SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " mathematics " 154 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Mini-STEM March 21, 2014
Mini-STEM Oct 11, 2013 page for Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics at USNA.edu. Updated Fri Sep 05 15:45:17 EDT 2025.
‘The reality, for better or worse’: Columbia comp sci students and faculty grapple with AI’s disruption of the field
‘The reality, for better or worse’: Columbia comp sci students and faculty grapple with AI’s disruption of the field ‘The reality, for better or worse’: Columbia comp sci students and faculty grapple with AI’s disruption of the field A field that once seemed like a direct path to stable, lucrative work is becoming less certain under AI, students and faculty told Spectator. By Ria Vasishtha and Arjun Menon May 3, 2026 Shanying Liu / Deputy Illustrations Editor Asia Genawi, SEAS ’29, first encountered artificial intelligence during her sophomore year at her high school in Indiana. Back in 2023, policies on AI varied widely—even within the same district—and some schools had no guidance at all. As Genawi began to see the effects of AI trickle into her classroom, she turned to guidance from her home state’s Department of Education, which she said she found “outdated and inaccessible.” Genawi spent the rest of her high school career dedicated to the issue, including writing a 15-page memo exploring varying AI policies across Indiana schools, which she sent to every Indiana state senator and representative whose contact information she was able to find. She later helped draft a bill that would have required public high schools to establish and share their own AI policies with students in an accessible format. But with so many other bills already awaiting referral, hers never made it to committee. When Genawi arrived at Columbia to study computer science, she found that the gaps she had spent years trying to address in Indiana had followed her there. Many students and professors were also grappling with what AI meant for the field. Across Columbia’s undergraduate schools, computer science has become the most popular major—accounting for around 11 percent of degrees awarded in Columbia College, 32 percent in the School of Engineering and Applied Science, and 12 percent in the School of General Studies in 2024. While the number of computer science majors in SEAS grew from 166 to 173 during the 2024-25 academic year, the total number across the three schools fell around 4.5 percent from 393 to 375, driven by declines at Columbia College and General Studies. At Barnard, it has grown to become the second most popular major as of 2025, up from third the year prior. The number of degrees awarded have grown fivefold since 2016. Faculty members and students in the department told Spectator that the surge in the major’s popularity has been driven in large part by its apparent promise of a secure, well-paid career path. However, they noted that the recent rise of generative AI has compromised the sense of stability that once defined the field, even as interest in technical skills among students persists. According to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 2024, out of 74 majors tracked, computer science had the fifth highest unemployment rate among majors at 7 percent, while computer engineering had the second highest at 7.8 percent. “Anecdotally, people are moving away from CS as a major,” Daniel Bauer, a senior lecturer in the computer science department, said. “They’re still taking some of our classes, right, because they think they need that, but they’re instead majoring in other things.” Bauer described a field that had shifted from what he called a “nerdy outlier discipline” to one that “everyone needs,” a sign that technical skills have become a baseline expectation across industries with the emergence of AI. “A lot of people thought, ‘Oh, it’s a guaranteed path to a stable income. You get a six-figure job right out of your undergrad,’” Bauer said. Now, companies may see AI as a way to reduce demand for entry-level programmers, especially in what he calls “code monkey jobs,” roles where a large number of employees are “just writing out code nine-to-five.” Chris Murphy, a senior lecturer in the computer science department, described the current moment as the convergence of two forces: the downturn of the job market and generative AI coming onto the scene. “Things kind of started to really pick up in 2014, 16,” he said, recalling the years after the weaker 2010 market. Murphy added that this was also a period where “students were getting more experience outside of class than they were inside of class” through internships, jobs, and side projects. Murphy suggested that the earlier momentum helped make computer science feel like both an academic program and a reliable pathway into work. That feeling is harder to sustain now as the industry reconfigures, which is a shift that students are seeing firsthand. Rebecca Yu, SEAS ’27, said that during a recent internship in Big Tech, she saw that “every single tech company was racing to integrate” large language models. She added that her manager said her intern class was the first to complete their assigned projects, which she attributed to the increased efficiency that comes with AI. Frank Liu, SEAS ’29, said that with AI lowering the barrier to coding, companies now expect everyone to write code. “A lot of companies outright say if you’re not using coding in your job, you might get fired for not being productive enough,” Liu said. Yu similarly expressed that students increasingly have to accept AI being a part of industry workflow, adding that many also “make use of it to maximize their productivity.” Richard Li, CC ’28, described a “franticness” among his peers as the pace of change accelerates. He explained how “some new tool” is released regularly, noting that tools rise and fall in prominence within weeks. He has come to believe that he doesn’t need to “match that speed all the time” and keep up with every development. Li has learned that AI tools allow him to “take a breath” and “get back into the loop much easier than before” when he needs to. While some companies specifically target Columbia when hiring, sending representatives to campus career fairs and recruiting large numbers from Columbia, a computer science degree cannot be treated as a static credential, Yu described. “You can’t just get your degree and stop learning after that. You have to always be learning,” Yu said. “That is something you basically have to expect for your job.” AI has not only affected students’ decisions to major in computer science, but also reshaped how the subject is taught. Across departments, faculty members no longer treat work done outside the classroom as a reliable measure of understanding, shifting instead toward in-person exams, quizzes, and attendance checks. While homework once made up as much as 60 to 70 percent of a student’s grade in computer science classes, Murphy said that breakdown has since flipped, with exams and quizzes now accounting for the majority. “The assumption—especially among pessimists—is that they’re using it to do their homework,” Murphy said. “They take the homework assignment. They put it into generative AI. Out comes the solution. Submit solution. The end.” Murphy said that faculty members ranged in their responses from fully prohibiting AI use to actively teaching students how to effectively work with AI. He said he shifted his approach this year after his teaching assistants called his belief that students weren’t using the technology “naïve,” and now permits students to use AI on assignments. His surveys of students in his introductory classes have told a more complicated story than the one so-called pessimists offer: Around 60 to 70 percent of students who reported using AI said they used it to have concepts explained to them, to clarify assignment instructions, to generate test cases, or to create practice questions. “Those are all ways that you might have had a tutor in the past to do that, and now you have this AI essentially as your tutor,” he said. Bauer has taken a different approach, teaching students how to use AI productively without sacrificing the core principles of the discipline. “People who are trained to actually use AI tools productively, while being in charge of designing the overall project, will be very much in demand in the next couple of years,” he said. Over the past year, a working group of computer science faculty has been redesigning the introductory and intermediate programming sequence to integrate generative AI as both a subject and a tool, representatives from SEAS wrote in a statement to Spectator. The effort is “coordinated” across the department, “not course-by-course,” with a systematic assessment of how AI integration is affecting student outcomes underway to shape the next round of changes. The goal, the department explained, is for students to be able to “read, verify, and reason about code, whether they or a model wrote it.” Tony Dear, senior lecturer in the computer science department, is piloting individualized AI feedback in a discrete mathematics course, while a machine learning course is also testing a Socratic AI dialogue system designed to “guide inquiry rather than supply answers,” the statement reads. Beyond individual courses, SEAS funded seven cross-departmental faculty projects in generative AI this past academic year, spanning biomedical engineering, chemical engineering, industrial engineering, and