SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " instrument " 204 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
The Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility (HIF) launches national research and development program
Researchers, students, and partners from across organizations came together at the Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility (HIF) to conduct the facility's first coordinated research, development, and innovation activities, demonstrating the HIF’s role as a national platform for water science and technology development.
NASA selects four new Moon missions to build a permanent lunar base
NASA is ramping up its lunar ambitions by awarding nearly $600 million for four commercial Moon landings planned for late 2028. Each mission will carry the same trio of science instruments to improve lunar navigation, study dangerous dust kicked up during landings, and map the Moon's radiation environment. The agency also revealed plans for new rovers, communication satellites, and additional cargo missions as it lays the groundwork for a permanent Moon Base.
Voyager 1 was launched in 1977 with a suite of 10 science instruments — as of 2026, only two remain switched on, and the spacecraft's nuclear power source loses roughly 4 watts every year, a slow drain that is now deciding what humanity still gets to learn from interstellar space
Voyager 1 is still doing science in interstellar space, but the mission has entered a stage where every watt has become a decision. The spacecraft left
NASA Calibration Instrument Records First Measurements in Space
NASA’s Calibration Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory Pathfinder, or CLARREO Pathfinder mission, reached a significant milestone this summer by
AI, science and the risks in China’s reliance on imported precision equipment
The country is dependent on overseas high-end scientific instruments, crimping use of artificial intelligence, researcher says.
Trump Administration Removes, Then Restores, Ocean Science Instruments
PROVINCETOWN — After the U.S. Senate unanimously passed the “Saving the OOI Act” on June 17, the Trump administration backed off its plan to dismantle a $386-million ocean monitoring system […]
Efzimfotase alfa demonstrated improvements in bone health in treatment-naïve pediatric patients with hypophosphatasia achieving median difference of 1.67 vs placebo in RGI-C Score at week 25 in MULBERRY Phase III trial
Positive results from the MULBERRY Phase III trial showed that efzimfotase alfa (ALXN1850), an investigational enzyme replacement therapy, demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in bone health in children (2 to
Making Our Own Luck
We are cross-posting a piece that former NIH official Kris Willis wrote for Macroscience. Kris is now the President and Founder of the Woodley Park Institute, for which I’m a board member. Picking winners or hedging bets? Federal science agencies have long wrestled with the question of how to ensure their billions of dollars of grants and contracts result in maximum benefits for Americans. On the surface, it might seem that a goal-oriented, interventionist style of management would be the best policy: prioritize our most pressing problems and distribute funding accordingly.This top-down strategy creates a unique hazard, though: bad choices can send resources in the wrong direction, resulting in slow progress that impedes the delivery of tangible benefits to citizens. Moreover, if decision makers pursue an applied advance when the underlying scientific principles remain poorly understood, they risk costly failures and a loss of support for the research enterprise at large. Examples include Nixon’s 1971 War on Cancer, undertaken on the premise that a cure could be achieved in less than a decade, the drive to build an operational commercial fusion plant by the mid-1990s, and the National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease, which failed to produce the effective treatments and prevention strategies promised by 2025. The contrasting laissez-faire approach is to hedge your bets. If the path to an advance is impossible to predict, then the wisest choice might be to distribute funding to as widely as possible. The main risk of this strategy is that spreading funding thinly may limit the resources available to the most promising research, resulting in the same negative outcomes as the interventionist approach: limited support for the most promising topics, slow progress, and delayed returns. In reality, at science agencies like the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, program managers navigate between these two extremes, setting some funds aside to target high-priority areas and using the rest to cover the widest possible range of meritorious proposals. This middle path seems like the most rational way to proceed, but it still requires making choices. How much should be set aside for high priority topics? What should those topics be? How should we define merit? Expert opinion can provide a helpful guide, but leading experts can have remarkably different opinions about what matters and what should be prioritized. Moreover, experts and administrators alike can be risk averse, giving an edge to high-profile, well-established concepts. What’s really needed is a data-driven framework to help guide decision-making, one that doesn’t simply repackage prestige or incumbency. Recognizing breakthroughs years in advance Many breakthroughs fail to attract funding or recognition at the earliest stages of development. Katalin Karikó, for example, spent years struggling to win grants for work on mRNA that would eventually win her and Drew Weissman a Nobel Prize. Similar stories can be told about Jim Allison’s groundbreaking studies leading to the development of cancer immunotherapy, Stan Pruisner’s demonstration that prions can self-replicate without DNA, or Robin Warren and Barry Marshall’s proof that Helicobacter pylori, not stress, causes ulcers. Yet at some point, the scientific community recognizes and responds to transformative breakthroughs like these. How does that change happen? And what if science funders could identify the areas that are on the cusp of a breakthrough? Those questions led my collaborators and me to study how scientists responded to past breakthroughs. Based on patterns in that data, we developed a means of predicting future breakthroughs, using biomedicine as a proof of concept. It’s worth taking a moment to describe how our approach works. Briefly, our prediction process begins by grouping the 18 million or so peer-reviewed papers in PubMed, the authoritative database of biomedical research, into roughly 50,000 unique topics. A small subset of these topics are so widely acclaimed as breakthroughs that they have been recognized with a major prize like a Nobel or a Lasker Award. We theorized that studying the development of these outliers over time, especially before they gained acclaim, was the key to identifying future instances of them. After defining topics, we chose 21 representative breakthroughs and asked what they looked like before they won prestigious prizes. To answer that question, we re-ran our topic-mapping algorithm repeatedly, winding back the clock one year each time, stringing together the years to follow the progress of each field as it grew and advanced. We found that in each case, the years leading up to a discovery followed a pattern: a burst of papers on a new, rapidly evolving topic, many of which quickly became influential. These characteristics—the percent of papers that are new, the percentage of papers that are brought in from other topics, and the influence of each individual paper—can all be measured separately for any given topic. Together, they act as a predictive signal that is detectable an average of five years before a transformative discovery is made, and up to thirty years before the discovery receives a major prize. Scanning the current research landscape for topics that display this signal allows us to predict what work will likely produce a future breakthrough. Each year we analyzed includes four or five signals, a number that appears to have remained constant across a twenty year time frame. In their classic work on the sociology of science, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar established that the desire to participate in a major discovery is an important motivator for scientists as they consider whether they should take up (or abandon) a research problem. Although further work is needed, the simplest explanation for our results is that this behavior is widespread enough to detect at scale. A foundational advance, or something like it, draws the attention of scientists and causes them to change the direction of their research. They vote with their feet, staking their own reputation and careers by publishing on and citing the new idea. That upswell of interest is the foundation of our breakthrough signal. What kind of research does our model identify as a breakthrough? After building a model based on the patterns in our 21 preselected breakthroughs, we tested it by identifying all early signals of discovery from 1994 through 1997. Of the 18 signals we found in that time period, 17 can be traced forward in time to a breakthrough. Examples include super-resolution fluorescence microscopy (see the image above), the directed evolution of proteins and enzymes (Chemistry Nobel, 2018), and sequencing the human genome (National Medal of Science, 2008). The discovery of the role of leptin signaling in obesity is a particularly interesting case study. Around 1950, scientists noticed the existence of a type of lab mouse that suffered from a unique inherited form of obesity. When given the freedom to choose their own diet, these mice ate more than normal and preferred food that was high in fat. Researchers had few clues as to why the animals overate; early experiments pointed to the existence of a soluble ob factor found circulating in the bloodstream that regulated appetite, but its identity was unknown. In 1994, Jeffrey Friedman and colleagues identified and sequenced the ob gene, noting that the protein it encoded appeared to fit the profile of a circulating factor. A year later, a trio of high-profile publications demonstrated that ob was a hormone that regulated body weight and fat deposition by regulating appetite. One of these was co-authored by Friedman, who christened it leptin from the ancient Greek word for thin. Using our model, the data from 1996 make it clear this advance would become a breakthrough. Scientists had flocked to study the biology of the new hormone, generating the flurry of new papers and citations required to produce a signal. One of these demonstrated that serum leptin concentrations reflected the amount of adipose tissue in the human body, providing clinical validation of the earlier mouse studies. Before the identification of leptin, scientists were unable to point to a specific molecule that controlled appetite and adiposity, so that it was impossible to rule out non-physiological causes of obesity; its characterization fundamentally changed our concept of weight gain. In 2010, Friedman and fellow pioneer Douglas Coleman were