when two fields share the same space, they add together. An external field does not need to be strong to alter an internal field, it only needs to be present. The electron transport chain inside the mitochondria leaks a small fraction of its electrons by design, and those become reactive oxygen species — free radicals, which healthy cells use as signals. External magnetic fields cause the rate of leakage to change, increasing free radicals. When free radicals accumulate faster than the cell’s antioxidant systems can clear them, the result is oxidative stress. Oxidative stress is a recognized driver of chronic illness, including cardiovascular disease, neurodegeneration, diabetes and cancer, and it is in every medical school curriculum. One of its ordinary effects in connective tissue is that it switches on matrix metalloproteinases — MMPs, the enzymes that break collagen apart — while suppressing new collagen synthesis. Tendons are made of collagen. An athlete loading his soft tissue heavily six days a week is already creating oxidative stress in the tendons, so the addition of magnetic field exposure compounds the damage and inhibits repair, making him more susceptible to injury when enormous force lands on a tendon in a fraction of a second. That is the theory. We know that EMF causes oxidative stress, and we know that oxidative stress degrades collagen. The only thing missing is a study showing that direct connection. I have never claimed certainty that the substation is contributing to the elevated injury rate. I do believe it is likely, and I believe it warrants caution, and that a revenue machine like a major NFL team can easily afford to remove the exposure out of precaution. Is there a power plant next to the 49ers practice facility? Here is the clearest single instance of the problem with this episode. It requires no knowledge of electromagnetic fields at all. This story first came to me through Jon Feliciano, a former 49er, in an interview on Willard & Dibs on 95.7 The Game. Asked about why the 49ers are always injured, he said players used to joke that it was the power plant behind the practice fields. Wendy Zukerman corrects him on air. “It’s important to say that it’s not a power plant near the 49ers site.” Torre then asks her to explain the difference between a substation and a power plant. Her answer: a power plant generates electricity and transmits it to a substation, which converts the voltage into something your house can use and sends it on to your home or your business. There are two problems with that. The first is that there is a power plant on that site. The Gianera Generating Station is a natural-gas-fired peaker plant owned by Silicon Valley Power, and it has been there since 1986. I have published aerial photographs of the location from 1987 in which the gas plant is the only thing standing, before the practice facility was even there. I even mentioned the gas plant in my first interview. (Feliciano has since gone on record about this issue, and it is clear he had the substation in mind rather than the gas plant.) The second is that her definition describes a distribution substation, and the facility beside the 49ers is not that. It is the Northern Receiving Station, which takes in bulk power from outside the city’s grid and delivers it to distribution substations. Silicon Valley Power’s own map distinguishes receiving stations from substations, and Rose Rimler even reads the label out loud in the episode when she walks through that map on air. A few minutes before the map segment, Zukerman tells Torre: “like I said, we fact check everything.” Well, maybe not everything. I made a mistake On the morning of July 6th, at 10:20, I sent Rose and Wendy two studies. During the interview I had been asked which human studies show oxidative stress from electromagnetic fields, and I had not been able to name one on the spot. Rose emailed asking for the studies, I quickly searched for a couple, and I wrote that I thought these were the most relevant from that search. Unfortunately, I was busy and did not read either one closely at first. I picked them because they were topically relevant — one on substation workers, one on power plant workers. Neither were great studies, and their problems go past the ones raised in the episode. That was careless on my part. There is context that did not make the episode, though. Before that email I had been on a Zoom call with Rose talking about EMF and oxidative stress, and I pointed her to Dr. Henry Lai at the University of Washington, who has spent years aggregating the literature on this question. His tallies show that roughly 90% of studies since the late 1990s find oxidative effects from electromagnetic field exposure — hundreds of studies, systematically counted. Rose told me she was already aware of his work. So when she asked for studies, I understood her to have the aggregate view already and that she would report anything within that context. Not reading those two carefully was still a mistake, but the larger mistake was assuming the episode would be based on a thorough review of the actual body of literature, rather than on whatever I happened to send that morning. The second email At 1:49 that same afternoon — three hours and twenty-nine minutes after the first — I sent them a second email that I had been preparing for a while. It was a structured document in six numbered sections, written in response to a request they had made two weeks earlier, laying out my entire argument with citations attached to every link in the chain. The episode aired on August 13th, five weeks later, and not a single item from the second email is in it. Here is how it opens: The full email is included at the bottom of this post in Appendix B. Nearly 1,500 words in total. It contains two named mechanisms with the physics behind them. Occupational studies in humans. The literature on oxidative stress and collagen. A section addressing the strongest counter-evidence against my own theory, which I raised myself. And a closing section stating plainly what the theory cannot yet show. My entire argument, in writing, with detailed citations for every claim, provided to them five weeks before broadcast, and none of it made it into the episode. That is the single largest omission, but it is not an isolated one. The whole episode is riddled with similar problems, and the conclusion they came to is not merely a difference of opinion about the scientific evidence. Through omission and through strategic editing, Science Vs misinformed its audience — about what the evidence shows, about what I argued, and about who they spoke to. That is a notable outcome for a show whose stated purpose is correcting misinformation. For the record I am not going to tell you that Science Vs set out to discredit me, or that they had come to their conclusion before they reported the story, or that they used misleading editing to make me look like a man retreating from his own theory. I cannot know what was in anyone’s head, and I am not going to pretend otherwise, either. What I can tell you is what is on the record. They asked me for evidence and aired the weakest thing I sent. They interviewed three scientists who supported my theory and aired none of them. They discussed childhood leukemia without ever saying the exposure level at which it appears. And they took an answer I gave weeks before Ken Karipidis, the one EMF scientist who was put on air, was interviewed, and placed it directly after his critique, where it comes off as a major concession. A friend of mine who has worked as a journalist for thirty years read that last one and called it sleazy. I agree with her. Those are just the four issues that are impossible to defend as pure editorial decision, but they are not the only issues. The most glaring issues stem from what they left out: The exposure level at which the childhood leukemia association actually appears — three to four milligauss, a number the episode never states despite it being much lower than what I measured. The mechanism itself: The episode gets as far as “oxidative stress could weaken collagen,” which leaves it sounding like speculation, rather than a known pathway. The second email, and all the studies in it. Dr. Paul Héroux at McGill, whose work my proposed mechanism rests on, whose contact details I supplied, and who was never called. Dr. Beatrice Golomb at UC San Diego, who runs a research group on oxidative stress and mitochondrial function and has specific expdertice in collagen, interviewed and not aired. Dr. David Carpenter at Albany, the most prominent academic voice on the harm from magnetic field exposure, interviewed and not aired. Dr. Joel Moskowitz at Berkeley, interviewed and not even credited. The specific, testable condition I put in writing that would make me abandon the theory. My own unprompted statement of the theory’s evidentiary gap. My caveats about my own measurements. My ranking of EMF as one factor among several rather than the only one. The new equipment installed at those facilities between 2010 and 2014, and the sharp rise in system load from 2013 onward. But that is not all. What they kept, they selectively edited to serve a narrative that was not served by the raw transcripts of the interviews. A description of thousands of commercial routers in a workplace, reduced to the Wi-Fi in your house. My own acknowledgment, multiple times, that "I'm not a scientist" clipped in an episode that spends considerable energy pointing out that I am not a scientist. And a qualification I volunteered about my own measurements, cut from my answer and delivered later by their EMF expert as a correction. Together their edit produce a portrait of a wellness guy with Wi-Fi phobia and two bad studies, backing away from his theory the moment a “real” scientist looked at it. A practice facility where nothing changed because no new substation was built. Injuries written off as random because the 49ers were not quite the single most injured team in the league over the period in question. That portrait is false even though almost no individual statement made in the episode is. Draw your own conclusions At the top of the episode, Pablo Torre says his show had been flooded with requests to investigate the substation — that it was the thing they were asked to look into over and over again. Neither show went hunting for this story. It arrived from their own audience, in volume, and it could not be waved off. A thread I posted on X reached twenty-two million people. A guy with a gaussmeter and a brand-new Substack obligated a Pultizer prize winning program to spend an hour on a question about player health, that is considered fringe enough that most media operations won’t touch it. Pablo Torre Finds Out could not ignore it. So Science Vs came in and ran a “debunking” operation instead of an investigation. Everything below is what had to be left on the cutting room floor to deliver the “debunking”. They could not ignore it. So they tried debunked it instead. The demand was strong enough to force an episode, and since the episodes release the 49ers have sustained more injuries, including season ending ones, and interest has only grown. Demand from fans and playets is strong enough to force a better investigation from someone else. An omission is not a lie until you find out what was omitted. What follows is the detailed record so you can see the full picture. Draw your own conclusions. I have drawn mine. I am going to keep publishing. A note about Pablo Torre Finds Out After the episode aired I posted