computer science, according to the statement. This phenomenon extends beyond the computer science department. SEAS’ new AI minor, which it announced in November 2025, reflects the University’s attempt to adapt. The minor is specifically designed for noncomputer science majors and aims to provide “essential AI knowledge” while emphasizing practical and responsible use across disciplines, according to the SEAS website. At the center of the minor is AI in Context, a course taught by a team of faculty from the departments of computer science, applied mathematics, philosophy, music, literature, and the Writing Center, the representatives told Spectator. Bauer described it as targeted at students who want to bring AI into fields like economics or biology, rather than as a path into software engineering itself. At the graduate level, SEAS announced a new Master of Science in artificial intelligence in February, with the inaugural cohort starting in the fall. While recognizing how AI has helped them navigate coursework, students also described its rise as isolating, even among members of the Application Development Initiative, one of Columbia’s largest computer science clubs. “As people start to ask AI for questions that they would normally ask students and members, it starts to isolate people” Li said. Alexa Kafka, BC ’27, echoed Li’s sentiment, pointing out that computer science has always been a collaborative discipline with code reviews and pull requests, even as AI makes independent work easier. Despite this, Kafka noted that she hasn’t been to office hours “in at least a year.” Bauer added that faculty are exploring long-term solutions to the assessment problem. “One of the things that we’re trying to do at the department or school level is to maybe move towards computerized testing facilities,” Bauer said, referring to ideas in the department to revitalize computer labs as an alternative to pen-and-paper exams. “We have to accept that this is the reality, for better or worse.” But more exams, students say, does not mean better learning, nor does it reflect how computer science is actually done. “Code is so variable and can be approached in so many directions, there’s never just going to be one correct answer. There can be multiple optimal solutions,” Kafka said. Students also expressed concern that the shift toward exam-heavy grading pulls focus away from the applied, project-based work that better reflects both discipline and industry expectations. ADI has tried to respond more quickly than the curriculum can. Through a vibe coding workshop this past semester, club members said they wanted to help students understand not just that AI exists, but how to use it deliberately. “Vibe coding” refers to the practice of prompting AI to write code for a task or project, and has become widespread enough that ADI felt the gap in formal instruction was worth addressing, according to Sophia Huang, BC ’29. The workshop introduced students to the concept of context engineering, which Shaina Sahu, SEAS ’27, described as not just writing a prompt, but optimizing “the rest of the relevant information that you would feed into the model.” Without that, students said that AI-generated code can fail at scale or introduce difficult-to-detect bugs. Genawi said the shift toward AI has changed what it means to be good at computer science. “I think the shift has kind of gone towards what can you create and what can you do, instead of, what do you know,” she said. Indeed, during ADI DevFest, its annual hackathon, Li said more teams are trying to complete their projects than in years past. While sign-ups have historically outpaced submissions, Li said this is beginning to change because teams “have a tool that completes the vision for them.” While many students see AI as an equalizer that lowers the barrier to entry for coding and technical work, Murphy said it also creates new equity concerns inside the classroom around who can afford stronger tools and who already knows how to use them. “The equity issues I worry about are students who have access to paid versions of things versus free versions of things,” he said. Although popular AI models like ChatGPT and Claude have free versions available, both have paid models that can reach over $100 per month, which output different qualities of code. Murphy also pointed to differences in prior exposure to AI literacy itself. “Students who go to high schools or K-12 education, where they’re taught AI literacy, prompt engineering, context engineering, they understand how to do this, as opposed to students who go to schools who don’t teach that,” he said. “Then they come in, and then they’re somehow expected to know how to use these tools.” For Genawi, those disparities begin long before students arrive on campus. “It’s very interesting to consider how lucky you were geographically,” she said. “To be born where you were is influencing your ability to get access to these spaces.” Students like Yu, though broadly apprehensive about the future of computer science, are not without hope. “I’m optimistic, because I think if you’re truly passionate about CS, there will definitely be a place in the field to do something you want to do,” she said. Senior Staff Writer Ria Vasishtha can be contacted at ria.vasishtha@columbiaspectator.com. Follow Spectator on X @ColumbiaSpec. Staff Writer Arjun Menon can be contacted at arjun.menon@columbiaspectator.com. Follow Spectator on X @ColumbiaSpec. Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter and like Spectator on Facebook. Produced with Spectate by Emily Ta
Hollywood and Science unite at the 2026 Breakthrough Prize
The star-studded event celebrated achievements by the world’s top scientists in Life Sciences, Fundamental Physics, and Mathematics.
Hollywood and Science Unite at the 2026 Breakthrough Prize
The star-studded event celebrated achievements by the world’s top scientists in Life Sciences, Fundamental Physics, and Mathematics.
Viewpoint: A career in science is possible, and worth it
Starting a career in science is exciting, but also demanding, with researchers often faced with intense competition, long working hours and high levels of stress. A pioneer in the field of mass spectrometry, Carol Robinson has been there. She speaks with Science|Business on the importance of creating a supportive environment, particularly for women.Robinson did not wake up one day thinking that she would become a scientist. It was only late in school that she developed an interest in chemistry. “The more you work at something, the more you think, actually, this is fascinating. So, I went much further and deeper than I ever needed to pass the exam. And then I loved it,” she says. “I thought, I’m going to give it my all. I’m going to enjoy it while I’m here. But I didn’t think this would be my career for 50 odd years.”She left school at 16 to become a lab technician with the drug company Pfizer, which is where she first worked with mass spectrometry. Fascinated, she was encouraged to take a part-time degree and then a PhD. She went on to do pioneering work in native mass spectrometry, a technique that is used to study protein structures in their natural state, paving the way for breakthroughs in drug discovery. She also broke new ground by becoming the first female professor of chemistry at the University of Cambridge, and then the first female professor of chemistry at the University of Oxford, her current home.She now wants to show young researchers that a career in science is worth it. “Sometimes, I believe the culture isn’t very encouraging, and that’s something I have worked on,” Robinson says.In 2021, she launched the Kavli Institute for Nanoscience Discovery at Oxford, whose acronym gives a sense of what she hopes it will achieve. “Maybe it is corny,” she says. “It’s just a reminder that I would like it if we could all be kind to each other and supportive, especially for early-career researchers of either gender, because there’s quite a big attrition rate in science, and maybe it just doesn’t feel like a very friendly place to work.”And yet, a career in science comes with a lot of flexibility. “There are few careers where you have that amount of freedom, to go to conferences, to the library. Just because you didn’t see me didn’t mean I wasn’t working,” she says. “And I’m excited to come in every day. So, I don’t want people to think it’s a terrible place.”Gender equality is also important when it comes to the quality of science as a career. “The more women we have, the better it becomes,” Robinson adds.Imposter syndromeAccording to EU data, women outnumber men in university education but account for just about a third of graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (Stem). And while the number of women working as scientists and engineers in the 27-member bloc is on the rise, their representation remains below that of men, at 41%. This discrepancy is even more pronounced in top-tier functions across these fields, where women fill just 20% of positions.Having supervised many young scientists, Robinson sees that women continue to have a greater propensity than men to doubt their abilities, a feeling she once shared. “When I was doing my PhD at the University at Cambridge, I really felt like an imposter,” she says. “I don’t think I ever felt I deserved to be there or owned it and was proud. I just thought I was lucky.” Later on, she adds, “I was always that person who said, I can’t apply yet because my CV is not strong enough.”She has now made it her job to