awarded a Lasker for the discovery. Our work also identifies breakthroughs in clinical practice and behavioral and social sciences, even though these areas are less likely to draw the attention of major prize committees. One example that falls into this category is the introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair, a minimally invasive surgical procedure for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm, a leading cause of death among Americans over the age of 65. Relative to the previous standard of care, it reduces in-hospital mortality by almost four-fold. In 2017, Timothy Chuter received the American College of Surgeons’ prestigious Jacobsen Innovation award for his multiple refinements to the technique. Another under-recognized breakthrough identified by our model is the development of standardized survey instruments to assess the quality of life for HIV+ patients. The antiretroviral cocktails introduced in the mid-1990s reduced AIDS mortality, but treatment came with serious side effects. The new evaluations showed that patients whose disease progressed had worse physical functioning than Americans with other chronic diseases, while those who were asymptomatic maintained a health-related quality of life on par with the overall US population. This evidence made it possible for patients and activists to argue that even in the absence of a total cure, and in spite of the side effects, alleviation of symptoms was a worthwhile priority for clinicians. My colleagues and I have failed to identify any significant recognition for the physicians and health policy experts who pioneered this advance, although in 2016, researchers called for the World Health Organization to set targets for good health-related quality of life as part of its framework to end the AIDS pandemic. From forecasting to funding How should science funders use our predictions? Any serious discussion of what we should do with this new capability needs to begin with an understanding of its limitations. We can’t (and shouldn’t) invest all of our resources in the small number of topics predicted to produce breakthroughs. Innovative new fields are born from existing ones; they rarely arise de novo. If funders don’t maintain a diverse portfolio, the breakthroughs of tomorrow will have no antecedents. Think of this as eating the seed corn, or killing the goose that lays the golden egg. There are also multiple goals of funding beyond basic scientific discovery, including translating discoveries into clinical practice, developing new technologies, supporting economic development, and training new scientists. The investments needed to accomplish these goals are likely different from those required to support emerging breakthroughs. Finally, we must be aware that we may not capture every instance of a breakthrough. The concept is fuzzy, and not every significant discovery is recognized with a major award. Further, breakthroughs are rare, meaning that our dataset is, by necessity, small. This makes formal estimates of accuracy challenging. Although our overall success rate appears to be high, any one signal may turn out to be a false positive. We found one apparent example: the development of the third generation COX-2 inhibitors, Vioxx and Celebrex, which were much celebrated in the early 2000s as effective but non-addictive pain relievers, meets all the algorithmic criteria of a breakthrough. Five years after it received FDA approval, researchers demonstrated that Vioxx was associated with serious cardiovascular complications, and the manufacturer voluntarily pulled the drug from the market. Celebrex remains available, although like other NSAIDs, it carries an FDA warning for increased cardiovascular risk. Decision makers who were overly focused on the breakthrough potential of this research might have wasted substantial resources nurturing an area that ultimately proved to be a failure—but so would those who relied on expert opinion at the time. That said, the potential benefits of funding the next mRNA vaccine or cancer immunotherapy years earlier than we might have are large. When we can’t assume the outcome of an action, it’s worth conducting an experiment. Can targeted support for areas that are poised to produce a breakthrough increase the return on scientific investment without cannibalizing future advances? With the necessary administrative infrastructure in place, conducting this experiment would be straightforward. First, identify all the breakthrough signals between 2018 and 2023, select half at random, and commit to a decade of investment. For biomedicine, a six year window should yield about 30 topics with the potential to produce a breakthrough. Providing strong support to half of these might be accomplished for $300 million a year. That’s roughly half of the recent annual budget of the NIH Common Fund or around 20% of the fiscal year 2025 budget for ARPA-H. After five years, then again at ten, compare to see which group — the one that was actively managed, or the control — produced more breakthroughs, and on what timescale. Although we used biomedicine as an example, the same experiment could just as well be run for physics, materials science, or any other discipline. Any attempt to undertake such an experiment should keep three points top of mind. First, we can predict the topic of future breakthroughs, but the people and vision for how to move the work forward are still important. In practice, this means success requires active program managers with the expertise to develop the science and the authority to do so, including by recruiting investigators. Second, we would be wise to learn from the failures of past attempts to fund transformative research. High among these are funding modestly repackaged work, confusing the genuinely novel with the merely unfamiliar, and relying too much on incumbent investigators. All of these risks can be mitigated by thoroughly and intelligently integrating high quality data into portfolio management. Finally, we need to have patience. Even with strong funding support, producing a breakthrough takes time. If supporting breakthroughs is the best way to nurture the birth of new fields, we also need to accurately describe and properly manage the other two stages, so that we invest wisely throughout the productive lifetime of ideas and divest once they reach the point of diminishing returns. We would benefit from more study of all of these phases, especially the transition from one to another. More research could answer questions like: When does a breakthrough become an established field? How do the availability of funding, the size and characteristics of the available workforce, and the accumulation of evidence that disagrees with prevailing models affect a field’s decline? Exactly how do old ideas give birth to new ones, and can we speed up the process? The more we understand about the dynamics of scientific progress, the better we can maximize the odds that our curiosity leads to results. I’d call that finding a way to make our own luck.
Advances in materials science are helping unlock secrets of nanomaterials
New instruments on the horizon promise the most precise tools yet to study and experiment on the smallest and most complex materials ever manufactured. In a paper published in the journal Nature Materials, ...
Every Pontiac Firebird Generation Ranked By Top Speed
Ever wondered how the defunct Pontiacs stacked up in reality? We rank all four generations by top speed using verified data from instrumented tests.
U.S. scientific instruments in oceans off Alaska and elsewhere to remain in place
After a public outcry and a unanimous Senate vote, the National Science Foundation dropped plans to remove parts of the Ocean Observatories Initiative system.
U.S. scientific instruments in oceans off Alaska and elsewhere to remain in place
After a public outcry, the National Science Foundation dropped its plan to remove much of the Ocean Observatories Initaitive system.
Guitarist Marisa Anderson ‘reimagines the landscape of American music’
Marisa Anderson’s latest album, “The Anthology of UnAmerican Folk Music,” explores songs from countries once labeled as enemies of the U.S., blending traditional instruments with her guitar, keyboards and accordion to create a unique, boundary-crossing sound.
Lawmakers fight to stop the Trump administration's dismantling of a $386 million ocean observatory project
Monday’s pushback against the Republican administration’s actions comes as scientists are set to remove instruments from the Pacific and as an El Niño event is predicted to arrive this summer.
Mark Gongloff: The White House’s top science goal is ignorance
Shutting down scientific inquiry because it discovers things you don’t like is a bit like turning off all the instruments on your plane because they warn you there’s a mountain
Learning a musical instrument in your 70s could help protect memory
Learning a musical instrument later in life may help keep the brain younger for longer. In a four-year study, older adults who continued practicing maintained their memory performance and showed less age-related brain shrinkage than those who quit. The benefits were especially noticeable in brain regions tied to memory and learning.
The White House’s Top Science Goal Is Ignorance
Shutting down scientific inquiry because it discovers things you don’t like is a bit like turning off all the instruments on your plane because they warn you there’s a mountain ahead. It may satisfy your immediate urge to live in denial but will soon turn deadly.
We’re back: Proba-3 ready for more science
The Proba-3 mission’s Coronagraph spacecraft and its main scientific instrument, ASPIICS, are both at full health, ready to resume routine formation flying operations and deliver more breathtaking artificial eclipses.
Alaskans Reel From the Loss of National Science Foundation Ocean-Monitoring Instruments
In the nation’s fastest-warming state with a multi-billion-dollar fishing industry and storm-threatened coastal communities, scientists say the federal government’s decommission of a deepwater sensor system is ill-timed and wrong-headed.
Scientists sound alarm on World Oceans Day as Trump axes deep-sea monitoring
The United States has removed hundreds of deep-sea instruments used to monitor the impact of climate change on marine environments, alarming scientists as the United Nations marks World Oceans Day.
Day Out With Thomas returns to Tweetsie June 12-15 and 18-21
Thomas the Tank Engine, everyone’s favorite #1 blue engine, is coming to town and bringing all his favorite musical instruments.
Why the National Science Foundation is ripping monitoring instruments out of the ocean
A spokesperson for the National Science Foundation pointed to a National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics report as justification for the 'descoping,' but a co-chair of that group said they never wanted to see the program disbanded.
Scientists will lose critical climate record as ocean observatory goes dark under Trump funding cuts
The National Science Foundation announced it would dismantle most of the ocean monitoring system, pulling instruments from waters off Oregon, Washington, Alaska, North Carolina and Greenland by 2027.