publicly, calling out Pablo Torre Finds Out for concerns I had about the integrity of their investigation, and about an interview directly with Pablo Torre which had been offered but never happened. I have since spoken with a producer at PTFO. The offer had rested on a misunderstanding about where things stood between us, and it fell away as the Science Vs part of the production widened past the science. He apologized for the miscommunication and I accepted. The producer also confirmed to me that they did essentially hand off the entire investigation to Science Vs for narrative purposes — so Pablo would be genuinely curious or potentially surprised by their findings — while still taking responsibility for what went out under their name. I appreciated the candor and the accountability, and I am comfortable with where we left things. So this post is not about PTFO. My disagreement is with Science Vs. What they left out about childhood leukemia Childhood leukemia appears at three milligauss. They gave no number at all. 1. They built an EMF ruler, then discussed childhood cancer without it. The sequence on air went like this: First I measured almost 9 mG, then I measured up to 50 milligauss. Torre reacts with concern — “that sounds high.” Cut to Karipidis: the public limit is 2,000 milligauss. Torre reacts again — “What happens at 2,000?” Karipidis explains that nothing happens at 2,000, that safety factors are built in. Then: at more than 50,000 milligauss you get flickers of light in the retina, and higher still, nerve stimulation. The listener now has a ruler (their ruler) to measure these numbers with. Fifty is nothing by their ruler. Then the episode turns to childhood leukemia and states, accurately, that there is a real association — but tellingly, they never give the exposure level at which that association appears. Childhood leukemia appears at three milligauss. They conveniently left that out. The pooled analyses that produced the World Health Organization’s carcinogen classification found roughly a doubling of childhood leukemia risk above three to four milligauss. That is the number that belongs in that segment, and it is more than ten times below the reading that had just been dismissed as trivial. I gave them that number myself, on tape, in the interview. Describing my own threshold, I said my comfort level for long-term chronic exposure is three to four milligauss, but preferably one. 2. Six children in thirteen million. The episode reports that these fields might explain one to four percent of childhood leukemias, then reframes it as a German estimate of perhaps six cases among thirteen million children. Torre, to his credit, is uncomfortable. What never gets explained is why that number is small. Almost no children lives above three milligauss in Europe. Fewer than two children in a hundred, in the Italian data. So even if the risk to those children doubles, the number of additional cases across an entire country stays small — not because the hazard is small, but because hardly anyone is exposed to it. Count the whole population and the few who are exposed disappear. And the reason hardly anyone is exposed is that siting rules keep housing away from transmission lines. In Europe, at least. The Dutch government has a standing precautionary policy against building new homes in any zone where the annual average magnetic field exceeds 4 milligauss — the same number the episode never mentioned. Denmark and Norway treat 4 milligauss as the level that triggers a look at mitigation. That is five hundred times below the ICNIRP figure quoted on air. The United States has no federal equivalent. That is evidence of infrastructure siting policy working. It is not evidence that there is no hazard. It is evidence that we already act as though there is one. If you listen to the raw audio you will hear that my proposed solution is EMF exposure is to build better infrastructure. What they left out about the mechanism 3. They accused me of cherry-picking, and then cherry-picked themselves. On air, Zukerman tells Torre that people who worry about electromagnetic fields dismiss the studies showing null results and collect the ones showing harm, and that this is why you have to be careful not to cherry-pick. They had two papers I had rattled off in a hurry, and a second email containing a carefully chosen set. They ran the two weakest, graded them on air, and presented the result as the state of the evidence for not only my theory, but the whole question of oxidative stress from magnetic fields. That is cherry-picking from my emails. The bigger picture is what they did with the literature as a whole. Zukerman acknowledges it exists, dismisses it, and disposes of it in a single stroke. You can go online right now, she tells Torre, and find scores of studies showing these fields increase oxidative stress. The issue, she says, is that they are not studies in people. Many of them are in people. The occupational studies in my second email are in people. That email had been in her inbox for five weeks. She waved off the literature on a factual claim that the documents in her possession contradict. (I have written separately about the evidentiary standard at work here). The effect was that they essentially baited me: ask the subject to supply the evidence, take the weakest thing he sends, and let that stand as a proxy for the whole argument. Wendy has been doing this show for ten years and clearly knows how to extract what she needs for her desired narrative. 4. They presented the collagen-improvement research as a gotcha, but I had already addressed it. The episode treats the existence of studies showing that EMF can improve collagen as a surprise that undercuts me, but I had pre-emptively addressed that five weeks earlier in the email they ignored. Those studies use measured, high-intensity pulsed dosing. The mechanism by which they work is oxidative signalling. The cell reads a controlled rise in reactive oxygen species as a warning, upregulates its antioxidant defenses, mounts a repair response, and the therapy stops before the system is overwhelmed. The key point is that it induces an oxidative response, which means those studies are actually evidence for my proposed mechanism, not against it. A field that produces a therapeutic effect cannot be biologically inert (which is the implication when they say “Nothing happens at 2,000 milligauss). Chronic ambient exposure is the same pathway with no off switch, and it is most consequential during the evening and while sleeping, when the body is in repair mode and the exposure does not stop. Section 5 of my email is titled What about the study showing improved collagen synthesis. I raised the counter-evidence myself, explained why I did not think it refuted the theory, and wrote that I was disappointed the question had not come up in the interview. That is worth holding against the cherry-picking charge in the item above: the studies they presented as inconvenient for me were studies I had gone out of my way to put in front of them. 5. Section 1 of my email stated a critical argument that was never put to the expert directly responsible for it. My email says the exposure limits exist to prevent acute effects and do not address chronic exposure at all, and that my dispute is with the entire framework. Zukerman gestures at this once. After Karipidis gives the 2,000 milligauss figure, she tells Torre that I would object because those levels do not capture “more subtle effects.” That is not my argument, and “subtle” is doing a lot of work here. My argument is that the limits are built to prevent acute effects — nerves firing, muscles twitching, etc — and were not designed to address chronic exposure at all. In fact, ICNIRP’s own documents state as much themselves. Mine is a structural objection to what the standard measures, reduced as a concern about subtlety, it becomes a matter of degree, rather than a categorical difference. They interviewed Ken Karipidis, vice chair of ICNIRP — the body that writes those limits. He was asked what the limit is, but he was never asked how it applies to chronic exposure. The scientists Science Vs interviewed and did not air 6. They interviewed four officials of the standards body. The episode credits roughly a dozen researchers. Four of them are associated with ICNIRP. Ken Karipidis is the vice chair. Rodney Croft chaired ICNIRP from 2020 to 2024 and led the development of its current guidelines. Dan Baaken is ICNIRP’s scientific secretary. Frank de Vocht sits on the Main Commission. One of them speaks in the episode. Their institution’s position is more than adequately represented — the 2,000 milligauss figure, the safety factors, the assurance that nothing happens below the line. 7. The four who were left out. Dr. Beatrice Golomb is Professor of Medicine at UC San Diego — a physics undergraduate degree, a PhD in biology, an MD. She directs a research group whose stated focus is the relationship between oxidative stress, mitochondrial function and health. That is the mechanism the episode spent its first half dismissing. Her published work includes the fluoroquinolone case series behind the FDA’s black box warning on an antibiotic class that ruptures tendons, where the accepted mechanism is oxidative stress and mitochondrial toxicity — the back half of my chain, already on a drug label. She is in the credits. She is not in the episode. She has told me she finds my theory biologically plausible, and that she has a recording of her interview. Dr. David Carpenter directed the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany for decades and is the most prominent academic voice arguing these fields cause harm. Childhood leukemia is the reason these fields carry a WHO classification at all, and Carpenter is the person you call if you want that case made by someone who has spent a career on it. He is in the credits. He is not in the episode. He has told me that when he was interviewed they could not have been less interested in what he had to say. Dr. Joel Moskowitz directs the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health. He told me directly that they interviewed him and that he thought it went well. He does not appear in the episode, and unlike Golomb and Carpenter, he does not even appear in the credits. Dr. Paul Héroux at McGill is the researcher whose work provides the foundation for the oxidative stress mechanism my theory rests on. I gave Rose his email address and phone number. He was never interviewed. They never even called him. 8. “He’s not a scientist.” The episode leans hard on the fact that I am not a credentialed scientist. Zukerman says it. Torre repeats it. “At all.” Having built a segment on that, they then left out the physicist-biologist-physician, the professor of public health, the director of a university environmental health institute, and the McGill researcher whose work the primary mechanism comes from. They spent the episode telling their audience I am not a scientist, and then kept four actual scientists who support the theory off because their argument does not survive otherwise. How they misrepresented me and my case 9. They played my words as a response to an interview I had never heard. Near the end of the hour, Zukerman says she went to me and told me the evidence was lacking. Then she plays me saying I am not wedded to it being an EMF, that I have staked my reputation on it needing more study, and that I am not certain of anything. That segment was placed immediately after Karipidis had finished taking the cherry-picked papers apart. It plays as a man folding under expert scrutiny. Commenters have used it against me since, but it is incorrect. Here is the sequence as it happened. I was interviewed. Karipidis was interviewed weeks later. I was never told what he said, or even who he was. I was never asked to respond to it. I did not know his name until the episode aired. That is not a simple editing decision. That is a quote from one interview, moved to follow a critique from a different interview it was not a response to, so that it would land as a concession. A friend of mine who has spent thirty years as a journalist read that sequence and called it sleazy. She is right. The full passage is reproduced in Appendix A, and it is worth reading. What airs is the preamble. Four paragraphs later I say “to directly answer your question” — and that answer, about what would change my mind if the team relocated, is not in the episode. Neither is the sentence two paragraphs on, where I say the EMF might turn out to be ten percent of the problem. I will say the underlying point again, though, because I meant it and I still do. I am not wedded to my theory that magnetic fields from the substation are contributing to the 49ers injuries. I could be wrong. What I am wedded to is the process of scientific inquiry, and the fact that we should be cautious around these exposures and we need more independently funded studies. 