encourage women to break with this imposter syndrome. For example, rather than calling for volunteers to give a lecture in the groups that she mentors or teaches, which nearly always results in men stepping forward, she goes straight to the women, “because I know they won’t push themselves forward.”But the gender gap in science is not just down to imposter syndrome. The “obvious” reason, Robinson says, and the reason that is on everybody’s mind when discussing workplace gender equality, is the balance between work and raising a family. Her own path was to choose between the two, taking an eight-year break after completing a postdoctoral training fellowship to bring up three children. And she continues to advise women not to work part-time while they raise a family. “You’ll just get half the pay and continue to work full-time because you are not able to fit everything in,” she says. “You should be able to have a family and come back to have the career that you want.”The solution is for men to also take career breaks. “That kind of evens it up, so that it’s not such a big thing for women,” Robinson says. “I always encourage men in my groups to do that. I think it’s important to take your share of the duties.”Support produces resultsAccording to the Women in Stem Network, a UK advocacy group, countries with strong childcare systems and equal pay policies retain more women in technical careers. In Europe, these are primarily found in the Nordic region and parts of central Europe.At the EU level, the European Commission asks all Horizon Europe applicant organisations to have a gender action plan in place. Since this criterion was introduced in 2021, the share of women leading consortia has increased to 31%, against 23% in Horizon 2020. Their overall participation, however, has risen just 1%, to 38%. After trying to weaken the requirement for gender action plans in 2025, the Commission now intends to adopt a plan for supporting women in research and innovation.Related articlesCommission scraps plan to water down gender requirements in HorizonHow gender balance can swing who wins Horizon Europe fundingRobinson herself has benefited from three Advanced Grants from the European Research Council. “I was extremely honoured and privileged to get those, because they really allowed me to fuel my passion,” she says. “Without that, it would have been a much harder slog.”Beyond applying gender rules, she says that more work is needed on translational enterprise, where women are, once again, largely underrepresented. The European Patent Office found that only 13.8% of applications were filed by women in 2022. “We have so many more women doing amazing science; why do they feel it’s not a thing to have a company?” she asks.She founded her own spin-out company, OMass Technologies, in 2016, and remains chair of its scientific advisory board now that it trades as OMass Therapeutics. As for research, Robinson is now studying how changes in the brain may be linked to depression, using port-mortem tissue. “We’re hoping to publish soon,” she says. “We had to consult with a lot of people who knew a lot more about the brain than we did. So, we’ve learnt a lot, and that’s always a lot of fun to learn a new thing. That’s what keeps you going.”
New Orleans Charter Science & Mathematics High School to Unveil Electric School Bus Fleet
/PRNewswire/ -- New Orleans Charter Science & Mathematics High School (Sci High) will unveil its new electric school bus fleet during a ribbon cutting event in...
Four ECEE students earn major National Science Foundation research fellowships
Four students from the Department of Electrical, Computer & Energy Engineering at CU Boulder have been recognized with 2026 National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program awards. NSF GRFP recognizes and support outstanding grad students from across the country in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields who are pursuing research-based master’s or doctoral degrees.Awardees receive a $37,000 annual stipend and cost of education allowance for the next three years as well as professional development opportunities.Learn more about their research below
Carderock Scientists Inspire Future Innovators at Calvert County MESA Day
Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division (NSWCCD) representatives engaged with students in a rural Maryland community during the Calvert County MESA (Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement) Day at Huntingtown High School, April 9. Through an inspiring keynote speech and a live demonstration of a Boston Dynamics robot dog, Carderock scientists highlighted pathways to naval engineering careers, reinforcing the Navy's commitment to building the future STEM workforce by bridging the distance to underserved communities.
St. Mary's alumnus, student share value of actuarial science
The Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics with a Concentration in Actuarial Science is one of four Math degrees offered at St. Mary’s University.
Who Is Pellegrino Matarazzo? American Math Expert Leading Real Sociedad
A 48-year-old American coach who studied mathematics at Columbia is now part of the history of Spanish club Real Sociedad.
Bay Area scientists honored at the ‘Oscars of Science’ for math and physics
Researchers from Stanford and UC Berkeley are being celebrated like celebrities for advancing mathematics and developing strategies to find a hypothetical particle.
Final FHSU Science Café is April 27; '150 Conversations'
" /> FHSU Science and Mathematics Education InstituteThe Fort Hay
Kennesaw State to launch Ph.D. in Biomedical Sciences in Fall 2027
Building on its leadership in scientific research and education, Kennesaw State University on Wednesday received approval from the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia to launch a new Ph.D. in Biomedical Sciences. The program will begin in Fall 2027 on the Kennesaw Campus. Housed in the College of Science and Mathematics, the degree will help meet the increasing demand in Georgia and the nation for research scientists in biology, chemistry, biochemistry, and ecology.
UW STEM-ology Provides Energy and Natural Resources Activities for All
STEM-ology, a monthly series of themed science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) events for all ages, concludes this month at the University of Wyoming, with events including Toddler Tue
Two Yale student scientists named Goldwater Scholars
Two Yale juniors have received the prestigious Goldwater scholarship, which supports students interested in research careers in the fields of natural sciences, engineering, and mathematics.
Student view: Celebrating learning as much as winning
Navya Bhardwaj will graduate on May 3 with a bachelor’s degree in computer science and engineering and minors in data science, and computational mathematics, science and engineering. She is president of MSU Women in Computing and served as co-director of SpartaHack.
STAT 4000 introduces students across Auburn to data science foundations
STAT 4000: Introduction to Data Science gives students across Auburn a hands-on foundation in data analysis, AI literacy and statistical reasoning. Taught by instructors in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics, the course equips students to work confidently and critically with data in a wide range of fields.
The university is trading its liberal arts identity for science
The university is betraying its artistic reputation and making a move toward science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
MassLive: Boston, Springfield land on top 10 list of best cities for STEM professionals
Boston and Springfield were among the "Top 10 best metro areas for STEM professionals" in 2018, according to statistics compiled by WalletHub, a personal finance website. STEM stands for science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Boston was ranked second and Springfield eighth on the list. Worcester came in at 18th. The full results can be found here. "We made another good list," Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno said. "Glad to see our educational and workforce development are starting to pay off - this is all about a good four-letter word - jobs!" The 100 largest metropolitan areas in the country were ranked in 17 key metrics, WalletHub said. The evaluation ranged from "per-capita job openings for STEM graduates to annual median growth for STEM jobs, to projected demand for STEM workers by 2020," according to the summary. Seattle was top-rated, followed in order by Boston; Pittsburgh; Austin, Texas; Minneapolis; Madison, Wisconsin; Salt Lake City; Springfield; Chicago; and Atlanta. Original article: https://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/11/springfield_makes_top_10_natio.html
UD leads nation with five Goldwater Scholars
Students recognized for excellence in science, engineering and mathematics research
Cadets focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics • United States Air Force Academy
Cadets focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics at the U.S. Air Force Academy to produce tomorrow’s problem solvers.
FHSU’s next Science Café April 13
Fort Hays State University’s upcoming Science Café is set for Monday, April 13. This month’s presentation, “Eating Well, Living Well: Cultivating a Positive Relationship with Food,” is sponsored by FHSU’s Science and Mathematics Education Institute (SMEI) and will begin at 7 p.m. at The Venue in Thirsty’s Brew Pub & Grill, 2704 Vine.