How Science Works
The 2nd Weather and Climate Livestream is now underway. It is organized by a group of early-career researchers concerned about declining funding for the field and eager to demonstrate how weather and climate research makes a difference in our lives. Last year’s event was a great success, drawing terrific press coverage including a piece in the NY Times. This year features a strong lineup of talks aimed at a general audience — I highly recommend tuning in. Share I gave a talk yesterday about How Science Works in Three Steps. You can see the short presentation here (I’ve appended a transcript below): And please tune into the livestream here. It runs through tomorrow at 6 pm ET. Thanks for reading The Climate Brink! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe Cleaned up transcript: Thank you, and thanks to everyone tuning in. I want to talk about something I think a lot of people don’t really understand: how science actually works. Arguments over any scientific topic — climate change, vaccines, you name it — revolve around competing claims. For climate change, the claims are: Is the Earth warming? Are humans to blame? What will the impacts be? Over the last 150 years, the scientific community has developed a remarkably robust method for sorting out which claims are true and which aren’t. That method is what I want to walk through. So how does science generate knowledge? If you ask a high schooler, they’ll give you the version they learned in ninth grade: an individual scientist forms a hypothesis, runs an experiment, and draws a conclusion. That’s more or less what happens at the individual level, though in practice it’s more iterative — you design, test, and refine all at once, landing on a slightly different idea each time until you reach a conclusion about whatever hypothesis you’ve ended up with. But this isn’t science. It’s only step one. Any individual scientist can make mistakes — scientists are human. Maybe there’s a bug in the code, maybe there’s an error in the experiment. Just because someone ran an experiment and reached a conclusion doesn’t mean it’s right, and scientists don’t treat a single result as settled truth. Step two is peer review, the first layer of quality control. The scientist writes up what they did and submits it to a journal, which sends the paper to other experts in the field. Those experts judge whether the methods are sound, whether it properly references prior work, and whether the conclusions actually follow from the data. Ask any scientist and they’ll tell you peer review is miserable — the comments come back brutal, often harsh, and you have to revise and resubmit, sometimes multiple times, before an editor finally accepts the paper. Peer review catches an immense amount of bad science, but it can’t catch all of it. Reviewers get sloppy or overworked, they miss obvious mistakes, and they can’t catch hidden errors — a bug in the code, a misread instrument. So a peer-reviewed paper making it into a journal doesn’t mean the paper is right. Nobody treats a single paper as the final word. That’s where step three comes in: the crucible of science. Important results get retested by the broader community. If you publish something interesting, it gets dissected. Sometimes people try to reproduce your work directly but more often they test its implications. If someone claims X is true, and that implies that Y is also true, then scientists will go check Y. If a claim survives this gauntlet long enough, it becomes accepted. That’s how we generate knowledge. Let me give an example: the ozone hole. In 1985 — and I doubt many people watching were around then, but I remember it well — Joe Farman and his colleagues published observations from Antarctica showing that a huge chunk of ozone was disappearing every year. This was shocking because most atmospheric chemists had expected ozone loss to occur at mid-latitudes and high altitudes, not over the South Pole. When scientists see something they don’t understand, they rush to explain it, and several competing hypotheses quickly appeared in the peer-reviewed literature. One pointed to chlorine chemistry from chlorofluorocarbons. A second blamed nitrogen chemistry, possibly driven by solar proton events — meaning the sun was responsible. A third argued it wasn’t chemistry at all but dynamics: winds were carrying naturally low-ozone air from the lower atmosphere up into the stratosphere. Then the community went to work testing which theory could survive the crucible. Aircraft flew into the ozone hole and found no nitrogen, ruling out the nitrogen theory. Measurements showed the air in the polar vortex was descending, not rising — which would bring high-ozone air down, eliminating the dynamics theory. Meanwhile, those same flights measured enormous amounts of chlorine, strongly correlated with exactly the regions where ozone was being destroyed. That became known as the “smoking gun” paper, and it established that chlorine chemistry was the cause. Through this process, a consensus emerged. And it’s worth being clear that this consensus is organic. There’s no vote, no poll, no meeting where it gets decided. Scientists go to conferences, talk to one another, and independently arrived at the same answer. It’s the ultimate free market of ideas. After the consensus was established, the peer-reviewed literature doesn’t even mention the rival theories — it simply takes chlorine chemistry as given. That’s what a consensus looks like. It doesn’t mean every single scientist agrees, but it does mean there’s no longer any legitimate debate. So where can you see what scientists actually think? It’s all in the peer-reviewed literature, which contains the entire historical record of the argument: the discovery, the competing theories, the debate, the testing, and finally the community coalescing around one answer. But there’s a lot of room for misrepresentation. You can dig up an old paper claiming the ozone hole was caused by dynamics and wave it around as if there still was a debate about the cause of the ozone hole — without mentioning that the idea was disproven long ago and that even its own authors no longer believe it. There’s a bigger problem, though: the peer-reviewed literature is written in a language I call “nerd.” It’s extremely hard to read — honestly, some of it is hard for me to follow. It takes graduate students years to work through the literature in a single field, so we can’t expect policymakers or ordinary people to do it. This is where scientific assessments come in. The most famous is the IPCC — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The job of an assessment is to read and summarize the peer-reviewed literature, synthesizing what’s settled, what’s been disproven, and what remains genuinely debated. To ensure the assessments accurately summarize the peer-reviewed literature, assessments are written by large teams, which are far less prone to bias than individuals and which dilute the influence of any one scientist with an axe to grind. The teams are deliberately assembled to avoid stacking the deck, and the reports themselves go through multiple rounds of peer review. That rigorous process is exactly why you can trust them and why people consider the IPCC to be the gold standard of what we know about the climate system. An assessment produced through a different process may well not be credible. You can even watch the consensus evolve across assessments. Take the attribution of warming. The 1990 IPCC report said the observed warming was broadly consistent with model predictions but also comparable to natural variability — in other words, we don’t know whether humans are responsible. By 1995, it concluded that the balance of evidence suggested a discernible human influence — a sentence only a committee could write, and one that barely commits to anything. By 2001, most of the warming over the previous 50 years was judged “likely” due to greenhouse gases; by 2007, “very likely”; by 2013, “extremely likely.” The 2023 report says essentially the same as 2013 — there’s not much stronger language available. So, to wrap up: science is our ultimate tool for deciphering the universe — the most successful method we’ve ever developed for determining what’s true and what isn’t. Our understanding is written into the peer-reviewed literature, so if you want to know what scientists think, that’s where to look. And for those of us who don’t speak nerd, scientific assessments are the Rosetta Stone — they translate nerd into English. Let me open the floor to questions. Thank you.
Science and AI-enabled research platforms
In an Editorial, Vaughan C. Turekian, Executive Director of the Office of International Networks, Cooperation, and Security at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine argues that science is entering a new phase. In an era of vast computational power, automated experiments, and AI, science will increasingly be built around integrated platforms that link data, models, computing, and instrumentation at scale.
Trump Administration to Dismantle Ocean Monitoring System
The $368 million network of instruments collecting data in both the Atlantic and Pacific has been critical to climate and ocean research.
Ballard Partners taps California AI czar to head new emerging tech practice
'Amy ... will offer unique insights that will be instrumental in delivering the exceptional results our clients expect in this rapidly evolving landscape.'
How NASA Uses Light to Detect Waste From Mines
Tens of thousands of abandoned mines threaten waterways across the American West, but identifying which sites urgently need cleanup is slow and expensive. Now, NASA’s EMIT instrument can analyze the unique light signatures of mine waste from space to help focus remediation efforts where they're needed most.
Powering drug discovery with analytical chemistry
Advances in analytical instrumentation are helping researchers study drug behavior, improve biomedical research, and train the next generation of scientists.
NASA Calibration Instrument Installed on International Space Station
NASA’s Calibration Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory Pathfinder (CLARREO Pathfinder) instrument was installed onto the International Space
NSF deploys $250 million to restart Small Business Innovation Research & Small Business Tech Transfer programs, including a new $40 million pilot emphasis on next-generation scientific instrumentation
The U.S. National Science Foundation today relaunched its Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer programs with $250 million for the nation's startups and small...
New Instrument Used Antarctic Ice Sheet to Probe Extreme Universe
The Payload for Ultrahigh Energy Observations (PUEO) is a NASA Astrophysics Pioneers Program mission designed to detect the most energetic particles in the universe.
MIT students study plasma physics beneath Alaska’s aurora
MIT graduate students have been traveling to Alaska to study plasma through the aurora borealis, designing and deploying their own instruments to capture large-scale phenomena in real-time while advancing student-led research, interdisciplinary collaboration, and youth outreach.
NASA’s AWE Completes Mission to Study Earth’s Effect on Space Weather
On May 21, ground controllers powered down NASA’s AWE (Atmospheric Waves Experiment) instrument, bringing the data collection phase of the mission to a
NASA Transfers Management of Lunar Science Instruments
NASA has transferred management of two lunar science instruments to Intuitive Machines, due to the instruments' principal investigators and science team
'It's kind of a no-brainer': Why pop band MUNA is tackling politics on album 'Dancing on the Wall'
“Dancing on the Wall” is a departure from MUNA’s previous work, trading the sunshine-y pop instrumentals, country influences and sweeping ballads of their self-titled album for gritty, atmospheric tracks influenced by 1990s punk and rave scenes.
The world according to the absorbing and amazing nose of a dog
It’s a sensitive instrument that humans have not been able to duplicate.
Where to find outdoor, free-to-play pianos in Lancaster County
Music practice doesn't always require owning an instrument.
Paramount Sports Entertainment Makes Trio of Hires
"Their leadership will be instrumental in driving our production pipeline, expanding partnerships, and supporting our next phase of growth," says unit head Jesse Sisgold.
Paramount Sports Entertainment Makes Trio of Hires
"Their leadership will be instrumental in driving our production pipeline, expanding partnerships, and supporting our next phase of growth," says unit head Jesse Sisgold.