10. Three telling edits. They cut “I’m not a scientist” mid-sentence. What I said: “...and I am not certain of anything. I’m not a scientist. To me, I find the mechanisms compelling. I will go back to the fact that I got into this not because of the 49ers, but because of clients I was working with who suffer from EDS...” What aired: “...and that I am not certain of anything. I’m not.” The clip ends on the first two words of the sentence in which I say I am not a scientist, in an episode that spends considerable energy establishing that I am not a scientist. The full sequence is in Appendix A. They cut my own description of my work. Asked what I do, I said I run a wellness business, that I am focused on writing software to help people navigate environmental stressors, that environmental health is my focus, and that I also do independent journalism and research. What aired is the wellness business and the environmental health, with the software and the journalism removed from my own answer. The software engineering does come up later — narrated by them, as a hacker who grew up to write firmware — but my current work, in my own words, arrives as “wellness guy.” Thousands of commercial routers became home Wi-Fi. What I described: working at a wireless networking company surrounded by thousands of Wi-Fi routers, and a stress-induced health collapse afterward that working in that environment contributed to. What aired: Wi-Fi, the kind you have at home — reinforced by a clip of Christian McCaffrey talking about turning his router off at night. Three cuts, and every one of them makes me seem less credible. That is not a coincidence. 11. I gave them my own caveats and the test that would disprove me. In the first email I wrote that a well-designed chronic, ambient-level exposure study in tendon showing no collagen degradation, run over many months, would undercut my confidence in the theory. That is a specific, testable condition, stated in advance and in writing. There was a second interview, weeks later, which was not used in the episode, but in that I asked again for the falsification criterion to be included. What the episode presents instead is a man saying “we need more study,” which reads as a hedge, an open-ended request for the benefit of the doubt. It is the opposite of a hedge. Section 6 of my second email says, unprompted, that as far as I am aware there is not a single study showing EMF-driven oxidative stress degrading collagen in a human in vivo or in human tendon in a lab. I wrote that because it is true and because it is the first thing anyone should check. Under their standard it becomes the hinge of the entire first half, framed as something they had to surface without my cooperation. I had handed it to them five weeks earlier. And in the interview I said that my 25 to 50 milligauss readings were taken at knee level, and that these fields attenuate quickly, so by the time it reaches your head it is not that high anymore. That did not air either. The qualification arrives later, from Karipidis, as a correction. How you would actually study the injuries 12. They measured the wrong thing. The episode spends its final act on whether the 49ers are the most injured team in the NFL, finds no clean ranking, and lands on “injuries are random”. That is the wrong test. You would define the exposure — measured field levels at the facility — and the outcome narrowly: soft-tissue injuries, not a single MSK injury count that a broken finger and a ruptured Achilles both land in. Then you would compare the 49ers to themselves before and after the exposure changed, and compare that change against every other team over the same window. That controls for league-wide shifts in rules, turf and training load. It is a difference-in-differences design, and it is standard. I sent them that argument on July 28th, in writing, along with the fact that in eleven of the past twelve seasons the 49ers had finished top ten in Adjusted Games Lost. And by the episode’s own reporting, the 49ers are second in games lost to injury over the past decade, with FTN’s Aaron Schatz confirming that once you adjust for starters they come out second worst in the league — after having been one of the healthiest teams for years before that. A finding like that is where an investigation starts, not where it stops. 13. I did a lot of substation research for the episode that was never aired. I had reported that the substation next to the facility was expanded in 2014. That was wrong, and Rose Rimler and I sorted it out together. They gave me credit on air, which I appreciated, but framed it as a concession on my part to something they had found. In fact I had been investigating it myself, was uncertain before they asked, but was waiting for clarification from Silicon Valley Power. The uncertainty centered around a substation named “Esparanca” that was proposed right behind the facilities as part of the stadium construction, but now appears to never have been built. I spent days in Silicon Valley Power’s records, and did eventually reach Silicon Valley Power for confirmation and indentified the mistake myself. I also gave them highly detailed documents on what we do know about those facilities: new equipment installed between 2010 and 2014, and load growth across the system with an inflection around 2013–2014, with the Northern Receiving Station carrying the highest capacity in the system and sitting closest to the data center corridor. None of that is in the episode. I have a separate piece about it coming out soon. *I cut 2 seconds from the raw audio to remove personal information that had no connection to anything in the episode. Appendix A: the passage the clip was taken from This is the sequence from my first interview, in full. The episode uses one fragment of it. It’s tricky because my understanding is that there’s something like a 15-year half-life on collagen remodeling issues. They’re going to get a new crop of players. What I really need, though, is for the injuries to be broken down so we can see the soft tissue injuries. Right now, they’re categorized as MSK injuries, but let’s say we can actually identify them more specifically. Is that right? He was able to do that? Oh, cool. I wasn’t able to find that information. Interesting — I didn’t know that data existed. I tried so hard to get it, and I didn’t know it was available. Maybe you could connect me with that person. That would be amazing. I’m not wedded to it being an EMF, honestly. I’m not. I would say that, to a certain extent, I’ve staked my reputation on the fact that it needs more study. It’s important to look into it, and I am not certain of anything. I’m not a scientist. To me, I find the mechanisms compelling. I will go back to the fact that I got into this not because of the 49ers, but because of clients I was working with who suffer from EDS, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, a tendon hypermobility issue. This condition is documented to be partially caused by oxidative stress. I’ve worked with them to mitigate their EMF exposure and have seen people improve. I think it’s a bigger story. In a way, the 49ers represent an occupational cluster with specific exposure risks. If someone would conduct a study on this, I believe we could learn a lot. Perhaps we would discover that it’s like, okay, maybe it’s 10% of the problem. I don’t know the exact number, but I think either way, conducting the study would provide valuable insights. To directly answer your question, it’s challenging for me because it’s part of a bigger story. If the 49ers move and stop having injuries, I might conclude that it was related to the substation. However, if they move and still experience injuries, I would want to analyze the nature of those injuries. Are they primarily soft tissue injuries? I don’t think it’s necessarily a case closed, but the story might lose traction at that point regardless. Three things are worth noting. The aired fragment stops immediately before the sentence in which I say I am not a scientist — the cut described in item 10. It also stops four paragraphs before the words “to directly answer your question.” What the episode plays is the throat-clearing. The actual answer, about what would change my mind, never airs. And two paragraphs in, I say the EMF might turn out to be ten percent of the problem. That is the ranking the episode says I never gave. Appendix B: the full email, July 6th, 1:39 PM Hi Rose, You asked me to send you some studies a couple of weeks ago. I apologize for the delay. I have been incredibly busy. I also wanted to give you a chance to dig in yourself, and get your own perspective before I influenced you too much with mine. That said, I do want to make sure that the actual argument is abundantly clear, so here it is! One note before I begin, there are really two separate questions here: Does the substation cause the soft-tissue injuries? That was my specific claim, and what the podcast is about. Is the theory biologically sound? Can 50/60 Hz fields at these levels do anything biological below the safety limits? Question two is why people have been calling me a conspiracy theorist. The regulatory and advisory bodies (ICNIRP, etc) maintain that anything below their exposure limits is biologically inert, and that position is broadly accepted within the mainstream, but the actual science paints a different picture. To defend my theory I’ve had to defend a much larger claim: that the advisory bodies have the biology wrong. I can’t honestly answer question 1 without first addressing that. Here’s is a simplified outline of my theory, with links to studies: 1. Advisory body thresholds for biological effects The ELF magnetic-field limits (ICNIRP’s ~2,000 mG public / 10,000 mG occupational) exist to prevent acute effects from exposure. If a magnetic field is strong enough, it makes nerves fire and muscles contract. Muscles twitch. You can see faint flashes of light in your vision. People can even feel tingling or even a shock. That happens due to Faraday’s law, which states that a time-varying magnetic field induces an electric field inside the body via the creation of Eddy currents.The standards assume that those currents do nothing below the twitch threshold. They do not consider chronic effects at all. My argument is that they are biologically active and do have chronic effects. 