Gerd Faltings of Germany Wins 2026 Abel Prize in Mathematics
Gerd Faltings proved a conjecture that had been unsolved for six decades, using connections between numbers and geometry.
Sky 5 flies over large police presence at North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics in Durham
Sky 5 flew over the North Carolina School of Science and Mathematics in Durham, where there is a large police presence. This video does not have sound.
She freed physics, but Emmy Noether couldn’t escape herself
In the early 20th century, Emmy Noether’s mathematics transcended the physical world. She longed to do the same herself
THOR AI solves a 100-year-old physics problem in seconds
A new AI framework called THOR is transforming how scientists calculate the behavior of atoms inside materials. Instead of relying on slow simulations that take weeks of supercomputer time, the system uses tensor network mathematics and machine-learning models to solve the problem directly. The approach can compute key thermodynamic properties hundreds of times faster while preserving accuracy. Researchers say this could accelerate discoveries in materials science, physics, and chemistry.
Centennial Students Earn 3rd Place at Iowa Regional Science Bowl
Michael Stevens, Ian Anderson, Anna Bruns, Jared Bond, Alice Baghdasaryan and teacher Madison Greif. (Not pictured: Team Manager Vivian Zhang.) Congratulations to our outstanding team for earning 3rd place at the 2026 Iowa Regional High School Science Bowl, held on the campus of Iowa State University on March 7! We’re proud of these students for representing our school with excellence in this challenging academic competition that tests knowledge in science, mathematics, and teamwork.
Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering Elects Eight From YSM
Eight Yale School of Medicine faculty members are among the leading experts in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine newly elected to the
Celebrate STEAM Launches Atlanta Science Festival
To kick off the 13th annual Atlanta Science Festival (ASF), Georgia Tech hosted Celebrate STEAM on March 7, welcoming thousands of visitors to experience hands-on demonstrations and interactive displays showcasing the innovation and excitement at the intersection of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Regeneron Science Talent Search 2026 Recognizes America’s Top Young Scientists, Awarding More Than $1.8 Million to High School Seniors for Innovative Research in Computational Mathematics, Neural Science, and Blood Cancer Treatment
$250,000 top award goes to Connor Hill in America’s longest running and most distinguished science and math competition Top $250,000 Regeneron Science Talent Search Winner Named Regeneron and Society for Science announced that Connor Hill, 17, of State College, Pennsylvania, won the top award of $250,000 in the 2026 Regeneron Science Talent Search (STS), a program of Society for Science. TARRYTOWN, N.Y. and WASHINGTON, March 10, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Societ
Students encouraged to apply for Collegiate Science and Technology Entry Program
CSTEP is an initiative designed to support students pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and other licensed professions.
Celebrate STEAM to Launch 2026 Atlanta Science Festival
To kick off the 13th annual Atlanta Science Festival, Georgia Tech will host its Celebrate STEAM event on March 7. Free and open to all, the event invites visitors to campus for hands-on demonstrations and experiences showcasing the innovation and excitement at the intersection of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Pioneering AI for Science: Why UT is a Digital Twin Powerhouse
After more than a decade of advances in AI, mathematics and supercomputing, UT is shaping the future of digital twins — bringing together researchers across campus to deploy physics‑informed, AI‑powered models for energy, healthcare, national security and natural hazard mitigation.
Astronomy Activation Ambassadors: Embracing Multiple Perspectives
The Astronomy Activation Ambassadors (AAA) project, part of the NASA Science Activation program, aims to measurably enhance student STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, & Mathematics) engagement via middle school, high school, and community college science teacher professional development.
More advanced maths students needed for tech sector: Hong Kong committee head
Government will review admission score calculation for some universities’ science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics programmes.
North Hollywood Senior High School Wins 34th Annual LADWP Regional Science Bowl Competition
Winning Team to Represent Los Angeles Region in the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science National Science Bowl® Competition in Washington, D.C. LOS ANGELES (February 21, 2026) – Demonstrating an exceptional command of advanced knowledge in all areas of science and mathematics, North Hollywood Senior High School Team A claimed first place at the […]
Five Berkeley Lab Scientists Receive DOE Early Career Research Awards
Five scientists from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have received Early Career Research Program (ECRP) awards from the Department of Energy. The ECRP program, now in its 16th year, was established to bolster the nation’s scientific workforce by supporting exceptional researchers at the outset of their careers, when many scientists do their most formative work. Recipients use the funding to pursue projects that have the potential to solve scientific challenges and advance the country’s STEM capabilities. To be eligible for the program, a researcher must be an untenured, tenure-track assistant or associate professor at a U.S. academic institution, or a full-time employee at a DOE national laboratory or Office of Science user facility, who is within 10 years of having earned their doctorate. Awards to an institution of higher education will be approximately $875,000 over five years, and awards to a DOE national laboratory or Office of Science user facility will be approximately $2,750,000 over five years. This year’s Berkeley Lab awardees and their projects are listed below: Timon Heim: Better detectors for more powerful particle colliders Timon Heim is a staff scientist in the Physics Division. His ECRP project will develop a new type of detector that can track the particles generated by collisions in particle colliders with high spatial and temporal resolution. Current detectors in use at high-energy colliders, like the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, can track the trajectory and measure momentum of particles, but they can’t track a particle’s time of arrival with sufficient precision to discern from which of the many particle interactions they originate. Heim’s proposed technology — called a 4D tracking detector, because it captures data about particles’ positions in space and time — aims to solve this challenge, allowing researchers to glean more precise data from collision experiments to uncover new insights into fundamental forces and potentially discover new particles. The enhanced capabilities of 4D detectors will be a necessity for experiments at future colliders, such as the Muon Collider or Future Circular Collider. The project will develop custom microelectronics that process the signal of a pixelated silicon sensor that can register charged particles passing through it in an extreme radiation environment that these colliders produce during operation. The goal is to measure individual particles’ position with 50-micro-meter spatial and 50 pico-second (one trillionth of a second) temporal precision, for an incoming flux of around 1 billion particles per second per square centimeter. Harrison Lisabeth: Studying underground processes to unleash abundant energy Harrison Lisabeth is a research scientist in the Energy Geoscience Division focused on combining real-world experiments and AI to guide development of geothermal energy systems. His project will explore how deep underground rock formations – where geothermal wells are dug – are stressed by chemical reactions of the minerals and mechanical strain from movements in the Earth. A better understanding of subsurface stresses is essential to engineer safe and reliable geothermal wells that access the heat of deep rocks to produce electricity. It is estimated that the U.S. could generate ten times the amount of energy needed to power the grid using geothermal sources. Lisabeth plans to simulate how minerals grow, dissolve, and influence the behavior of surrounding rock in geothermal reservoirs by tracking chemical changes in rock samples under pressure in the lab. The project will also develop machine learning models to predict geologic strain based on field measurements and refine existing models that describe how common rock types deform under stress. Combining these approaches, Lisabeth hopes to develop a framework to predict stress to improve stability and longevity of geothermal wells. Daniel Carney: Pushing the quantum boundaries of particle measurement Daniel Carney is a staff scientist in the Physics Division who uses quantum information science to study particle physics and gravity. At very small scales, “quantum