Paramount Sports Entertainment Makes Trio of Hires
"Their leadership will be instrumental in driving our production pipeline, expanding partnerships, and supporting our next phase of growth," says unit head Jesse Sisgold.
ASU graduate proves the best science happens outside
Victoria Concepcion didn't come to Arizona State University just to earn a degree. She came tracking a Mars rover.Concepcion, from Rancho Santa Margarita, California, is graduating this May from the School of Earth and Space Exploration with a Master of Science in geological science. She started with a clear goal: to work with the Curiosity rover's DAN instrument. Along the way, she discovered even more rewarding experiences.
CT hospitals lead in high-quality, safe healthcare
As anchor institutions for health, hospitals are instrumental in CT's standing as among the nation's best for healthcare and overall population health.
Science diplomacy lessons from a North Korean volcano
Mount Paektu, a mythic, active volcano on the border between North Korea and China, is almost the epitome of a scientific challenge that crosses political lines. In 946 CE, it erupted in one of the five biggest volcanic events of the past 10,000 years, kicking up huge quantities of ash and sending destructive mud flows down river channels for hundreds of kilometres. Should this happen again, the entire region, including easternmost Russia, South Korea and even Japan could be hit. “It’s definitely got the potential to be big,” said James Hammond, a professor of geophysics at Birkbeck, University of London. An eruption on the scale of 946 would have “huge regional impact.” For the past 15 years, Hammond has helped lead a groundbreaking collaboration with North Korean scientists to study the volcano, navigating scientific sanctions, tough export controls on scientific equipment and a long, pandemic-enforced exodus from the country. Although he seems more at home on far-flung research expeditions – before speaking to Science|Business, Hammond was camping out on a Greenland ice sheet – he has also advised the European Commission on its changing science diplomacy strategy. His long experience with North Korea has made Hammond sceptical of blanket bans on science collaboration, no matter the country.This is a live question in Europe, where in the wake of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, institutional ties with Russian universities were almost entirely severed, although some scientists fear this could undermine our understanding of climate change’s impact on the Arctic. Here, Hammond tells the story of the Mount Paektu mission and the policy lessons he takes from it. Ominous rumblingsThe genesis of Hammond’s collaboration came in 2002, when Mount Paektu began to rumble ominously. Earthquake activity picked up and the volcano began to emit unusual gases. North Korean scientists took notice. “People felt we need to know more about this volcano,” said Hammond. In 2011, North Korean vulcanologists put out a request for international expertise to help them learn more. At the time, Hammond and his collaborator, Clive Oppenheimer, were working on a vulcanology project in another sanctioned country, Eritrea, and so decided to answer the call. Within a month, they had flown into Pyongyang. “It was pretty incredible,” recalls Hammond (left). “We were made to feel like honoured guests, and invited to official celebrations.” The scientific opportunity was huge. Paektu is unusually positioned, a thousand kilometres from where tectonic plates rub against each other in the Pacific. “It was an incredibly interesting volcano, but not much research had been done, at least not in the international community,” he said. “There was so much we felt we could do. And we had these partners that were super keen to engage.”The mission received an unusual visitor in the form of volcano-obsessed filmmaker Werner Herzog, who accompanied Hammond and Oppenheimer while directing his 2016 film Into the Inferno about volcanos across the world. Four days into the trip, the German director delivered a long speech about reunification to his North Korean hosts, recalls Hammond. “He got to the heart of the Koreans and how they felt, and how they thought, in a way that I'm not sure I ever will,” he said. UN sanctionsHowever, Hammond realised he’d been “naïve” about how difficult it would be to collaborate with North Korea, which was sanctioned far more heavily than Eritrea. “We didn’t fully appreciate the all-encompassing nature of restrictions,” he said. In 2016, as tensions escalated over Pyongyang’s nuclear tests, a United Nations resolution banned all joint scientific work with North Korea. However, the UN sanctions did allow countries to request carve outs, and the UK successfully requested an exemption for Hammond’s work. Related articlesEU pushes for joint science diplomacy, but care needed to avoid gridlock, experts sayRussia severs its last ties with German scienceAnchor Greenlanders in Arctic climate research, experts tell EU ahead of policy updateExport controls have also delayed Hammond’s work. In one case, it took 18 months to get approval from the UK government to take seismometers, which measure earthquakes, to North Korea. “It was frustrating,” he said. “But they didn’t just say no.” However, one instrument, called an induction coil, used to measure how the earth conducts electricity, was blocked entirely because it can in theory be used to detect submarines. Karaoke bondingSince the collaboration started in 2011, Hammond has visited the country around 15 times, although the pandemic closed off North Korea for more than five years. A trip last November was Hammond’s first since the outbreak. Despite this lengthy interlude, Hammond has deep bonds in the country. The North Korean scientists Hammond works with are somewhat isolated, as they struggle to access the latest research papers and travel to international conferences. That said, they are “excellent geophysicists” and are “very well trained in the field,” he said. Over karaoke and chats about their families, “we’ve made friendships, for sure,” he said. The authorities have to sign-off things like the placement of seismometers, for example, but Hammond said these requests have been approved. “Everything that we've asked for within a scientific context has been delivered.”Scientific backchannels? These kind of personal links between scientists across political lines are one purported benefit of science diplomacy. During the Cold War, some historians argue, scientific contact between the US and Soviet Union laid a groundwork of trust for other cooperation, such as on arms control. Hammond agrees that backchannel contacts to North Korean geophysicists are hardly likely to defuse a military crisis on the Korean peninsula, but the simple fact of the scientific collaboration makes contacts between diplomats that little bit easier. “It creates opportunities to understand each other a little bit better,” he said. “When maybe you have those more difficult discussions as diplomats, it's coming from a slightly better place.” Cutting tiesDrawing lessons from the Mount Paektu mission for today’s links with Russian science isn’t simple. The analogy is far from exact, Hammond said, “because one is essentially a Cold War, versus a pretty hot war in the case of Russia.” But Hammond’s broader argument is that the challenges we face, such as climate change, pandemics, biodiversity loss, pollution and so on, have globalised in an unprecedented way, making blanket shutdowns in collaboration with any country unwise.He’s somewhat critical of the UN scientific sanctions imposed on North Korea in 2016, even though they did allow for exceptions. “I think a blanket halt to some of these things, when we face big global challenges [. . .] that’s quite a risky thing to do,” he said.Institutional endorsement?European academics are still by and large free to work individually with Russian counterparts. However, official, institutional partnerships have largely ended. Shortly following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russian university rectors wrote a public letter endorsing the war, meaning European universities fear official collaboration could also be seen as a kind of endorsement. Hammond acknowledges there is a risk of legitimising regimes, and state-controlled universities, through scientific cooperation. “That’s the trade off you have to make,” he said. Strategic projectsWith Russia, instead of giving a green light to restart all Arctic science, a middle ground might be firing up a few carefully selected “strategic” projects, said Hammond. After all, European countries are still collaborating with Russia on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, an experimental nuclear fusion plant in the south of France. However, even if Europe did try to revive Arctic science with Russia, there’s no guarantee Russian scientists would play ball. A series of high-profile arrests of physicists in Russia accused of sharing their findings with the outside world has made collaboration fraught. Even before the invasion of 2022, “the Russian regime made it increasingly difficult, and this sort of discouraged people,” Dag Rune Olsen, rector of the Arctic University of Norway, told Science|Business last year.
AMETEK Announces Agreement to Acquire Indicor Instrumentation — Clayton Dubilier & Rice, LLC | Building Businesses Building Value
We are a global private equity manager that invests in and builds valuable businesses.
NASA shuts down 49-year-old Voyager 1 instrument to keep it alive
Voyager 1 just powered down a nearly 50-year-old instrument to stay alive in deep space. The spacecraft is running critically low on energy, forcing NASA to make careful sacrifices to keep its mission going. Despite the shutdown, it continues to send back unique data from beyond our solar system. Engineers are now working on a bold plan that could extend its life — and possibly revive the instrument later.
University of Iowa propels space science forward with opening of spaceflight lab
The University of Iowa is expanding its space instrument development and testing capabilities with new laboratories and equipment.
Nursing leader shines with cheer, fiery commitment to care
Kammy Ellwanger was instrumental the day that a fire broke out at Good Samaritan in Wanger, SD, and leading up to the location's reopening.
Voyager 1 shuts off instrument to buy time before ‘Big Bang’ fix to extend the mission
The farthest spacecraft from Earth has shut down another instrument in the hopes of buying time for an upgrade that could boost the aging probe’s impressive lifespan.
Family of judge who advocated for Truman Sports Complex shares story
Kauffman Stadium on the Truman Sports Complex is home to the Royals but it's also home to a bronze plaque with the names of county judges who were instrumental in the naming of the complex.
These Fun Pursuits Help Middle-Aged Folks Protect Brain Health, Study Finds
By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, April 24, 2026 (HealthDay News) — Picking up an instrument. Taking a trip abroad. Going out to dinner with friends. All of these are pleasant activities that add spice to life. And they are also some of the most powerful ways to boost brain power and ...