2. There are multipe ELF-EMF mechanisms for inducing oxidative stress. This is basic biophysics. Below are the two primary mechanisms. Simplest first. Dr. Paul Héroux of McGill has the most intuitive explanation, which rests on Maxwell’s principle of superposition: because Maxwell’s equations are linear, two sets of electromagnetic waves sharing the same space simply add together. In the interview I pictured a pebble dropped into a pond, sending out clean ripples. Then a boat motors past at distance, sending larger waves, and where they meet the ripples, the two add together and the original pattern gets distorted. In our cells, the mitochondria run on continuous currents of electrons and protons that carry their own faint electromagnetic fields. An external field from a substation, by the principle of superposition, adds to those internal currents and shifts the pattern. The electron transport chain in the mitochondria leaks a fraction of its electrons by design as reactive oxygen species (ROS), which act as signalling molecules in a healthy cell. Distorting that field increases that electron leakage, creating oxidative stress. A tiny electromagnetic interference results in a large downstream effect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844025006474 The more complex pathway is Dimitris Panagopoulos’s Ion Forced-Oscillation / Voltage-Gated Ion Channel (IFO-VGIC) mechanism. Weak, polarized, low-frequency fields force the ions (calcium, potassium, sodium) next to an ion channel’s voltage sensor to oscillate; because that force scales with the inverse cube of the distance involved, fields far below the stimulation threshold can still force the channel open, disrupting the cell’s ion balance and driving ROS overproduction (Nitric oxide and superoxide interact and produce peroxynitrite, a highly unstable cytotoxin that breaks down into free radicals). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366088934 https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/59/5/92 https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/18/10041 https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1585441/full https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3772193/ 3. Evidence of oxidative stress, in vivo, in humans from ELF-EMF There are many studies, and the strongest are occupational, which applies to the 49ers situation. 115 power-plant workers vs. 145 office controls. Serum malondialdehyde (MDA, the standard lipid-peroxidation marker), superoxide dismutase, and catalase were all significantly higher in the exposed group, and the markers rose with increasing field exposure. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3233/WOR-203244 A follow-up where they reversed the oxidative stress in power plant workers. A double-blind randomized controlled trial: 91 power-plant workers given vitamin E, vitamin C, both, or placebo for 90 days. The antioxidant groups showed reduced lipid peroxidation and raised antioxidant capacity versus controls. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32191586/ A spot-welder study: 46 welders occupationally exposed at 50 Hz, showed significantly altered red-blood-cell antioxidant enzyme activity and concluded ELF-MF “might act as an oxidative stressor… even at the recommended levels of exposure.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18504600/ A substation-specific study found oxidative stress and DNA damage https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24460415/ 4. Oxidative stress degrades collagen This half isn’t controversial at all. Oxidative stress activates the matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) that break collagen down and suppresses its synthesis. Here are three example studies: Siwik et al. 2001: Oxidative stress raises MMPs and lowers collagen synthesis in cardiac fibroblasts. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11121376/ Fisher et al. 2009: Collagen fragmentation drives oxidative stress and elevates MMP-1 in aged human skin. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2631323/ Varani et al. 2006: Decreased collagen production in oxidatively aged skin. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16723701/ 5. What about the study showing improved collagen synthesis I’m glad you asked this question, and I’m bummed we didn’t get to it in the interview because it is a great question, and very important to understand. Superficially it may appear to be a refutation of my theory, but I would argue that it actually supports the underlying argument. That study used a short, high-intensity pulsed dose: therapeutic-PEMF, the same type of field used clinically to stimulate bone and tissue healing. The reason this works is because it triggers the very same biological pathways that can lead to oxidative stress. The exposure still stimulates ROS production, but done at a controlled dosage, for a limited duration it has a different effect. The cell reads the ROS as a warning signal and it upregulates its antioxidant defenses, and mounts a repair/proliferation response. The therapy is then stopped before the cell gets overwhelmed. That is essentially a hormetic response: a small dose of a stressor producing a beneficial adaptation. Two things follow: At the very least, this means the field is biologically active, which by itself undercuts the regulatory claim that these fields are inert below their thresholds. There is a wealth of literature on PEMF (pulsed EMF) bone regeneration and calcium channel signalling (which is the second mechanims in section one). Here is one. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep13856 At best, it leads us straight to my actual concern, which is that under chronic, chaotic and unregulated exposure, the cell’s antioxidant capacity gets overwhelmed, resulting in oxidative stress. There are plentiful examples of things that are beneficial at controlled doses, but harmful at uncontrolled doses. Excecise is one obvious, uncontroversial example. Botox is perhaps a more interesting example. 6. What about a study that shows EMF causing collagen degradation in humans? As far as I am aware there is not a single study showing EMF-driven oxidative stress degrading collagen in a human, in vivo, or in human tendon in a lab. There are studies involving isolated fibroblasts though, which secrete collagen. The most relevant one showed that human fetal scleral fibroblasts exposed to 50 Hz ELF-EMF showed a significant decrease in collagen synthesis and that MMP-2 expression was upregulated, which is the exact mechanism I described in section 2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3626379/ That’s it! Thanks again for the interview. Best, Peter Anthony Cowan Environmental Health · Wellness Tech · Researcher & Journalist Publisher & Editor, Living Energy Bio: petercowan.comSocial: X · Instagram · TikTokApp: sunlightis.lifePhone: [redacted]
To read 2,000-year-old burned scrolls, scientists burn their own
Charred papyrus scrolls from a library inundated by volcanic ash in 79 C.E. are largely unreadable. UC Berkeley scientists teamed up to create and burn their own scrolls to test a new way to decipher them.
UC Berkeley welcomes rising stars in math and physics
UC Berkeley is welcoming a powerhouse lineup of trailblazing scientists to advance its research enterprise.The Division of Mathematical
UC Berkeley Welcomes QuantrolOx to its Quantum Innovation Corridor
Quantum researchers and campus leaders heralded the arrival of QuantrolOx at UC Berkeley’s Roger Herst Quantum Nexus. The occasion marks the first U.S. office for QuantrolOx, establishing a foothold
UC Berkeley Law event targets Trump science policies as ‘censorship’
The University of California, Berkeley School of Law organized an Aug. 25 discussion focused on resisting censorship and protecting academic freedom in scientific research.
Letters and Science advisers bargain over return-to-office requirement
SSAP-UAW, the union that represents undergraduate advisers, is bargaining to stop a return-to-office mandate that would require UC Berkeley’s College of Letters and Science undergraduate advisers to work on campus
Bridging Art and Science: How Philanthropy and Passion Built UC
UC Berkeley lecturer Melanie Acosta remembers when everything changed for her. She was working as a professional singer in New York City at the time of the September 11, 2001, attacks. At the time,
Ancient lore meets small-town politics: Why fans are flocking to 'Widow’s Bay'
UC Berkeley Professor Abigail De Kosnik explains why the new horror-comedy’s mix of genre play, dark humor and original storytelling has resonated so widely.
Nobel Prize winner leaving UC Berkeley for new role in China
Omar Yaghi will lead an AI institute at Tsinghua University in Beijing.
UC Berkeley locks down buildings around business school
Officials said police are searching the area, on the east side of the UC Berkeley campus, but did not immediately say for what.
Secure-in-place order issued in UC Berkeley Haas School of Business, surrounding buildings
UC Berkeley officials issued a secure-in-place order to anyone inside Cheit Hall and Chou Hall near the Haas School of Business.
11 ideas from UC Berkeley Haas that changed American business - Haas News
As America celebrates its 250th birthday, we're celebrating a few of the ideas born at UC Berkeley Haas that helped shape American business.
UC Berkeley is establishing the Nancy Pelosi Institute to address democracy's challenges
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the University of California, Berkeley, are partnering to form a new nonpartisan academic institute they say will be dedicated to strengthening democracy
UC Berkeley is establishing the Nancy Pelosi Institute to address democracy's challenges
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the University of California, Berkeley, are partnering to form a new nonpartisan academic institute they say will be dedicated to strengthening democracy.
For Nancy Pelosi, good-bye Congress. Hello, Pelosi Democracy Institute
The first female speaker of the House will be co-teaching a course on Congress at UC Berkeley's new institute, among other things.
After 40 years in Congress, Nancy Pelosi to help create institute to train leaders of the future
The former House speaker plans to help create an institute at UC Berkeley that will concentrate on civic engagement and research
Nancy Pelosi's post-Congress plan: Launching UC Berkeley politics institute
Rep. Nancy Pelosi will launch a multimillion-dollar politics institute at UC Berkeley when she leaves office, co-teaching a course on Congress and hosting visiting fellows from across the political spectrum.
UC Berkeley computer science students fail in large numbers, professors cite AI dependence
A dramatic spike in failing grades among computer science students at the University of California, Berkeley has alarmed faculty, who are pointing to an overreliance on artificial intelligence tools and a stark decline in foundational math skills as the primary culprits.
The number of uninsured Californians could nearly double by 2030, says new report
Historic cuts to Medicaid and low-cost California health insurance could leave 4.6 million residents with no coverage. A new report from the UC Berkeley Labor Center says the working poor, older workers and undocumented workers could bear the brunt.