noise” — random fluctuations from the act of measurement — can drown out faint signals from rare processes. Carney’s ECRP project, “Fundamental Physics at the Quantum Limits of Measurement,” aims to build a new mechanical quantum sensor that can measure extremely small particle interactions below the limits of that quantum noise. The approach uses lasers to hold a tiny bead containing radioactive atoms; when one decays, the system measures the bead’s motion and the energy of any particles emitted. The experiment’s initial goal is to search for heavy sterile neutrinos, hypothetical particles predicted by some extensions of the Standard Model. The system could also help measure the mass of the neutrino, study the way particles interact through the electromagnetic and weak forces, and hunt for low-mass dark matter — all unsolved mysteries in particle physics. Callum Wilkinson: Using machine learning to demystify neutrinos Callum Wilkinson is a staff scientist in the Physics Division and part of the international Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) hosted by Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. DUNE will create an intense beam of neutrinos that interact in detectors in Illinois and, after an 800-mile journey through the earth, in massive detectors in South Dakota. By precisely measuring neutrinos and how they change, researchers will get a better understanding of their fundamental properties and whether they are responsible for why there is so much more matter than antimatter in our universe. Wilkinson’s ECRP project will apply two machine learning techniques to improve the analysis of DUNE’s data and enhance the experiment’s precision. One approach will look for hidden patterns in how neutrinos interact and produce low-energy particles, while the other will help correct for distortions in what the detectors record. The methods will be tested on one of DUNE’s prototype detectors and could be used in other neutrino experiments, improving their measurements and helping scientists build better models. Aditi Krishnapriyan: Machine learning methods that scale as datasets grow Aditi Krishnapriyan is a faculty scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Applied Mathematics and Computational Research Division (AMCR) and assistant professor at UC Berkeley. Her project, awarded through UC Berkeley, will develop machine learning methods that scale with dataset size for modeling complex, multi-scale phenomena. The resulting tools can be applied in a wide range of research, including the study of new electrolytes for batteries or the examination of molecular interactions. ### Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) is committed to groundbreaking research focused on discovery science and solutions for abundant and reliable energy supplies. The lab’s expertise spans materials, chemistry, physics, biology, earth and environmental science, mathematics, and computing. Researchers from around the world rely on the lab’s world-class scientific facilities for their own pioneering research. Founded in 1931 on the belief that the biggest problems are best addressed by teams, Berkeley Lab and its scientists have been recognized with 17 Nobel Prizes. Berkeley Lab is a multiprogram national laboratory managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit energy.gov/science.
PSRC Multilingual Learner Program to host 2026 NC Science Festival
LUMBERTON — The Public Schools of Robeson County (PSRC) Multilingual Learner (ML) Program has been officially recognized as an event host for the 2026 North Carolina Science Festival (NCSciFest), marking a significant milestone for the district and its commitment to inclusive, high-quality science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics (STEAM) education.
UChicago Welcomes Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy to Hyde Park Labs - Polsky Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation
New presence in the UChicago Science Incubator expands opportunities for high school STEM students and supports the South Side innovation ecosystem The Polsky Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the University of Chicago announced today that the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy (IMSA) will establish its first Chicago-based office at Hyde Park Labs, located within
APSU’s College of STEM announces spring Science on Tap slate
The Austin Peay State University (APSU) College of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) has announced a four-date Science on Tap slate for Spring 2026.
Alarm as US mulls prioritising citizens in research funding
A senior White House official said the Trump administration is considering ways to prioritise research funding to American citizens, triggering alarm in the research community that the country could destroy its century-long status as a magnet for overseas talent.Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), said last week that it is “important for us to continue to emphasise the use of federal R&D dollars towards American scientists and technologists that are staffed by Americans in their labs.” Asked about support for Chinese students during a Congressional hearing, Kratsios went on to say that in future funding announcements, the OSTP would “emphasise” that “we're funding American students.”The precise meaning of his impromptu comments, and what they could mean in policy terms, isn’t yet clear. The OSTP did not respond to multiple requests for clarification from Science|Business.But given that US science and technology has relied on overseas talent for the past century, Kratsios’s words have alarmed former US science officials.Immigrants have made up around 30-40% of US Nobel Prize winners since the 1940s, for example. Except for some sensitive projects, countries typically grant research funding on a nationality-blind basis, lest they deter foreign scientists from immigrating. “If director Kratsios’s statements are taken literally and become official policy of the White House, [research-intensive] universities will likely have to close labs if not entire research divisions,” said David Biggs, a former science and technology official in the US State Department. In their most extreme interpretation, Kratsios’s comments would imply that foreign scientists established in the US would see access to funding curtailed. This would “result in many world-leading professors who work in the United States in fields that this administration considers a priority (like fusion energy, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing) leaving the country,” said Cole Donovan, a former US science diplomat, and now associate director at the Federation of American Scientists.CripplingHowever, given the context of the conversation, Kratsios may have been referring more narrowly to funding for doctoral or postdoctoral students. At the hearing, he said he wanted to see labs staffed by US citizens. But even this would have devastating consequences for the US science system, say former officials, because the country is so dependent on early-career foreign researchers. Recent statistics show that nearly half of those in the US with a PhD in science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) are considered short-term visitors, or non-residents in the official terminology. If this included residents who are not yet citizens, the proportion would likely be even higher. “Foreign PhD students are really a significant and core part of the university STEM workforce, and postdocs is similarly large,” said Donovan. Preventing US-based academics from hiring them from overseas would be a serious blow, he said. “If it's the case that this administration intends to limit funding to labs staffed only with US citizens, the effect will be to cripple the American scientific enterprise,” said Chris Marcum, a former OSTP official. “To think that these researchers can simply be replaced is a pipe dream. The labs will close,” said Marcum. Go elsewhereAround half of US-trained postdocs are foreign-born, said Biggs. “If these top international students cannot get funding to do their research, or even if they hear that funding for foreign students has been greatly restricted and will be super competitive, they will no longer choose to study in the US and will go elsewhere.” It’s unclear for now if Kratsios’s comments will translate into a real policy shift. But they could add to turmoil in the US science system since Donald Trump took over as president one year ago. Related articlesNIH turmoil risks reciprocal EU-US access to health research fundingUS set to close office responsible for global science and technology dealsTrump halts new NIH grants to international health-research partnersSince then, nearly 8,000 grants at the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation have been frozen or terminated, Naturereports. Courts have overturned most of these cancellations, but the disruption caused remains significant. Both those agencies have also dished out around a quarter fewer grants this year than normal, the journal reported. International student enrolment is also down by 17%. The Trump administration also proposes to cut research budgets by around a third, although Congress may mollify the cuts.