Stocks making the biggest moves midday: Texas Instruments, United Rentals, Wex, Penn Entertainment & more
These are the stocks posting the largest moves midday.
DGCE SIG Seminar 23 April 23, 2026
Potential Diffuse Gas Science Cases and Instrument Goals for UV Imaging and Spectroscopy with HWO. Speaker: Kevin France
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.
NASA shuts off Voyager 1 instrument to save power 15B miles from Earth
NASA shut down Voyager 1's charged particles instrument to save dwindling power, as the interstellar spacecraft loses about 4 watts of energy per year.
NASA Shut Down Voyager 1 Science Instrument After Unexpected Power Drop
Engineers are working on a long-term plan to keep the iconic spacecraft alive.
Personnel note: Shutts & Bowen launches Education Section, adds Jordan Clark
'His leadership and insight will be instrumental as we expand our services in the education sector.'
NASA’s Voyager 1 spacecraft down to just two working science instruments
The iconic spacecraft launched nearly 49 years ago and is running perilously low on power
NASA shuts off another Voyager science instrument to save power. The spacecraft is now 15 billion miles from Earth | BBC Sky at Night Magazine
NASA shuts off Voyager 1's Low-energy Charged Particles experiment, which has been operating since Voyager 1 launched in 1977.
Largest-ever 3D map of the universe shows 47 million galaxies, from the Milky Way to 'cosmic noon' — Space photo of the week
The largest 3D map of the universe, created with data from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument, shows 47 million galaxies in stunning detail.
University of Pittsburgh team's FRED model tracks measles
Pitt's Framework for Reconstructing Epidemiological Dynamics program was instrumental in convincing lawmakers to pass rare legislation that took away the ability of residents to skip vaccines because of religious or personal beliefs.
First-ever SPHEREx images spark hope to finally unlock the Universe’s origin mysteries - Futura-Sciences
SPHEREx Takes Off: A Mission Begins On March 11, a Falcon 9 rocket launched from California’s Vandenberg Space Force Base, carrying a particularly precious piece of NASA’s scientific arsenal: the SPHEREx space telescope. Its mission? To map the cosmos with its high-precision instruments and spectacular image quality. No pressure, right?...
China’s Next Megaprojects Are Built for Big Science
Data shows how China’s infrastructure drive is beginning to include new scientific instruments built to explore the frontiers of physics, astronomy, and energy.
3L Rachel Sadler Charts Path in Brain Health, Technology, and Policy Through UC Law SF’s Health Law Concentration - UC Law San Francisco (Formerly UC Hastings)
3L Rachel Sadler studies health law and policy at UC Law SF while researching the legal implications of neurotechnology and other emerging tools that may affect human cognition. 3L student Rachel Sadler shares how UC Law SF’s Health Law Concentration prepared her for a career focused on the intersection of brain health, government policy, and technology. Gained a detailed understanding of how U.S. health care is regulated and where policy reform is needed through coursework and research. Interned with state and federal agencies that regulate health care services and worked with a major health care provider’s bioethics department. Plans to pursue a career focused on protecting cognitive liberty and mental privacy as new technologies reshape healthcare. 3L Rachel Sadler: The Health Law Concentration has given me fluency in one of the most complex regulated industries and the tools to become an effective advocate for better health policy. Before coming to law school, I spent a decade teaching and working with teachers and administrators on high school programming for multilingual learners. Healthcare kept emerging as the most powerful driver of student outcomes. I wanted to understand how to make effective policy change in this area and how to use existing law to defend people’s health rights in California. Through the concentration’s coursework, I gained a sophisticated understanding of how U.S. healthcare is regulated. I also learned where the pressure points for reform exist. The courses gave me space to develop what became my central research interest: how law and policy can be built to protect human cognition and healthy brain development, particularly regarding new technologies such as generative AI and neurotechnology. The health law faculty were instrumental in that process, genuinely invested in helping me and other students define and pursue our own intellectual vision. During law school, I interned at the General Counsel’s Office for Region IX of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. I also externed at the California Department of Justice’s Health, Education and Welfare Division. Additionally, I externed at Kaiser Permanente Northern California’s Bioethics Department. Alongside those placements, I conducted extensive independent research on mental privacy and emerging neurotechnology, working closely with Professors Emily Murphy and George Horvath. That research became the throughline of my law school experience and the foundation of my current policy focus. I must also credit Nicole Ozer of the Center for Constitutional Democracy (CCD), whose deep knowledge of California privacy law and the public-interest privacy landscape deeply informed my work. I currently serve a research assistant with the CCD, where I spearhead the development of K-12 educational resources in partnership with law faculty and students. I’ve found UC Law SF to be an ideal place for second-career, nontraditional students. There is a tremendous diversity of life and career experience here, and I felt fully welcomed into the community, despite returning as a student at a different stage of life. I came to law school wanting to promote equity in California’s healthcare system. I am leaving with a sharper and more specific ambition: to build a policy career focused on protecting cognitive liberty and mental privacy from technological intrusion. This is both an urgent and underserved area of law, and I want to be part of defining this landscape going forward. Whether as a practicing attorney or a policy advisor, I plan to work on these issues after law school. I strongly recommend UC Law SF and the Health Law Concentration. When I arrived in law school, I worried the concentration would be narrow and that my non-clinical background would be a disadvantage. The opposite was true. The health law faculty thinks about health expansively, encompassing social determinants of health, structural inequity, and emerging technologies alongside the regulatory mechanics of the industry. The faculty are accessible, intellectually generous, and genuinely invested in students’ development. I found my research vision here, and I deeply appreciate the concentration’s role in this. The Evidence of Success series highlights UC Law SF students as they share how the College’s opportunities equip them with the experience, skills, and confidence to excel in the legal profession.
Viewpoint: FP10 should remain open, excellent and secure
Europe is right to worry about research security. Foreign interference is real. So is the misuse of sensitive knowledge. Universities working in sensitive areas such as AI, quantum, semiconductors and advanced materials cannot afford to ignore the geopolitical environment around them.But Europe is in danger of drawing the wrong conclusion, one that would increase, not reduce, its strategic vulnerabilities.If the EU applies an “EU preference” logic to the next Framework Programme for research and innovation (FP10), it will weaken one of its greatest strategic assets: a research system built on openness, excellence and international collaboration. In the name of security, Europe could end up advancing science more slowly, innovating less effectively and making itself less attractive to global talent and partners in advanced science and technology.That would be a serious mistake.The EU preference included in Article 10 of the proposed European Competitiveness Fund may make sense in some industrial or deployment contexts, but is far harder to justify when applied to collaborative research in advanced science and technology, where excellence and global connectivity are crucial. Research is not procurement. It does not thrive when isolated. It advances through access to the best ideas, the best people, the best facilities and the best data, wherever they are found. This is why FP10 should not simply absorb industrial policy logic by default. Doing so would risk importing instruments that are ill-suited to research and that ultimately increase vulnerability rather than resilience.For universities of science and technology, the issue is especially acute. These institutions sit at the frontier of knowledge and technology creation in the very fields Europe sees as critical for its future competitiveness and resilience. They know better than most that security risks are real. But they also know that openness and security are not opposites. In practice, they have to be made to work together. Research security is not about closing doors. It is about building resilience through collective responsibility, trust, proportionate safeguards and better governance. That is a fundamentally different approach from default restriction.The risks of non-collaborationThe real danger in the current debate is that Europe talks too much about the risks of collaboration and not enough about the risks of non-collaboration. Those risks are strategic too. Cut researchers off from international networks and Europe loses access to knowledge, data, infrastructures and talent. Slow down global collaboration in critical technologies and Europe slows down its own progress on cutting-edge science. Make participation rules unpredictable and Europe weakens its attractiveness to researchers and investors alike.In other words, over-restricting collaboration will create strategic vulnerabilities, particularly in advanced science and technologies.This point is often underestimated in policy discussions that frame openness mainly as a value to be defended. Europe’s scientific strength, technological development and long-term competitiveness depend on remaining connected to the best research ecosystems in the world. For a continent that wants to accelerate deep tech, strengthen industrial capacity and reduce strategic dependencies, weakening the excellence base would be self-defeating. That does not mean ignoring risk. Quite the opposite. Universities are already strengthening due diligence, internal governance, awareness-raising, screening procedures and compliance support. Across Europe, institutions are working to manage risks linked to foreign interference, sanctions, export controls and the misuse of research. The right response is not complacency. It is better risk management. But that means targeted, evidence-based and proportionate measures, not blunt top-down restrictions with wide spillover effects. In the daily reality of universities, openness and restriction often coexist. The real challenge is how to apply safeguards without sliding into securitisation that damages academic freedom, open science and international cooperation. Restrict partners, not nationsMore restrictive treatment of collaborators from European Economic Area members Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, or from Switzerland and the UK, is strategically very difficult to justify. These are deeply embedded partners in Europe’s research and innovation ecosystem. Beyond that, Europe should still resist default exclusion and instead rely on case-by-case assessment. The relevant question is not nationality in the abstract. It is the actual risk profile of a collaboration: the institution, the affiliations, the field, the knowledge involved, the intended use and the safeguards available. Screening should focus on institutions and affiliations rather than nationality alone. Related articlesParliament ‘misreads’ link between Horizon Europe and ECF, Commission official saysFrustration grows at governance gap in next Horizon EuropeIf EU preference logic is imported into research without careful calibration, the likely result is a chilling effect. Researchers may step back from legitimate and beneficial collaboration, even where risks are manageable. International partners may see Europe as less predictable. And Europe may end up undermining the very excellence base it needs to compete, scale up and lead in strategic technologies, thereby increasing its dependence on others.FP10 should do the opposite. It should remain open by default, with restrictions used only exceptionally, and then on the basis of clear evidence. It should integrate research security into open science and research integrity frameworks, not set them against each other. And it should recognise that academic freedom, scientific excellence and responsible international collaboration are not obstacles to Europe’s security, they are part of it. Europe needs stronger tools to protect itself. But it also needs the discipline to avoid measures that would weaken it and increase its strategic vulnerabilities in the process. In FP10, that means staying open, excellent and secure.Louise Drogoul is senior advisor for innovation and sustainability at the Cesaer university association.