We can create the future of science right now
Paul Litvak is the founder and Executive Director of the Robyn Dawes Institute and a Visiting Scholar at UC Berkeley. He has a PhD in Behavioral Decision Research from Carnegie Mellon where he studied emotions and the sunk cost bias. Over 15 years in industry, he solved a wide range of challenging technical problems. At Meta he created models optimizing the ad review process. At Google he ran experiments to measure social influence. At Airbnb, he was a product manager leading machine learning teams optimizing search ranking and price suggestions. He also co-founded and led product at Rhythmic Health, a venture-backed biosensing startup, creating an accurate low cost system using a color changing strip and a smart phone to measure salivary lactate. The bottleneck At this point, it is uncontroversial to say that science needs to stop using the PDF article as the unit of knowledge and currency. The unbearable slowness of scientific publishing, the profit motive and margins: I’m not saying anything new. The PDF also sucks because it’s hard to extract structured information, which makes it hard to do evidence synthesis. As a result, we do much less evidence synthesis than is needed. And evidence synthesis ultimately undergirds most policy and medical decision-making. I can see second-by-second real-time odds for any sporting or newsworthy event, but a school board can’t see the best evidence on whether their 8th graders should be taught algebra. As a society, we don’t treat this as an important problem. Again, not controversial. Not only is the problem well understood, but the solution has already been laid out. What we need is AI-assisted living evidence synthesis - (1) an open knowledge graph of atomic claims, (2) claims linked to evidence, (3) assessment and synthesis of each piece of evidence, and (4) continuous updating with new data. What few realize (yet) is that the technical capacity to build this vision for a significant portion of science already exists. Not only that, scientists and startup teams are already building many of these components. I know this because I’ve been surveying the space and talking to many of the builders. There are some missing pieces: for example, evaluations of how well some of the components work. But at this point, most of what’s missing is a fully end-to-end working integration of all of these parts. In the rest of this essay, I’m going to lay out all the parts of a working living evidence layer for science and who is working on them, and propose concrete next steps for building this system. What’s now possible The diagram above outlines the components of a living evidence synthesis platform, including some of the teams working on each component1. Scientific PDFs are processed into claims with associated evidence. The evidence is subjected to a forensic audit, methodological evaluation and robustness and reproducibility checks. Finally it’s given a weight in a continuously updating synthesis. What follows is a description and status of each component and a few of the teams working on them. Document understanding The first thing you need to be able to do is turn an article into structured data. Mostly that means parsing PDFs. There are often multicolumn layouts that confuse non-specialized PDF to text processing libraries. For scientific papers, there is the added complexity of parsing formulas and tables and figures. This is a really hot area - there are startups offering APIs, and it seems like a new open source package gets posted to Github every few weeks. What follows isn’t exhaustive. A package called GROBID was the state of the art for a while, they didn’t update their package for nearly two years until very recently. In the meantime reducto.ai released an AI powered PDF extraction API, PaddleOCR became popular, IBM released a model called Docling, and both Mistral and Gemini created models and libraries. I also know of at least one other well-funded psychology research group working on a paper parser. By contrast, there are few open evals in this space, with no extensive evals for complex table comprehension in particular. Nonetheless, I’m confident this will be a solved problem soon, given the combination of LLM advances and developer interest. Hypothesis level extraction There has been increasing interest in comprehending the extracted text of papers and linking information to evidence for each hypothesis. A lot of work has already been done. Trialstreamer (Marshall et al. 2020) and RobotReviewer LIVE (Marshall et al. 2023) demonstrated automated extraction of trial population, intervention, and outcome at scale on clinical RCTs. PaperQA2 (Skarlinski et al. 2024) and Ai2 ScholarQA (2024) extended this to retrieval-augmented question answering with citation grounding. Elicit, Consensus, and SciSpace operationalized claim-level extraction for end users. OpenEval (Booeshaghi et al. 2026) is the most recent and most ambitious: 1.96 million atomic claims extracted from 16,087 eLife manuscripts using Claude Sonnet 4.5, grouped into ~299,000 results, with LLM evaluations showing 81% agreement with human peer review on a 2,487-paper subset. None of these solutions link claims to test-statistics, as you would need to evaluate randomized controlled trials. This is why I built the evidence.guide API - to extract hypotheses and associated test statistics from behavioral science papers. The best public eval of this kind of extraction I’m aware of comes from the recent SCORE project - they had humans code thousands of psychology papers to extract their claims by hand. It would be extremely helpful to the world if all scientific PDFs were available as structured open data. I’ve been working to make this happen, both directly at Berkeley and through coordination with large entities I can’t yet speak of; as hard as it is to do, I think it’s possible2. Forensic audit A lot of work has been done on forensic audit, but some gaps remain. Of course, for biology papers that rely on images for evidence, there are a variety of tools (notably Proofig and ImageTwin) to spot anomalies. These are still well short of what sleuths like Elizabeth Bik can do on her own, but these tools are constant companions among fraud analysts. There’s someone working on auditing Excel files for anomalies, and a number of teams are automating numerical checks like GRIM and SPRITE, including Scrutiny project, the INSPECT-SR team as well as statcheck. The regcheck team is building a way to use AI to compare preregistrations to analyses in papers, to ensure there aren’t significant deviations. Nonetheless, there are many other kinds of anomalies to screen for, both public and less publicly known. And there are no formal evals for anomaly detection that I’m aware of. Still, there’s a lot to draw from in this space and I’m pretty certain we will be able to scan papers for most kinds of obvious anomalies in the near future. Methodological review This area has been white hot, though I fear for many of the startups in this space, because this capability may become commoditized. There are at least six different AI peer review companies, including Refine.ink, Reviewer3, ReviewerZero.ai, Q.E.D. Science, Paper Wizard, and Isitcredible. Coarse (a pun on refine) was also recently created as an open source alternative. These systems provide qualitative feedback on the content of papers, spotting methodological weaknesses and mathematical errors. They seem to work pretty well, and many academics report bitterly that they exceed the average quality of typical peer reviewers. But there are few evals here either. What evals exist so far involve using LLM-as-judge (circularity problems abound) or comparing against human reviews of questionable quality. What you’d ideally want is an eval that measures capturing known errors in papers3. Reproducibility and robustness Another active area has been using AI agents to automate computational reproducibility4 and robustness5 checks in papers that report numerical results. For more recent papers where data and code are available, AI agents can see whether they can re-run the analyses and produce the numbers reported in the published paper. In addition to a handful of individual academics who have been experimenting using Claude Code for this, the Institute for Replication is a leading group working on building an end to end system. The evals related to this problem are the most mature, with CORE-Bench (Siegel, Kapoor, Narayanan 2024) and PaperBench (OpenAI 2025) available to benchmark agents on this task. There is also work on getting AI agents to test alternative ways of analyzing the data to ensure the results are robust to small analytic design choices. Synthesis This is the most underdeveloped area where significant investment is required. Although some automated evidence synthesis systems exist — for example, otto-sr is building an AI agent to write systematic reviews — none of these incorporate the full range of paper level signals to weight evidence appropriately. Nor is there anything like an eval or a gold standard for a good systematic review. Arguably Cochrane reviews are the closest we have to gold standard human systematic reviews, though I’ve heard academics in the know complain about their uneven quality. A key question for a synthesis platform is how to weight anomalies and methodological issues in assessing the quality of a piece of evidence. This is an unsolved problem and one I’m very keen to work on. Continuous updating There are many pieces of basic infrastructure available for monitoring for new research and initiating updates. OpenAlex is the current open citation graph. Retraction Watch integrated into Crossref in October 2023. Scite tracks how citations support, contrast, or mention prior claims. The Living Evidence Network demonstrated continuous-update workflows in clinical guidelines. Engineering this is a relatively straightforward task. When you look over this technical architecture and all the progress being made, it’s hard not to be optimistic that a living guide to scientific evidence will be built. The stakeholders are ready The social infrastructure for this is starting to coalesce — it’s not just a pie in the sky academic exercise to imagine this coming into existence. Institutions like the Center for Open Science, the Institute for Replication, the INSPECT-SR, the Living Evidence Network and more are all working on scaling work to improve research quality. Funders are also aligned. The Sloan Foundation has funded living evidence work through COS. Coefficient Giving supports the Institute for Replication and COS. The Astera Institute and the Institute for Progress have shown interest in this space. NIH has established an Office for Replication and Reproducibility. Although there are (very unfortunately) serious headwinds in science funding generally, there is an active group of funders interested in metascience. A brief word about what I’ve been doing at RDI. First, as a Visiting Scholar at Berkeley I’ve been actively figuring out how a non-profit and a public university can conduct and make public the results of large-scale academic article data mining. With some of the money I raised from donors, I commissioned a legal analysis of recent case law and publisher text data mining (TDM) agreements in order to understand whether a massive open data mining of academic articles is possible (with caveats, it is). I’ve also been working to bring together stakeholders in this space, and identify gaps. I’ve also been doing some software development in this space, with more to come. A pilot proposal The assumption undergirding all of this is that an AI, given all this information, would make the right judgment about a scientific claim with lots of conflicting evidence, weighing all the factors appropriately. That’s the hypothesis we need to test. Randomized control trial research is the best place to focus on first. RCTs are used to make many of the important decisions in society - from medical trials to public policy changes. And they use a relatively uniform set of inferential statistics with lots of known and available diagnostics. Behavioral science experiments, within the broader realm of RCTs, should be first used as a testbed whose results can be generalized. Because behavioral science is at the vanguard of open science practices, replications abound (there are thousands of them) to serve as ground truth training data. Key Hypothesis Therefore the pilot would test, in behavioral RCTs that have been replicated, whether the quality of evidence for a claim can be used to accurately predict whether that claim will replicate. Secondary Hypotheses Compared to claims that replicated, non-replicated claims demonstrate a greater share of forensic anomalies