Alarm over US plan to prioritise citizens in research funding
The US’s leading science official has said the country will focus its research spending on scientists with US citizenship, triggering alarm that the country could destroy its century-long status as a magnet for overseas talent.Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), said last week that it is “important for us to continue to emphasise the use of federal R&D dollars towards American scientists and technologists that are staffed by Americans in their labs.” Asked about support for Chinese students during a Congressional hearing, Kratsios went on to say that in future funding announcements, the OSTP would “emphasise” that “we're funding American students.”Kratsios’s precise meaning, and what it could mean in policy terms, isn’t yet clear. The OSTP did not respond to multiple requests for clarification from Science|Business.But given that US science and technology has relied on overseas talent for the past century, Kratsios’s words have stunned former US science officials.Immigrants have made up around 30-40% of US Nobel Prize winners since the 1940s, for example. Except for some sensitive projects, countries typically grant research funding on a nationality-blind basis, lest they deter foreign scientists from immigrating. “If director Kratsios’s statements are taken literally and become official policy of the White House, [research-intensive] universities will likely have to close labs if not entire research divisions,” said David Biggs, a former science and technology official in the US State Department. In their most extreme interpretation, Kratsios’s comments would imply that foreign scientists established in the US would see access to funding curtailed. This would “result in many world-leading professors who work in the United States in fields that this administration considers a priority (like fusion energy, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing) leaving the country,” said Cole Donovan, a former US science diplomat, and now associate director at the Federation of American Scientists.CripplingHowever, given the context of the conversation, Kratsios may have been referring more narrowly to funding for doctoral or postdoctoral students. At the hearing, he said he wanted to see labs staffed by US citizens. But even this would have devastating consequences for the US science system, say former officials, because the country is so dependent on early-career foreign researchers. Recent statistics show that nearly half of those in the US with a PhD in science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) are considered short-term visitors, or non-residents in the official terminology. If this included residents who are not yet citizens, the proportion would likely be even higher. “Foreign PhD students are really a significant and core part of the university STEM workforce, and postdocs is similarly large,” said Donovan. Preventing US-based academics from hiring them from overseas would be a serious blow, he said. “If it's the case that this administration intends to limit funding to labs staffed only with US citizens, the effect will be to cripple the American scientific enterprise,” said Chris Marcum, a former OSTP official. “To think that these researchers can simply be replaced is a pipe dream. The labs will close,” said Marcum. Go elsewhereAround half of US-trained postdocs are foreign-born, said Biggs. “If these top international students cannot get funding to do their research, or even if they hear that funding for foreign students has been greatly restricted and will be super competitive, they will no longer choose to study in the US and will go elsewhere.” It’s unclear for now if Kratsios’s comments will translate into a real policy shift. But they could add to turmoil in the US science system since Donald Trump took over as president one year ago. Since then, nearly 8,000 grants at the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation have been frozen or terminated, Naturereports. Courts have overturned most of these cancellations, but the disruption caused remains significant. Both those agencies have also dished out around a quarter fewer grants this year than normal, the journal reported. International student enrolment is also down by 17%. The Trump administration also proposes to cut research budgets by around a third, although Congress may mollify the cuts.
UMW Undergraduate Science Fellowship Extends Applications for First Cohort
The Piscopo Rodgers Science Fellows Program at the University of Mary Washington has opened applications to incoming undergraduate students who want to pursue research and careers in medicine, biology, chemistry, computer science, earth and environmental science, mathematics or physics. The program, which offers funding of up to $6,600 per year for four years of undergraduate […]
This PVAMU alum has taught over 3,000 girls about cosmetic science and has now opened a STEM classroom
Kristen Wells-Collins ’15 ‘18 is inspiring young girls to become chemists. Wells-Collins was raised in an under-resourced community in Beaumont, TX, and said she had limited exposure to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), according to her commentary on “The Jennifer Hudson Show.” However, Wells-Collins went on to pursue a degree in chemistry at Prairie View A&M University, according to her […]
Science history: Sophie Germain, first woman to win France's prestigious 'Grand Mathematics Prize' is snubbed when tickets to award ceremony are 'lost in the mail'
Sophie Germain was a brilliant, self-taught mathematician who won one of France's most prestigious prizes, yet she declined to attend the award ceremony because the committee members didn't respect her work.
A New Bridge Links the Strange Math of Infinity to Computer Science
Descriptive set theorists study the niche mathematics of infinity. Now, they’ve shown that their problems can be rewritten in the concrete language of algorithms.
Data science and mathematics professor strengthens global partnerships, student exchange - College of Arts and Sciences
"I am drawn to applying mathematics to solve real-world problems," said associate professor Yifei Lou, who holds a joint position in the UNC School of Data Science and Society and the department of mathematics in UNC's College of Arts and Sciences.
Great Lakes Science Center to hold STEM programming; announced new board chair
The Great Lakes Science Center will host science, technology, engineering and mathematics programming in December and January.
The disunity of science is a feature, not a bug
Mathematical models wield miraculous power, but mistaking them for reality has trapped science in a destructive quest for a “Theory of Everything.” Physicist and philosopher Ragner Fjelland argues that this leads to bloated, Frankenstein theories kept alive by clumsy, ad-hoc amendments, which reduce rather than boost science’s power. Fjelland calls for a radical shift in our attitude: we must reorientate towards creating entirely new theories, celebrating rather than lamenting disunity and diversity in science. Science, from the scientific revolution in the seventeenth century to the present day, has more or less developed in a “reductionist” way. The fundamental assumption is that all sciences may be ordered in a hierarchy that can be represented as an upside-down pyramid. At the top we find the human sciences, and at the bottom physics. Strong (or “ontological”) reductionism maintains that all theories at one level can be completely reduced to the lower level, all the way down to theories of atoms and elementary particles, or whatever is “at the bottom.” In the end, all diversity in the world can be unified in one fundamental theory. Hence it is called a final theory, or a Theory of Everything.One of the central figures in developing the idea of a Theory of Everything is the Dutch theoretical physicist Gerard 't Hooft, who received a Nobel Prize in physics in 1999 for his work. He emphasizes the non-empirical status of the theory:There exists no closely resembling alternative theory. This means that any slight change brought about in the rules would make the theory unlikely or inelegant. The theory will be a "package deal": take it, or leave it. This should hold both for the local laws and for the boundary conditions.This endeavor is not new. On the contrary, it goes all the way back to the birth of Western philosophy 2,500 years ago. The Babylonians made regular astronomical observations during a period of 600 years, from 747 BCE until 150 ACE. They developed mathematical techniques to predict astronomical phenomena, but they made no attempts at explaining them. However, the Greeks developed models, both material and theoretical, to explain the observed phenomena.The best example is Plato’s late dialogue Timaeus. Here he introduces a divine craftsman, the Demiurge, who has constructed the universe according to an original plan. Plato seems to have thought that the original plan is what is actually real, while the material world is merely an imperfect realization of it. He therefore does not, in the Timaeus, reconstruct the material universe, but the original plan, which can then be used to explain the material universe.Plato’s aim in producing a theoretical model is to reconstruct the original plan. That is what he carries out in Timaeus—and some modern physicists have embarked on the same project. For example, Einstein’s basic attitude is reflected in the title of Abraham Pais’ biography: “Subtle is the Lord...,” echoing Einstein’s comment, “Subtle is the Lord, but malicious He is not.” In an interview Einstein compared our situation to a child who enters a huge library. The child knows that someone has written the books, but he does not know the languages in which they are written. He suspects that there is a mysterious order, but he does not know what it is.