Scientists may finally detect hidden ripples in spacetime
Scientists have taken a major step toward probing one of physics’ biggest mysteries—how gravity and quantum mechanics fit together—by creating the first unified way to detect tiny “ripples” in spacetime itself. These subtle fluctuations, long predicted but poorly defined, are now organized into clear categories with specific signals that real-world instruments can search for. The breakthrough means powerful tools like LIGO and even small tabletop experiments could start testing competing theories of quantum gravity much sooner than expected.
What we’ve learned from citizen science: 5 projects that made a difference
From wombat and mozzie surveillance to deciphering climate history and spotting star explosions, citizen scientists are instrumental in contributing knowledge.
Keller business raising awareness about who is truly paying tariffs
An instruments specialty store is joining a national movement to raise awareness about who really pays tariffs.
Vanderbilt Lung Transplant Program sets new record
The Vanderbilt Transplant Center is now the second largest lung transplant center in the United States by volume, with 149 lung transplants in 2025, the most ever in one year at Vanderbilt Health. The Vanderbilt Lung Transplant Program leads the nation in organ preservation and regeneration and is among the best in long-term outcomes, demonstrating the success of the interdisciplinary team in caring for these complex patients. Several features make the program unique in the United States, said Konrad Hoetzenecker, MD, PhD, professor of Thoracic Surgery and surgical director of the Vanderbilt Lung Transplant Program. Vanderbilt serves as a “second opinion center” and accepts most complex candidates that are turned down by other centers due to increased perioperative risk. This includes patients over 70 years old, patients requiring combined procedures with their transplant, multiorgan transplantations and sensitized patients (individuals who have pre-formed anti-HLA antibodies who are at higher risk for complications). The expertise and excellent outcomes have attracted patients far beyond the borders of Tennessee; almost half of Vanderbilt Health’s lung transplant recipients come from out of state. “Another unique feature is our minimally invasive transplant program,” Hoetzenecker said. “By using distinct surgical instruments and techniques, the incisions can be kept as small as 7 to 8 centimeters, which results in better healing, less pain and faster recovery. “This minimally invasive approach is embedded in an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol, a multimodal, evidence-based perioperative care pathway designed to reduce surgical stress, minimize complications and speed up recovery. Our unique ERAS protocol, by a dedicated interdisciplinary approach, aims to improve recovery after lung transplant and reduce ICU and hospital stay.” The lung transplant program recently celebrated a milestone — 1,000 lung transplants since the program began in 1990. “This significant achievement reflects the concerted effort of a multidisciplinary collaboration by the Departments of Thoracic Surgery, Medicine, Anesthesiology and Critical Care,” said David Erasmus, MD, associate professor of Medicine and medical director of Vanderbilt Lung Transplant. Lung transplants have been attempted since the 1960s, but they were largely unsuccessful until the 1980s, when surgical techniques were refined and new antirejection drugs proved effective. Patient outcomes steadily improved from the 1990s to the present. Vanderbilt’s fourth lung transplant recipient in 1990, Pam Everett, is the longest-living, single-lung transplant known in the world, recently celebrating 35 years since her transplant. The Vanderbilt Lung Transplant surgical team is led by Hoetzenecker and Caitlin Demarest, MD, PhD, the surgical director and associate surgical director of the Vanderbilt Lung Transplant program. Erasmus is the medical director of Vanderbilt Lung Transplant along with Anil Trindade, MD, associate medical director and associate professor of Medicine.
On Trump’s Mind: Iran, Inflation and Sharpies
President Trump waxed on about the virtues of the pen, calling it more economical and a better instrument than the fancier writing tools preferred by his predecessors.
Two Argonne scientists elected Fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Argonne National Laboratory scientists Brian Toby and Carlos Wagner have been elected AAAS Fellows for advances in crystallography and particle physics, recognizing their influential research, software and instrumentation development, and mentorship.
Sonova to Sell Sennheiser Consumer Hearing Business
Sonova is selling the Sennheiser branded business to focus on its core hearing instrument and cochlear implant businesses going forward.
We disagreed on politics. We agreed on wine. That was enough.
At the Virginia Governor’s Cup Gala in Richmond earlier this month, a very dapper gentleman approached me and introduced himself. In his light-colored suit and bowtie, he looked very Southern in a classical sense, the sort of Virginia Gentleman you used to see south of the Rappahannock as recently as my college days. “I’m a longtime reader and fan of your writing, if not your politics,” he said. His comment was the proverbial iron fist in a velvet glove, simultaneously conveying praise and disapproval while establishing boundaries. Man, I wish we still discoursed like this instead of shouting bromides and insults to try and “own” our opponents with a funny meme and a furrowed brow. Subscribe “Well, we’ll always have wine to share together,” I said, and thanked him for his kind words. We clinked glasses, exchanged pleasantries about the delicious gold medal-winning wines being poured that evening, and went our separate ways. Our exchange reminded me that more unites us than divides us. Wine brings people together to share a meal and a few hours of joy despite our differences.1 That’s why I refer to the wine community — including readers and consumers — rather than the wine industry. Together, we are so much more than production, distribution and sales statistics. A few minutes later the evening’s awards ceremony began. Applause grew as the 12 winemakers who made the top-scoring wines for the Governor’s Case took the stage, including a loud cheer for Jonathan Wheeler of Trump Winery and his 2018 Blanc de Noir sparkling wine. All the winemakers on stage had reason to be proud, Wheeler perhaps more so. Trump Winery was the only winery to win six gold medals in the competition this year. (Wineries are limited to six entries.) Two of Wheeler’s ciders also won gold medals in a separate competition. When you cover the labels and take the sour taste of politics off your palate, the wines are pretty darn good.2 Then Gov. Abigail Spanberger, newly elected Democrat and Virginia’s first female governor, was introduced to great applause to announce which of the 12 wines had won the Governor’s Cup. She spoke for a few minutes about the importance of wine to Virginia’s economy and tourism and the international acclaim Virginia wine has received. Just two weeks earlier, she gave the Democrats’ response to Trump’s State of the Union speech, but this night wasn’t about politics. That didn’t stop several people in the crowd from speculating on the irony should she have to present the trophy to Trump Winery. In the end, Valley Road Vineyards was displayed on the screen behind Spanberger as the winning winery. Blue Bee Cidery in Richmond took top honors for that category. The crowd cheered a female governor presenting the state’s highest trophy to a female winemaker and then resumed the evening’s festivities, united by their mutual love of wine. A whiff of politics couldn’t dim the cheer of celebration and a community united by its love of wine. In Memoriam: Michel Rolland The global wine community lost a giant March 20, with the passing of Michel Rolland. He was 78. Rolland was the original “flying winemaker,” a globe-trotting consultant who helped Bordeaux regain its mojo in the 1970s and then shaped the rise of Napa Valley cult Cabernet as consultant to Simi, Harlan, Newton, Screaming Eagle, Araujo, Dalle Valle and other wineries. He was instrumental in Argentina’s rise to prominence and even had his own winery, Clos de los Siete, in a partnership with other wine families. Rolland’s career arc paralleled that of Robert Parker, the world’s most influential critic. Parker championed many of the wines Rolland consulted on, helping build his reputation and demand for his services. It also made him a target for Parker’s critics. As W. Blake Gray wrote on Wine-Searcher in his excellent tribute to Rolland: Rolland created the type of wines Parker loved: rich body, plenty of fruit, soft tannins. He sometimes faced the accusation of creating a generic international style of red wine, where the great wines he made in Argentina were indistinguishable from the great wines he made in France. Rolland chafed at that critique, as did many of his fans. He was credited with championing green harvesting and leaf pulling, as well as careful selection of grapes in the winery, practices we nearly universally think of today for high-quality winemaking. “Michel was an incredible innovator who changed how wine was made and how grapes were grown,” Napa Valley winemaker Aaron Pott wrote on Facebook. “His work has transformed the wine trade. He created new ways of looking at wine, tasting wine, evaluating ripeness and quality. … This was not just a man with a ‘style’ that he imposed on vineyards