in their source literatures. Hypothesis level claim and statistic extraction is accurate enough to scale living evidence without onerous human review costs. Replication prediction is more accurate than prediction markets6 or journal prestige. If all the different quality signals we gather do accurately predict which studies will replicate, then we can use that model to score evidence to power the living evidence layer. Why this is informative regardless of outcome If the pilot succeeds, the architecture extends to medical RCTs (where Living Evidence already operates and integration is mostly about claim representation), then to slices of basic biology with stable replication structure. If it fails, the field learns which quality signals are load-bearing and which ones metascience has oversold. Either result is a contribution to knowing what the literature supports. Implications for funders Because this burgeoning ecosystem of builders already exists, a well-informed philanthropic or government funder could play a crucial catalyzing role in bringing this future about. They could play at least three roles: creating open structured datasets, publishing open benchmarks and incentivizing the solving of key technical challenges. First, open archives of papers that the government maintains, like PubMed, could be turned into structured data amenable to large scale metascience and claim aggregation. I know the US government already has an interest in doing this, though some key open questions remain unanswered. How do you determine the best models and systems for accurately extracting information from papers? How can you establish a robust way to allow researchers to flag errors and correct them? And finally, how do you create a legal regime in working with publishers to maximize the scope of available papers? For the latter, a university or a private philanthropy may be better positioned to make structured data publicly available under journal subscription terms or fair use. Philanthropists or government funders could also coordinate to create or commission benchmarks that evaluate whether important problems have been solved. For example, an open benchmark for claim extraction from a range of different scientific article types would be extremely helpful. Ensuring the underlying data are accurate is vital for creating these evaluations. I’ve discussed opportunistically using various human-created datasets for this purpose, but a consistent problem is that errors in human data make it difficult for them to serve as a gold standard. Finally, with structured data and benchmarks available, the government or private philanthropy could use them to incentivize groups to develop machine learning systems that meet these benchmarks. Prizes are one potentially valuable tool for this. For example, you could establish a prize for a system that accurately updates a living meta-analysis for a small set of claims. Prizes are particularly useful as signals of problem importance, and can help create vibrant ecosystems of public and private research—see, for example the role the government played in kickstarting the current work on nuclear fusion. Conclusion The drawbacks of the current scientific publishing system are known. Scientists agree, metascientists agree, philanthropists agree: the published PDF plus citation graph isn’t the right substrate for maintaining a representation of the evidence base in science. The pieces needed to build the alternative either already exist or are rapidly taking shape. The community is forming around exactly this problem, with concrete partnerships and shared infrastructure. A pilot should start on behavioral science RCTs because that’s the slice of empirical science most amenable to legibility, where replication ground truth is richest, and where the failure modes are best documented. What’s been missing is the galvanizing mission to assemble these pieces into something that works. That’s what I’m proposing to build. *** 1 I have a broader field map that I’ll release publicly soon. This is me, building in public! 2 If this is something that you are excited about, please reach out and talk to me. 3 More on this very soon too! 4 This tests whether, given the code and the data, you can get the same statistics as reported in the published paper. 5 This tests whether the results are the same as a paper’s given alternative analytical decisions in conducting the analysis (like outlier omission). Closely related is the idea of a “multiverse” where you come up with many different ways of answering the same underlying research question with the same data, and test whether the results hold in all those alternative methods. There’s been work on the latter as well. 6 Some of the replications, e.g. those from the SCORE project, had paired the experiments with forecasts from prediction markets. So we get to look at this for free.
Number of students failing UC Berkeley computer science, engineering classes ‘soars’
UC Berkeley professors report a significant increase in student failures in computer science classes, attributing it to cheating, poor math skills, and over-reliance on AI. In spring, 35%
Celebrating UC Berkeley’s 2025–26 National Scholarship and Fellowship
We would like to wrap up the 2025–2026 academic year by congratulating all of the current Cal Bears and recent alums who received nationally competitive scholarships and fellowships this academic
UC Berkeley School of Public Health celebrates its 81st commencement
UCBPH celebrated the class of 2026 before an exuberant crowd at the Greek Theatre.
How San José State leaped to No. 2 in national computer science ranking
San José State's computer engineering and software engineering programs have risen to second place in a national assessment of programming and software engineering skills, surpassing top-tier universities such as CalTech, UC Berkeley and Stanford
Political science alum confirmed as ambassador to Sri Lanka
Yesterday, the U.S. Senate confirmed Eric Meyer as ambassador to Sri Lanka. Meyer is a political science graduate from UC Berkeley who was confirmed alongside 48 other nominees.
2026 Best 40-Under-40 Business Professors: Jonathan Weigel, UC Berkeley Haas School of Business
Over the last decade, Poets&Quants has honored more than 540 up-and-coming star MBA and graduate business professors from around the world.
2026 University Medal finalists: Eyes on the stars, feet on the ground
Each of the four finalists for the 2026 University Medal embodies UC Berkeley’s core values: remarkable academic achievement and a deep commitment to public service. This year, all four come from the realms of science.
Trump administration again suspends UC Berkeley research grants
The Trump administration has again suspended research grants to the University of California. The National Science Foundation froze at least 18 grants to the university shortly before Trump ousted the scientists on the board overseeing the agency, an attorney representing researchers said.
The National Academy of Sciences Elects Two Berkeley Lab Researchers
Two Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) scientists have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. They are part of a cohort of 120 new members and 25 international members. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit institution that was established under a congressional charter signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863. It recognizes achievement in science by election to membership, and — alongside the National Academy of Engineering and the National Academy of Medicine — provides science, engineering, and health policy advice to the federal government and other organizations. The 2026 electees bring the total number of active members to 2,705 with 557 international members. Gary Karpen is a biologist senior faculty scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Biological Systems and Engineering Division and a Professor of Cell and Developmental Physiology in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology at UC Berkeley. Karpen studies how the structure, organization, and maintenance of genetic material impact inheritance and cell function. His lab focuses on chromatin — a packaged form of DNA strands wrapped around proteins that comprises our chromosomes — with a particular emphasis on centromeres, rarely expressed sequences called heterochromatin, DNA repair, and regulatory RNAs. His research reveals insights into fundamental aspects of nuclear organization and genome regulation that are shared across the tree of life, broadening our understanding of cancer and other diseases, birth defects, and aging. Kam-Biu Luk is a Professor Emeritus of physics at UC Berkeley and a retired senior faculty scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Physics Division. He is an experimental particle physicist whose research has focused on neutrinos: nearly massless, electrically neutral elementary particles that can pass through matter virtually undetected. Neutrinos are created during radioactive decay processes, including the fusion process occurring in stars and the fission process that powers nuclear reactors. Luk initiated and co-led the Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiment, a project based in China with more than 200 international collaborators. In 2012, the Daya Bay experiment discovered a new form of a phenomenon called “neutrino oscillation” in which neutrinos change from one type to another. For this discovery, Luk and his collaborator Yifan Wang received the 2014 American Physical Society Division of Particles and Fields W.K.H. Panofsky Prize for outstanding work in experimental particle physics, and he was also the co-recipient of the 2016 Breakthrough Prize. Luk is currently participating in the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) hosted by Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, which will investigate any potential difference in behavior between neutrinos and antineutrinos that may shed light on the evolution of the universe, especially why antimatter is absent in the present universe. ### Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) is committed to groundbreaking research focused on discovery science and solutions for abundant and reliable energy supplies. The lab’s expertise spans materials, chemistry, physics, biology, earth and environmental science, mathematics, and computing. Researchers from around the world rely on the lab’s world-class scientific facilities for their own pioneering research. Founded in 1931 on the belief that the biggest problems are best addressed by teams, Berkeley Lab and its scientists have been recognized with 17 Nobel Prizes. Berkeley Lab is a multiprogram national laboratory managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit energy.gov/science.
National Academy of Sciences elects six Berkeley researchers to its
The National Academy of Sciences announced its newest members this week, among them six eminent UC Berkeley faculty members, including former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen. Membership
IGN Entertainment releases internal data as public report, developed by Kantar and UC Berkeley
Generations in Play report highlights differences in game consumption habits, with Gen X as completionist Google users and Gen Z committed to social media
National Academy of Sciences elects six Berkeley researchers to its
The National Academy of Sciences announced its newest members this week, among them six eminent UC Berkeley faculty members, including former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen. Membership
Seven UC Berkeley faculty elected to the American Academy of Arts and
This week, seven UC Berkeley faculty — representing academic fields from philosophy to molecular biology to engineering — were named members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The Academy,
UC Berkeley student turns a necessity into a business
UC Berkeley sophomore Christian Alvarez shares how he came up with 'Ernyst," a website and app that has helped dozens of UC Berkeley students get connected with members of the community who need an extra hand.
These UC Berkeley Students Are Leading the Fight Against Phones
They’re deleting their social media accounts and reducing their screen time. And they want you to join them.
Seven UC Berkeley faculty elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
The Academy recognizes accomplished individuals and engages them in addressing the greatest challenges facing the U.S.
3 UC scientists honored with ‘Oscars of Science’ at the 2026 Breakthrough Prizes
Two UC Berkeley faculty members and a UC Santa Barbara Nobel laureate were awarded Breakthrough Foundation prizes for their incredible contributions to advancing science.