___“We have all been working in what Husserl called the Galilean style; that is, we have all been making abstract mathematical models of the universe to which at least the physicists give a higher degree of reality than they accord the ordinary world of sensation.”Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize in Physics (1979)___This Platonist view is contrary to a widespread impression of science, symbolized by the picture of the “father” of modern science, Galileo Galilei, with his telescope. According to this impression, Galileo liberated himself from the dominating metaphysics of his day—basically Aristotelian philosophy—and constructed a telescope that he directed towards the sky, showing that Jupiter has four moons. He also performed experiments with bronze balls rolling down inclined planes and found the law of freely falling bodies.However, in other cases Galileo emphasized the unreliability of our senses. It is easy to see why. He defended Copernicus’ heliocentric hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, we are not at rest at the center of the universe, but moving at a tremendous speed through space. Why don’t we observe this motion? Galileo praises Copernicus because “with reason as his guide he resolutely continued to affirm what sensible experience seemed to contradict.” In other places he directly refers to Plato. SUGGESTED VIEWING The quest for a final theory With Michio Kaku Galileo’s Platonism goes back to his early writings. In The Assayer, published as early as 1623, Galileo compared the universe to a grand book that is written in the language of mathematics, and “its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it.” Therefore, things that cannot be described by mathematics—for example, colors, smells and odors—are not real. They are merely subjective.This division into subjective and objective, advocated by Galileo and his younger contemporary René Descartes, is normally associated with a mechanistic world view, which is regarded as the opposite of Platonism. When we reduce something to, for example, molecules and atoms, we move “downwards.” In contrast, the Platonist moves “upwards,” to abstract entities. However, it only shows that when we address fundamental questions, we should be careful in applying everyday spatial metaphors like “up” and “down.”___Nature is complex, and we cannot in general construct mathematical models that adequately describe the world.___The endeavor of finding a Theory of Everything has been heavily criticized. In 2006, the theoretical physicist Lee Smolin published “The Crisis in Fundamental Physics.” He argued that one of the most fundamental principles of science is that we should only regard theories as scientific if we have the possibility to show that they are false by experiments. Although he did not refer to Karl Popper, other critics have referred to Popper and argued that a theory is not scientific if it cannot be falsified (see for example Ellis & Silk 2014).These were not the first physicists to be anti-reductionists. In 1972, the journal Science published an article by the physicist Philip Anderson with the title “More Is Different.” This is the kind of article a scientist would normally write only after he has won a Nobel Prize. However, Anderson won the Nobel Prize for physics five years later, in 1977. The article is amazing, not primarily because it argues in favor of anti-reductionism in general, but because it argues for anti-reductionism within physics itself. Anderson’s conclusion was:At each stage entirely new laws, concepts, and generalizations are necessary, requiring inspiration and creativity to just as great a degree as in the previous one. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry.We may say that Plato started the “unity of science movement,” based on Euclidean geometry as the model of all knowledge. A distinguishing mark of geometry is that all possible constructions can be reduced to a few fundamental principles. We have to acknowledge that this approach has limitations. In general, we can easily model technological systems. In addition, we may construct simplified and idealized models that capture important aspects of systems, from various perspectives and for various purposes. But nature is complex, and we cannot in general construct mathematical models that adequately describe the world. In a complex system, each level has its distinct, emergent, properties that are characteristic of this level. Therefore, a complex system should be investigated at different levels and from different perspectives. Instead of exclusively pursuing a scientific ideal based on the unity of science, we should acknowledge the diversity—or even the disunity—of science.
Ramanujan’s 100-year-old pi formula is still revealing the Universe
Ramanujan’s elegant formulas for calculating pi, developed more than a century ago, have unexpectedly resurfaced at the heart of modern physics. Researchers at IISc discovered that the same mathematical structures behind these formulas also describe real-world phenomena like turbulence, percolation, and even black holes. What once seemed like pure mathematics now appears deeply intertwined with the physical laws governing the universe.
Outstanding Seniors in the College of Science: Hamdan Alhammadi
The College of Science is proud to recognize 10 outstanding seniors who went above and beyond during their time as Wildcats. Hamdan Alhammadi is this semester's recipient from Mathematics.
Biomedical informatics and data science graduate humanizes scientific research through poetry
College of Health Solutions biomedical informatics and data science student Sanyam Paresh Shah spent most of his life fascinated by science, technology and mathematics. When he began preparing for his thesis with Barrett, The Honors College, he challenged himself to go beyond his comfort zone.
Science must move from materialism to mystery
Theoretical physicist and neuroscientist Àlex Gómez-Marín argues that modern science has become trapped in a framework that mistakes matter for the whole of reality. In this wide-ranging interview, Gómez-Marín challenges the foundations of materialism, defends the scientific study of near-death experiences, and calls for a new type of science grounded in mystery and a renewed sense of the sacred. He suggests that abandoning materialism could open the door to a deeper understanding of consciousness, death, and the purpose of human existence. Simon Custer: You are both a theoretical physicist and a neuroscientist, and you have also been fiercely critical of materialist theories of mind and consciousness. What do you think the ultimate nature of reality is?Àlex Gómez-Marín: I don't know what the ultimate nature of reality is, but what I try to first assess is whether the stories that they [mainstream science] have told us about it are right, or maybe whether there are other alternatives. That's why I've been a fierce critic of materialism. As a scientist, I realized that they had sold us this idea that to be a good scientist you also had to subscribe to many other -isms, like materialism, reductionism, and even secularism. And so first I think one needs to unmount these -isms, and then, as is happening today in consciousness studies, we have a huge landscape where there isn't only one game in town, the idea that matter is the only thing that really exists. But because we are studying the hard problem of consciousness, it may be the case that other views of reality, like idealism, or even dualism, or other theories like dual aspect monism... these are philosophical ideas that now, I think, have room in science to be taken seriously. How does something like materialism relate to dualism or idealism? What is materialism in the first place?Well, materialism is the philosophical position that matter is the only really ‘real’ thing in the universe. And I think that worked kind of well because science started 400 years ago and Galileo made that split, I call it the foundational wound. It was a great business move.He said, let's start doing science on that portion of reality that lends itself more easily to mathematization and measurement. So, for some reason, the solidity of this table or the movement of planets lend themselves very well to this foundational idea of science. But as time went on, 400 years later, we realized that we had forgotten the other side, which is what really matters.What really matters is pain, is love, is feelings, sensation, consciousness, which is very hard to define, but very intimate. We all know what it is. It's that thing that disappears when we go into deep sleep and comes back in the morning. SUGGESTED VIEWING On the edges of knowledge With Michael Shermer, Rupert Sheldrake, Güneş Taylor It's what it is like to be, as Nagel said. It's the feeling of being alive. So, materialism is good to study certain things, but then when it ossifies into this ideology and then is dressed like science, now it's preventing us from understanding these key questions that are really that everybody wants to know.Why are we here? Why do we feel reality? Where do we go when we die? And so we need other ways. We need pluralism. I'm only asking for having more options on the table and taking them seriously. Why does materialism fail to explain consciousness? For example, if you were to lobotomize me, I would not be a functional human being. What do you say to someone who might think that materialism adequately explains the mind?Well, here we could speak about different things. We could talk about physics or about neuroscience. I happen to have training with both.For instance, for neuroscientists, 99% of them, I'm not included in that portion, believe that the brain can only be a productive organ. It's an organ that somehow, somewhere, consciousness emerges. It's like a lamp. And then something happens, magic happens, and then consciousness emerges.That's the position you need to be if you're a materialist because if the only really ‘real’ thing is matter, then you need to say, just give us some more time and money and we'll figure out how mind emerges or is produced from matter. There are many philosophically