but a man that understood how to make great wine from great sites.” Rolland started his consulting company in 1973 in Libourne, in Bordeaux, with his wife, Dany. Both had graduated the year before from Bordeaux’s Institute d’Oenologie. The couple sold their majority share in the business in 2020, according to Wine Spectator. Over his career, Rolland reportedly worked with more than 100 wineries in 20 countries. He even made it to Virginia, where he consulted for Kluge Estate in the mid-2000s. (Kluge Estate is now Trump Winery.) Reader feedback, please! Last week, I did my first WineLine Live! with Dr. Laura Catena of Catena Zapata winery in Argentina. We enjoyed a fascinating discussion about her efforts to preserve the genetic heritage of old vineyards in Mendoza. I conceived of WineLine Live! for paid subscribers, as a thank you for your financial support. And while only a few people joined live, the video now has more views than I have paid subscribers, so I guess that’s pretty good. Even so, I’m considering opening future installments to anyone on Substack to reach a broader audience. So my questions to you: Should these be public? And what format do you prefer? Live gives a chat feature with the potential for viewers to interact with me and the guest, while a video post would just be that. Another alternative is a podcast, which would just be audio, without video of my chins. Please let me know in the comments. Leave a comment In the Glass A few wines I’ve enjoyed recently: Bonny Doon Vineyard Take Me to Your Liter, Le Cigare Volant, Red Wine of the Earth. 2023, Central Coast, CA. Blend of Grenache, Syrah Cinsaut and Petite Sirah. Delightful wine with expressive red fruit flavors, casual drinking. Doon lovers of a certain age will remember Randall Grahm’s Big House Red; this is more in that style than his original Le Cigare Volant, modeled after Chateauneuf du Pape. The liter bottle makes it an even better value. I see this online at about $15. Great value. Albert Bichot Bourgogne Pinot Noir Origines 2023. 13% - Textbook pinot noir and an excellent, affordable entry (regional) Burgundy. Wine Enthusiast Top 100 Wines of 2025. $24 at Total Wine & More. Loma Larga Pinot Noir 2021 “Coastal Cool Climate Wine”, Valle de Casablanca, Chile. An older sample, showing beautifully. Spicy and fruit forward. I’m seeing widely varied pricing online, from $18-$32. At the lower end, it’s a terrific value. 13.5% Dr. Loosen Riesling Dry 2016, Mosel, Germany. Found this “in the stack.” And it stacked up well, shedding some of its youthful acidity for opulent Riesling character, including a hint of the mineral oil older Riesling often features. A great value, as I’m seeing it as low as $14 online. 12% abv. Red Tail Ridge Blau Franc Blend 2024, Sans Oak, Finger Lakes. 13.4% abv. The name is a neat portmanteau of Blaufrankisch and Cabernet Franc, thus Blau Franc. The blend is 50-50, no oak involved. The Blau dominates on the palate, with the spicy caraway seed (think New York deli rye bread). The Franc adds body. The result is juicy, energetic and joyful. Sokol Blosser Estate Rosé of Pinot Noir 2025, Dundee Hills, Willamette Valley, Oregon. This first rosé of 2025 was a welcome respite to our cold, snowy winter here in the Mid-Atlantic. Oh man, I needed this! Bright and energetic, exuberant even, it perks up the mood and goes down fast. 13%. Certified B Corp. Ingredient and nutrition labeling, and in a modest way that doesn’t occupy a lot of label space. (Since it’s not required, presumably there are no minimum font size requirements.) More wineries should follow this example. Dave McIntyre's WineLine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe Thanks for reading Dave McIntyre's WineLine! This post is public so feel free to share it. Share 1 Some restraint may be required. 2 Especially the bubblies.
Leading Chinese remote-sensing scientist Zhang Jinshui dies at 47
Beijing Normal professor led major R&D programmes and was instrumental in enhancing the country’s food security with satellite technologies.
Asteroid Bennu’s Rugged Surface Baffled NASA, We Finally Know Why
In one of the biggest surprises of NASA's OSIRIS-REx mission, its target asteroid, Bennu, turned out to be a jagged, rugged world covered in large boulders, with few of the smooth patches of sandy or pebbly material scientists had expected based on observations with Earth-based instruments. Bennu's looks were quite deceiving, and until now, scientists struggled to figure out why.
Linux Finally Catches Up to Windows with a Game-Changing Performance Feature
For years, the Linux kernel’s scheduler has been world‑class at balancing loads, yet it missed a crucial, cache‑aware instinct. In modern multi‑core systems, that gap can turn into measurable latency, especially when threads bounce between cores that don’t share the same cache. A new upstream feature, often called Cache Aware Scheduling, is now set to change that equation. A cache‑savvy scheduler arrives At the heart of any OS, the scheduler decides which thread runs where and for how long. In modern CPUs, small private caches (L1 and L2) sit beside each core, while a larger Last Level Cache (LLC, typically L3) is shared among groups of cores. When a task migrates across LLC boundaries, its warm data may vanish from the cache, forcing slower trips to main memory. Cache Aware Scheduling keeps related tasks close to their shared LLC, reducing destructive migrations. By respecting cache topology, the kernel minimizes cold‑start penalties and preserves locality that many workloads desperately need. The result is less thrashing, fewer memory stalls, and more consistent throughput. "Keep tasks close to their data, and the system will keep performance close to its peak." Why this narrows the Windows gap Windows has long leaned on topology‑aware, cache‑sensitive heuristics, especially since the Windows 10 era. That advantage helped Microsoft handle hybrid designs with P‑cores and E‑cores, plus complex cluster and NUMA layouts. With cache awareness integrated upstream, Linux brings parity to this vital dimension, without sacrificing its trademark flexibility. The Linux approach remains deeply configurable, reflecting the ecosystem’s breadth across servers, desktops, and embedded devices. It layers atop existing NUMA‑balancing and energy‑aware logic, refining placement rather than reinventing the wheel. Crucially, it aligns scheduling with the hardware’s real shape, not just with abstract CPU counts. Real‑world gains and who benefits Early tests on Intel Sapphire Rapids platforms point to gains in the 30–45% range for select workloads. Those wins appear in cache‑sensitive tasks like in‑memory analytics, high‑thread compilation, and microservices with tight working‑sets. Games and latency‑bound engines can also feel steadier frame‑times, especially when threads share hot assets. The benefits extend to AMD’s 3D V‑Cache parts, where keeping threads near enlarged cache slices prevents needless misses. Hybrid x86 designs with performance and efficiency cores further profit when cache and core roles are scheduled in concert. Even handhelds running SteamOS can squeeze more out of limited power, translating cache locality into smoother play. Key advantages include: Lower end‑to‑end latency Fewer expensive misses to RAM Better multi‑socket and NUMA behavior Improved energy efficiency More predictable QoS under mixed loads Stronger scaling on dense servers Caveats, tuning, and rollout No scheduler change is purely free, and trade‑offs still exist. Favoring locality can reduce cross‑cluster balance if limits are set too tight. Likewise, fairness and utilization must remain healthy, especially under heterogeneous, bursty workloads. Linux’s implementation is designed to be measured and tunable, not a blunt instrument. It cooperates with energy‑aware scheduling for mobile efficiency, and with NUMA‑balancers on big iron. Expect architecture‑specific refinements as vendors surface richer topology hints and cache‑sharing maps. Upstream integration has begun, with broad distribution adoption likely over the next cycles. Many users will encounter the change through standard kernel updates in 2025–2026, depending on distro cadence. Server‑class kernels may enable or tune it sooner for targeted fleets where cache locality is money in the bank. How to think about performance impact Cache Aware Scheduling amplifies gains when your workload is both CPU‑bound and cache‑sensitive. Think tight inner loops, hot code paths, and datasets that fit snugly in shared LLC. It’s less dramatic for I/O‑bound services or memory‑hungry tasks that blow past cache capacity. Still, even modest locality improvements often translate into smoother tail‑latency, which is where user experience and SLAs typically break. Developers can further help by pinning related threads, batching work, and aligning data to reduce cross‑cluster chatter. The scheduler’s new awareness works best when applications expose good hints. The bottom line By understanding and honoring cache topology, Linux removes a subtle yet costly bottleneck. The kernel’s smarter placement keeps hot data hot and work near where it belongs. That narrows a long‑standing gap with Windows, while preserving the openness and tunability Linux champions. For gamers, creators, and operators, the payoff is practical: more consistent frames, faster builds, and snappier services. For the ecosystem, it’s another step toward hardware‑savvy scheduling that turns transistor complexity into real‑world speed. And for Linux itself, it’s a timely upgrade that matches today’s silicon with tomorrow’s expectations.