CBL Scholars Program Opens Pathways to Business Law Careers - UC Law San Francisco (Formerly UC Hastings)
First-year law students and 2026 CBL Scholars Deniz Masjedi, Alvaro Flores, and Tavia Pappaly gain mentorship connections with leading industry professionals as they prepare for careers in business law. Created by the UC Center for Business Law San Francisco (CBL), the CBL Scholars Program aims to develop the next generation of business law leaders, supported by contributions from individuals and corporate sponsors. The highly competitive program provides funding along with academic and professional mentorship to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Scholars gain exposure to the Bay Area’s technology and venture capital ecosystems and access to UC Law SF’s broad network of senior legal professionals. Now in its sixth year, the CBL Scholars Program provides a scholarship and academic and professional mentorship to students entering the business law community from disadvantaged educational, economic, social, or physical backgrounds. The program is generously sponsored by the law firms Gunderson Dettmer and Goodwin Procter. Meet this year’s CBL Scholars: Deniz Masjedi, Alvaro Flores, and Tavia Pappaly. All three have secured summer associate positions at prestigious law firms. Deniz Masjedi: A Passion for Helping Founders Grow Companies Deniz Masjedi, who was born in Iran and moved to Southern California as a teenager, traces her interest in law to her family’s immigration journey and her desire to advocate for herself and her family. She earned a bachelor’s degree at UC Berkeley, where she studied political science and sociology. At UC Law SF, she serves as a 1L representative for the Iranian Law Students Association and is active in the Business Law Society and Technology & Law Society. Next fall, she will serve as director of mentorship for the Technology & Law Society and director of professional development for the Business Law Society. She will join Sidley Austin this year as a 1L/2L summer associate. Q: What draws you to business law? A: Prior to law school, I worked in Cooley LLP’s Private Companies practice group as a corporate paralegal for three years, supporting over 100 venture-backed startups and venture capital funds. I found purpose in helping founders transform their vision into successful companies. It was incredibly rewarding being part of their journeys—from company formation and initial financing to major transactions such as M&A deals. What excites me most about this field is the potential for a small, innovative company to become the next Google or Zoom, shaping how people communicate and access information. I hope to continue supporting entrepreneurs and investors as a corporate attorney. Q: What does it mean to you to have been awarded this scholarship? A: As the first person in my family to attend law school in the United States, receiving this scholarship is a tremendous honor. My parents and I left everything behind so that I could enjoy the freedom to practice my religion without persecution and pursue a career in law as a woman. This award is an acknowledgment of my dedication to business law and motivates me to continue pursuing excellence in this field. It also recognizes years of hard work—learning a new language, navigating the college and law school application process, and ultimately building a career in the legal profession. Q: How will this scholarship help support your future goals? A: This scholarship will provide access to mentorship from leaders in the field, enabling me to develop the skills necessary to offer practical advice and effective representation to future clients. It also eases the financial burden of law school, letting me focus on my coursework and deepen my commitment to corporate law. As an immigrant, breaking into the legal profession has not always been easy, and the time that mentors have invested in me has been instrumental to my progress. This scholarship will allow me to continue building those relationships while positioning me to one day mentor others pursuing similar paths. Alvaro Flores: Inspired by Entrepreneurs The son of Mexican immigrants raised in San Antonio, Texas, Alvaro Flores says he has long been interested in how policy, markets, and culture shape society. He studied international relations and global economy at the University of Southern California, with minors in business finance and legal studies. His experiences span local political organizing, venture capital and startup work, and teaching entrepreneurship. At UC Law SF, he is involved in the Business Law Society, Technology & Law Society, and the Latinx Law Student Association. He will join Perkins Coie as a 1L/2L summer associate with the firm’s Emerging Companies & Venture Capital practice. Q: What draws you to business law? A: I’m drawn to stories of entrepreneurs whose simple ideas become companies that shape the economy and society. Spending time in venture capital and working directly with founders has shown me that many important decisions in the scaling process are ultimately legal ones, particularly how companies are structured and how capital is raised. Business law sits at the intersection of innovation and equity. It offers a way to stay close to the pace of technological change while also helping expand who gets to participate in it. There is something special about being part of that process here in the Bay Area, where the American Dream feels like it is reimagined in real time. Q: What does it mean to you to have been awarded this scholarship? A: I am truly grateful for the support and belief this scholarship represents. I see it not just as recognition, but also as alignment. The CBL Scholars Program’s focus on developing individuals who engage deeply with the business and technology ecosystem reflects the path I have been intentionally building. More than anything, it feels like an investment in that journey. I have been thoughtful about each next step–whether teaching, working in venture capital, or building multidisciplinary experiences–and this scholarship reinforces that those efforts come together in a meaningful way. Q: How will this scholarship help support your future goals? A: It allows me to focus more on developing as a business lawyer, without the distraction of financial constraints. Beyond that, the mentorship and access to the Bay Area network are just as valuable. I’m especially interested in working with early-stage companies and investors, so the opportunity to learn directly from people operating at a high level in that space is huge. Tavia Pappaly: Working in the Wine Industry Sparked Interest in Business and Law Tavia Pappaly spent five years in the wine industry before deciding to pursue law school with a goal of becoming a corporate transactions attorney. Pappaly says she wants to use her legal skills to help business grow and thrive. A first-generation law student from Fairfield, California, she is a member of the Legal Education Opportunity Program (LEOP) and will serve as vice president of social planning for the UC Law SF Sports Law Society in her 2L year. She plans to work as a summer associate at Gibson Dunn in San Francisco after her 2L year. Q: What draws you to business law? A: Business law brings together many of my interests and personal experiences. As the daughter of immigrants who grew up around a family-owned small business, I saw firsthand both the opportunities and challenges of building something from the ground up. That perspective, combined with my experience in the wine industry, solidified my interest in helping businesses of all sizes tackle evolving legal challenges. I’m excited to grow within the corporate law space and develop the skills and experience to support businesses at every stage. I’m deeply motivated to give back to immigrant communities and small business owners, whose experiences often intersect. By building a strong foundation in corporate law, I hope to support those working to create generational stability and to contribute in a meaningful way to the communities that have shaped me. Q: What does it mean to you to have been awarded this scholarship? A: Receiving this scholarship is incredibly meaningful to me. I take great pride in my background as a first-generation student and a woman of color, so being recognized for my potential in a field that has historically underrepresented those communities is both affirming and empowering. This program will help connect me to the resources and committed mentors that will help me succeed. Beyond that, it is no secret that law school is a significant financial commitment. This scholarship helps ease both the financial burden and the stress that comes with it, allowing me to focus more on my education and long-term goals. I am incredibly grateful! Q: How will this scholarship help support your future goals? A: This scholarship has already connected me with an incredible network of faculty, business law professionals, and like-minded students. The community fostered by the Center for Business Law is deeply supportive, and I’m excited to grow alongside my cohort. I truly believe this network will play an important role in helping me thrive in law school and position me for success in business law. As I have seen firsthand how impactful both financial scholarship and mentorship are, I hope to give back in this same way later in my career.
On the frontlines of speech science with Liberty Hamilton and Alex
Last summer, UC Berkeley hired not one but two computational neuroscientists, Liberty Hamilton and Alex Huth, who study how the brain processes language. The pair has a lot more in common. Both
Bay Area scientists honored at the ‘Oscars of Science’ for math and physics
Researchers from Stanford and UC Berkeley are being celebrated like celebrities for advancing mathematics and developing strategies to find a hypothetical particle.
Four UC Berkeley L&S professors win illustrious Guggenheim Fellowships
From Zora Neale Hurston to Jennifer Doudna, winners of the prestigious Guggenheim Fellowship are known for artistic creations, scientific discoveries and groundbreaking scholarship that fundamentally
UC Berkeley students express transparency concerns in computer science comprehensive review process
UC Berkeley students attempting to add the computer science major have been navigating an uncertain comprehensive review process this year.
UC Berkeley Public Health surges to No. 6 in U.S. News Rankings
UCBPH was also ranked as a top 10 school for Environmental Health, Community Health, Epidemiology, and Health Policy & Management.
UC Berkeley Haas climbs to No. 10 as the top public business school; evening & weekend MBA holds No. 1 ranking in U.S. News - Haas News
UC Berkeley Haas is the top-ranked public business school in U.S. News & World Report’s Best Business Schools 2026, with the Full-time MBA Program rising to No. 10, the MBA for Executives climbing to No. 4; and the Evening & Weekend MBA Program continuing its reign at No. 1. The Haas Undergraduate Program was previously ranked No. 3 in U.S. News' 2026 Best Undergraduate Business Programs, released last September.
Eight L&S faculty members elected fellows of the American Association
Congratulations to the eleven UC Berkeley faculty members named AAAS Fellows. The newly elected Fellows include a tech pioneer, the author of a book on nature’s poisons and a neuroscientist who can
Eleven UC Berkeley faculty members elected fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
The newly elected AAAS Fellows include a tech pioneer, the author of a book on nature’s poisons and a neuroscientist who can decode what you are seeing from your brain wave activity.
UC Berkeley researcher Sathvik Iyengar named 2026 Schmidt Science Fellow
Prestigious international fellowship recognizes emerging interdisciplinary science leaders
UC Berkeley’s Lawrence Hall of Science to host Earth Day celebration, month of events
The Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley’s public science center, will host its third annual Earth Day Celebration on April 26,
More than a degree: How UC Berkeley’s Rural Health Innovation Fellowship empowered Dr. Candy Stockton’s
As boots-on-the-ground rural health care professionals, RHI fellows share their experiences and advocate for policies that strengthen rural health care.