Davids Visits Merriam Manufacturer to Highlight Small Businesses Challenges
MERRIAM, KS – Today, Representative Sharice Davids visited K.C. Strings, the largest instrument string manufacturer in the state of Kansas, to see the company’s manufacturing operations and hear directly from the owners about their new ventures and the challenges they face due to chaotic federal policies set by the administration.
NASA’s ER-2 Aircraft Captures Moonlight to Calibrate Space Sensors
A NASA instrument designed to measure moonlight to help satellite sensors make more accurate measurements.
‘They transform spaces of care into instruments of state violence’
Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
United States Gift Card Business and Investment Report 2026: A 320+ Billion Market by 2030 Featuring Walmart, Amazon, Costco, Home Depot, Target, Apple, CVS, Sycamore Partners, Kroger, Publix
The US gift card market offers opportunities in four main areas: repositioning gift cards as ecosystem instruments to enhance brand loyalty, embedding them in apps for seamless transactions, using them as controlled corporate spending tools, and bolstering fraud controls. Focus on digital transformation and integration into payment ecosystems is key. U.S. Gift Card Market U.S. Gift Card Market Dublin, Feb. 19, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The "United States Gift Card Business and Investment Opportun
Vanderbilt Health remembers C. Leon Partain, former chair of Radiology
Clarence Leon Partain, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, whose work in nuclear medicine and magnetic resonance imaging helped shape the field of academic radiology, died Jan. 28 in Brentwood, Tennessee. He was 85. After beginning his career as a nuclear engineer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and as faculty at the University of Missouri and the University of North Carolina, Dr. Partain joined the ranks at Vanderbilt Radiology in 1980 and was promoted to professor in 1984. He later became the first Carol D. and Henry P. Pendergrass Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences and chair of the department (1992-2000), and subsequently the director of the Center for Imaging Research. Shortly after arriving in Nashville, Dr. Partain began to lead Vanderbilt Radiology’s nuclear medicine division. He remained in this role until he was named the department chair. Dr. Partain specialized in multiple fields, including nuclear medicine, magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography. Following his time as chair, Dr. Partain shifted his focus to research and spent time working clinically with radiology’s chest imaging section. In 2015, he retired and was honored for his years of service and named as emeritus faculty. Dr. Partain also held an appointment as professor of Biomedical Engineering. A Tennessee native, Dr. Partain was born in Memphis and later graduated from high school in Clarksville. He then received his BS in nuclear engineering from the University of Tennessee, his MS and PhD in nuclear engineering from Purdue University and his MD from Washington University. He completed his residency training in diagnostic radiology and nuclear medicine at the University of North Carolina. Dr. Partain was clinically trained and certified in diagnostic radiology and nuclear radiology by the American Board of Radiology (ABR) and the American Board of Nuclear Medicine. Throughout his career, Dr. Partain contributed to the growth of Vanderbilt Radiology and received many academic and research accolades across the specialty through various associations. During his time leading the department, clinical studies increased from 180,000 to 260,000 cases per year, emerging technological imaging equipment expanded the department’s capabilities, and units for angiography and fluoroscopy were added to the tool kit. The department also expanded its footprint with outpatient imaging in Nashville, Bedford County and more. Research continued to expand with continued growth in scientific findings and millions in grant funding for radiopharmaceuticals, functional MRI, nuclear medicine, X-ray, ultrasound and more. Dr. Partain is celebrated for being instrumental in bringing the first MRI and PET/CT machines to the Medical Center. His efforts helped build Vanderbilt Radiology’s prestige in the world of academics and research both nationally and internationally. His society affiliations included the American College of Radiology, the American College of Nuclear Medicine, and the International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (ISMRM). He served as president of the Radiological Research Alliance of the Association of Academic Radiologists and has held executive roles as a member of many radiological society boards. Dr. Partain was editor-in-chief of the Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging from 2000 to 2013 and a member of the editorial boards of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, the American Journal of Roentgenology, Academic Radiology, the Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Investigative Radiology. He has authored/co-authored/edited six textbooks, including one of the first comprehensive textbooks on MRI, “Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Imaging.” Dr. Partain has also authored/co-authored/edited approximately 100-plus book chapters and 200-plus journal articles. In 2000, Dr. Partain received the Distinguished Service Award from the ABR. In 2014, he received the Distinguished Service Award from the ISMRM. In 2016, he received the Alumni Achievement Award from Washington University for his “contributions to advance the fields of nuclear medicine and medical imaging.” Dr. Partain served the ABR as an examiner for 20 years, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education as a member of the Nuclear Medicine Residency Review Committee, and Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in multiple capacities. A devout Baptist deacon and man of committed faith, he is survived by his wife of 62 years, Judy; children, David (Rebecca), Teri (Bland), and Amy; brother, Larry (Deb); brother-in-law, Tom (Cathy); grandchildren, Sarah (Brandon), Amy, Luke, Tucker, Alex, Ryan and Jake; cousins and a host of nieces and nephews. Vanderbilt Health is grateful to Dr. Partain for his decades of service and major contributions to clinical and research imaging.
Terra Adjusts Instrument Operations to Extend Mission Life
The thermal infrared capabilities of an imager on NASA’s Terra satellite have been shut off and will no longer collect data, more than 25 years after the
Moving beyond money to measure the true value of Earth science information
Earth science information can do more than quantify the instrumental or monetary value of nature; it can be used to measure social good, say researchers
An Oral History Of Fallout
We spoke to many of the most instrumental people in the franchise’s past and present to tell Fallout’s story in their own words.
Amendment 42: Several Changes to F.10 PRISM
F.10 Payloads and Research Investigations on the Surface of the Moon (PRISM) solicits development and flight of a science-driven suite of instruments and
Scaling innovations in public health systems: guidance and toolkit
This guidance is a strategic instrument to position governments as drivers of health systems transformation. By embracing the roles, processes and strategies outlined herein, public sector leaders can move beyond short-term initiatives and isolated successes toward lasting, large-scale improvements in health outcomes.
TheWrap Promotes Carolyn Bernstein and Michael Kosasky to VPs of Entertainment Sales
President and COO Edward J. Menicheschi celebrates the pair as "instrumental in elevating TheWrap’s position as a trusted partner."
Decades of suffering: Long-term mental health outcomes of Kurdish chemical gas attacks
Dr. Ibrahim Mohammed is a clinical psychologist and researcher specializing in trauma, somatic symptoms, and psychopathology in conflict-affected populations. He has worked for over a decade with survivors of massacres in the Kurdistan Region, integrating clinical practice with research. He is also a lecturer at the Institute of Psychotherapy and Psychotraumatology at the University of Duhok. His current research focuses on validating psychological instruments for Kurdish communities and exploring genetic and phenomic factors related to trauma-related disorders. In a new study in Frontiers in Psychiatry, he and colleagues showed exceptionally high levels of trauma among survivors of a notorious atrocity: the 1988 chemical attack on Halabja in Kurdistan. In this editorial, he summarizes their findings.
The Ring Nebula is hiding a giant structure made of iron
A huge bar of iron has been discovered lurking inside the iconic Ring Nebula. The structure is enormous, spanning hundreds of times the size of Pluto’s orbit and containing a Mars-sized amount of iron. It was detected using a new instrument that allowed astronomers to map the nebula in far greater detail than ever before. The origin of the iron bar is still a mystery, with one theory suggesting it could be the remains of a vaporized planet.
My research helped invent Ozempic — then male scientists took all the credit
The work of the biochemist Svetlana Mojsov was instrumental in the development of the diet drugs that are now slimming the world. She tells Aimee Donnellan about her 40-year fight for recognition
Can the American Oboe Sing Again?
Building the instrument is hard enough. Turning a profit is a killer. But Jim Phelan is bent on reviving one of the great names in classical music.
Roman For Scientists
Listed below are several resources which provide the mission and instrument parameters, technical performance models, and laboratory measurements.
DR MARC SIEGEL: Medical miracle or modern science? Both can be signs of God at work
Modern medical breakthroughs save lives in ways that feel miraculous, showing how faith and science can work together as instruments of healing and hope.
Tricorder Tech For Everyone: NASA's STELLA Open Science Instrument
Keith’s note: NASA has just authored a paper on a new way for people with a wide variety of interests to use – and build – sensor technology that is a preview of the devices we will use to explore other planets. How will we develop these instruments – sensors, tricorders, scanners, smartphones – call them what you will is now underway at NASA. There is a vibrant citizen science […]
Tricorder Tech For Everyone: NASA's STELLA Open Science Instrument
NASA has just authored apaper on a new way for people with a wide variety of interests to use - and build - sensor technology that is a preview of the devices we will use to explore other planets.
Search underway for monkey who damaged Morristown business, police say
Morristown police said the monkey caused damage to the business and musical instruments.
Philly sports' top 10 figures of 2025
Super Bowl MVP Jalen Hurts, Phillies slugger Kyle Schwarber and Union coach Bradley Carnell were all instrumental in Philly sports this year.
NASA Instrument Reveals New Ability to Gather Nighttime Light Data
Since launching in 2023, TEMPO data has set a record at the Atmospheric Science Data Center (ASDC) for most mission data downloads by users in a single year –