Smoked duck sandwiches, chia seed pudding, and tater tots: Introducing the new Ohlone-crafted cafe at Lawrence Hall of Science
The UC Berkeley science center launched 'ammatka from Vincent Medina and Louis Trevino in February as part of its larger 'ottoy initiative.
Scientists discover microbe that breaks a fundamental rule of the genetic code
Scientists at UC Berkeley have discovered a microbe that bends one of biology’s most sacred rules. Instead of treating a specific three-letter DNA code as a clear “stop” signal, this methane-producing archaeon sometimes reads it as a green light—adding an unusual amino acid and continuing to build the protein. The result is a kind of genetic coin flip: two different proteins can emerge from the same code, influenced partly by environmental conditions.
Expert Q&A: Why climate health research matters more than ever under new federal stance
UC Berkeley’s Dr. David J. X. González on what the recent reversal of the “Endangerment Finding” means for public health.
Five Berkeley Lab Scientists Receive DOE Early Career Research Awards
Five scientists from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have received Early Career Research Program (ECRP) awards from the Department of Energy. The ECRP program, now in its 16th year, was established to bolster the nation’s scientific workforce by supporting exceptional researchers at the outset of their careers, when many scientists do their most formative work. Recipients use the funding to pursue projects that have the potential to solve scientific challenges and advance the country’s STEM capabilities. To be eligible for the program, a researcher must be an untenured, tenure-track assistant or associate professor at a U.S. academic institution, or a full-time employee at a DOE national laboratory or Office of Science user facility, who is within 10 years of having earned their doctorate. Awards to an institution of higher education will be approximately $875,000 over five years, and awards to a DOE national laboratory or Office of Science user facility will be approximately $2,750,000 over five years. This year’s Berkeley Lab awardees and their projects are listed below: Timon Heim: Better detectors for more powerful particle colliders Timon Heim is a staff scientist in the Physics Division. His ECRP project will develop a new type of detector that can track the particles generated by collisions in particle colliders with high spatial and temporal resolution. Current detectors in use at high-energy colliders, like the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, can track the trajectory and measure momentum of particles, but they can’t track a particle’s time of arrival with sufficient precision to discern from which of the many particle interactions they originate. Heim’s proposed technology — called a 4D tracking detector, because it captures data about particles’ positions in space and time — aims to solve this challenge, allowing researchers to glean more precise data from collision experiments to uncover new insights into fundamental forces and potentially discover new particles. The enhanced capabilities of 4D detectors will be a necessity for experiments at future colliders, such as the Muon Collider or Future Circular Collider. The project will develop custom microelectronics that process the signal of a pixelated silicon sensor that can register charged particles passing through it in an extreme radiation environment that these colliders produce during operation. The goal is to measure individual particles’ position with 50-micro-meter spatial and 50 pico-second (one trillionth of a second) temporal precision, for an incoming flux of around 1 billion particles per second per square centimeter. Harrison Lisabeth: Studying underground processes to unleash abundant energy Harrison Lisabeth is a research scientist in the Energy Geoscience Division focused on combining real-world experiments and AI to guide development of geothermal energy systems. His project will explore how deep underground rock formations – where geothermal wells are dug – are stressed by chemical reactions of the minerals and mechanical strain from movements in the Earth. A better understanding of subsurface stresses is essential to engineer safe and reliable geothermal wells that access the heat of deep rocks to produce electricity. It is estimated that the U.S. could generate ten times the amount of energy needed to power the grid using geothermal sources. Lisabeth plans to simulate how minerals grow, dissolve, and influence the behavior of surrounding rock in geothermal reservoirs by tracking chemical changes in rock samples under pressure in the lab. The project will also develop machine learning models to predict geologic strain based on field measurements and refine existing models that describe how common rock types deform under stress. Combining these approaches, Lisabeth hopes to develop a framework to predict stress to improve stability and longevity of geothermal wells. Daniel Carney: Pushing the quantum boundaries of particle measurement Daniel Carney is a staff scientist in the Physics Division who uses quantum information science to study particle physics and gravity. At very small scales, “quantum noise” — random fluctuations from the act of measurement — can drown out faint signals from rare processes. Carney’s ECRP project, “Fundamental Physics at the Quantum Limits of Measurement,” aims to build a new mechanical quantum sensor that can measure extremely small particle interactions below the limits of that quantum noise. The approach uses lasers to hold a tiny bead containing radioactive atoms; when one decays, the system measures the bead’s motion and the energy of any particles emitted. The experiment’s initial goal is to search for heavy sterile neutrinos, hypothetical particles predicted by some extensions of the Standard Model. The system could also help measure the mass of the neutrino, study the way particles interact through the electromagnetic and weak forces, and hunt for low-mass dark matter — all unsolved mysteries in particle physics. Callum Wilkinson: Using machine learning to demystify neutrinos Callum Wilkinson is a staff scientist in the Physics Division and part of the international Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) hosted by Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. DUNE will create an intense beam of neutrinos that interact in detectors in Illinois and, after an 800-mile journey through the earth, in massive detectors in South Dakota. By precisely measuring neutrinos and how they change, researchers will get a better understanding of their fundamental properties and whether they are responsible for why there is so much more matter than antimatter in our universe. Wilkinson’s ECRP project will apply two machine learning techniques to improve the analysis of DUNE’s data and enhance the experiment’s precision. One approach will look for hidden patterns in how neutrinos interact and produce low-energy particles, while the other will help correct for distortions in what the detectors record. The methods will be tested on one of DUNE’s prototype detectors and could be used in other neutrino experiments, improving their measurements and helping scientists build better models. Aditi Krishnapriyan: Machine learning methods that scale as datasets grow Aditi Krishnapriyan is a faculty scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Applied Mathematics and Computational Research Division (AMCR) and assistant professor at UC Berkeley. Her project, awarded through UC Berkeley, will develop machine learning methods that scale with dataset size for modeling complex, multi-scale phenomena. The resulting tools can be applied in a wide range of research, including the study of new electrolytes for batteries or the examination of molecular interactions. ### Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) is committed to groundbreaking research focused on discovery science and solutions for abundant and reliable energy supplies. The lab’s expertise spans materials, chemistry, physics, biology, earth and environmental science, mathematics, and computing. Researchers from around the world rely on the lab’s world-class scientific facilities for their own pioneering research. Founded in 1931 on the belief that the biggest problems are best addressed by teams, Berkeley Lab and its scientists have been recognized with 17 Nobel Prizes. Berkeley Lab is a multiprogram national laboratory managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit energy.gov/science.
UC Berkeley brings data science to the field with Cal Athletics' Winning Analytics summit
The inaugural conference brought data experts from across campus together with Cal Athletics staff and student-athletes.
Political Science Alumnus develops world’s first cultivated salmon
Driven by a mission to address global food insecurity while protecting vulnerable ecosystems, UC Berkeley Political Science alum Justin Kolbeck co-founded Wildtype, the world’s first cultivated
At science fair, UC Berkeley researchers lobby for $23B bond to offset Trump’s cuts
California scientists left their labs last week to defend their work studying disease treatments, resilience to extreme heat and more
How AI is transforming research: More papers, less quality, and a strained review system - Haas News
Mathijs De Vaan has long recognized the labor required to effectively communicate scientific findings. For the Netherlands native and UC Berkeley Haas associate professor of management, data and analyses are only half the battle; the rest is a time-intensive process of ensuring that complex, nuanced ideas are articulated with the precision that top-tier research demands. […]
From quantum theory to the modern laser: Why ‘basic science’ is the foundation of innovation
Watch UC Berkeley Dean Steve Kahn explain how curiosity-driven research fuels the breakthroughs of tomorrow in just 101 seconds.
Enthusiasts used their home computers to search for ET—scientists are homing in on 100 signals they found
For 21 years, between 1999 and 2020, millions of people worldwide loaned UC Berkeley scientists their computers to search for signs of advanced civilizations in our galaxy.
Quantum Nexus to Power California’s Research Regime
On October 3, proud alums were celebrating UC Berkeley’s past and present at Homecoming. Five floors up, campus and state leaders were hailing its future.Governor Gavin Newsom, UC President James
There’s no room for hunger at UC Berkeley School of Public Health
In 2021 UCBPH launched a food pantry run by the Dream office, which quickly grew to encompass direct stipends, and personal and home care products.
UC Berkeley suspends pro-Palestinian lecturer over political advocacy in classroom
A Berkeley lecturer known for his Gaza hunger strike has been suspended for political advocacy in the classroom — a move Muslim rights advocates say sends a chilling message.
Political scientists launch the Berkeley Program on Finance and
Can finance serve democracy, or is it fated to play an adversarial role? UC Berkeley is launching a new initiative to investigate this question.The Berkeley Program on Finance and Democracy will
Are university policies holding science back? Study shows how patenting boosts pure research
When UC Berkeley biochemist Jennifer Doudna first began studying how bacteria fight virus infections, she had no idea it would result in one of the most important scientific breakthroughs of the century. ...