sophisticated ways of criticizing this.Now there's another option, which is the brain as a permissive organ. This was said by William James more than 100 years ago.Now then the brain wouldn't be like this machine, like for instance, a heat engine whose smoke is consciousness, which is what we would have in the first big model, the productive model. But in the permissive model, the brain would be a kind of a filter. And so the brain would still have a very important role in consciousness, but it wouldn't be a productive role.It would be permissive, much like a filter or much like a prism which would receive light. And - I'm speaking metaphorically - it would receive the light of the mind and then it could reflect it and refract it.Now, with these two big options on the table, I think we can make progress into what I call the edges of consciousness, which are all these experiences, weird experiences that many people have, but we don't talk about enough, like near-death experiences, precognitive dreams, synchronicities. These experiences are very important for humans and they have a place in the permissive hypothesis and they are literally impossible in the productive hypothesis. So that's yet one more reason to explore alternatives to materialism. There may be anecdotal evidence for near-death experiences, but is there robust evidence that would be accepted by the majority of scientists who subscribe to the scientific method?Sure. And the plural of anecdotes, someone said, is data.And there's a lot of data. Actually, this year is the 50th anniversary, half a century, since Dr. Raymond Moody realized that we have two ears and one mouth and started listening to what his patients had to say about their experiences while they were clinically dead.The heart had stopped, breathing had stopped in these patients. These patients would come back and tell him these amazing stories that some people may say are hallucinations, but for the patients were hyper-real, like seeing light at the end of the tunnels, seeing deceased family members waiting for them, feeling bliss.___I would say the evidence suggests that the mind can survive the death of activity of the brain.___And so he and others started taking them seriously and writing their accounts down. And then you can do a science based on that material of experience that people have. Now, on the more objective side, more recently people have started to measure what's going on in the brain when people are clinically dead and brought back. This has opened a proper field of study, which is near-death studies.Evidence is a difficult word, because sometimes people think that when you say evidence, this is just the final proof. Evidence is like in a jury. You bring testimony, you bring pieces of data that point in one direction or another.I would say the evidence suggests that the mind can survive the death of activity of the brain. When brains are broken or shut off, there can still be mind going on. And that's revolutionary.That would entail that when we die, it's not game over, which, by the way, is the thesis of materialism. If consciousness survives, materialism dies. It's game over for materialism if something of us continues after we die. Do you think that there is mental continuity after death?Well, I think so, and I believe so, and I could also say I may have experienced it myself, because four years ago I had a near-death experience. I was in the hospital, I lost a lot of blood, and I saw those beings at the end of the tunnel, three beings, and there was yellow light. I was in a well, I was looking upwards, and I hadn't read about NDEs by then, but when I came back from this experience, I decided I would try to integrate this also in my professional life. Not just my personal life, of course, but my professional life as a physicist and as a neuroscientist. So I may have had the experience of glimpses of what an afterlife would be, and I'm not ashamed to say it in this way, and then one can do science of it, and then one can do philosophy of it.One can think about what -isms we were discussing, what views on reality would allow those experiences to be really ‘real,’ as opposed to, well, poor guy, the brain was kind of broken, it must have been a hallucination. Do you have a view about whether individuality or “the ego” persists after death, or whether we sort of merge into some sort of cosmic consciousness instead?I don't know, but my view would be along those lines you're suggesting. I think we could speak about a kind of universal mind, and then the problem is not how we emerge from matter, but how we fragment from a more holistic consciousness into these individual eddies and then when we die, this kind of dissipates.But I'm not sure. For instance, idealism would promote that view, but then what would survive of us after these eddies just vanish and become again the big Consciousness, I'm not sure what that would be. I don't know for sure, but I would tell you I believe something of us survives.And there are other lines of research, not just near-death experience, that can address this really hard question of survival. For instance, there are children who remember previous lives. This was studied by Ian Stevenson at the University of Virginia for more than 50 years.___Research takes place within a selection mechanism that also sometimes reinforces things that are not very scientific.___It's amazing research. He went all over the world, especially in the East, and collected all these case studies, all these stories. In plural, these were data of kids, very young age, who would describe up to 40 items that then he could go and verify.There was no internet. There was really no way the kid could know. Why would the kid say that when I was living in this other body and I was a woman and that's how my house would look like or that's how I would die, right? Again, there is evidence, not proof, but there's evidence not only that something weird and interesting is happening as we cross the threshold, but also when we come back to this life.Scientists should not be afraid of studying this, but they are because there's stigma. There's usually stigma upon the enigma, and this is so unfortunate. And one of the reasons is because of the ideology of materialism, because those things cannot be possible. What is wrong with the politics of science such that they have generated this stigma?So many things. Science is a human activity to begin with.So it falls prey to all our passions and ego and greed. That's one thing. Science is a job for the good and for the bad.You need to get a salary. You need to get grants. Research takes place within a selection mechanism that also sometimes reinforces things that are not very scientific.And then, we didn't have time to unpack this, but science for many years become entangled, as I was suggesting before, to other -isms, materialism, secularism. So anything that smells like the afterlife, people may think has to do with God, and then they freak out.Anything that suggests that there's something about the mind that may not need a physical material substrate to exist, it smells like non-materialism. So, all these -isms are ideologically blocking that kind of research, and then there are all these sociopolitical constraints as to what should be studied and what shouldn't be studied.I call it the backstage of science. Sometimes we scientists or science communicators seem to speak as if the data is the only thing that matters. We say, well, data and theory.But then there's a third leg of this stool, which is all the politics that goes behind the scenes. And we often don't speak about this, and it's quite vicious and petty, and it's very real. Why is materialism so attractive to most scientists?Well, an easy answer is because we've grown up with it.It's what the educational system promotes, and that's what you hear when you go to university. So it's like growing in a culture. It feels like the air in which you breathe.So it's very hard to begin with to detect, well, maybe there's another alternative. Maybe there are other ways of doing science, other environments in which one could do science. That's one reason.And other reasons maybe are more profound, and I'm not qualified to explain them, but I could say, looking at this 400-year history of science, since it started around 1623 with Galileo's book The Assayer, that science went and coupled with all what's going on in the West.And so the fall of religion, you could say, and science presented us this new alternative that then could be coupled very well with other -isms, and this idea of growth, and then science losing its good twin brother, which was philosophy. There's a whole natural history of science starting as philosophy, kind of emancipating or breaking out from philosophy, and then marrying technology, and then marrying other social systems.From that point of view, materialism is a very convenient idea to propose. There were attempts, like the German idealists tried to do a more romantic science. But no, the idea prevailed, like Francis Bacon said: You should pursue nature through all her corners, he said, and make her spill her secrets.Our attitude towards nature in the science that dominates is very much reflecting how we treat nature in our society, in our culture, like a resource to extract secrets by force and then dominate it. How is materialism related to the notions of growth and progress? What's wrong with having a productive citizenry?This is another very interesting and very difficult question to answer.But there's this recent book coming out by Paul Kingsnorth. In it, he explains this idea of the machine and this idea of progress. And this, again, this conflation of more is better, of we need to go forward always, and convincing us that the way to do that is to continually extract more from nature. But because we don't have the religious context anymore, because God is dead, then what do we have? We have what we can do as humans with our own gadgets.It's kind of the story of the Promethean fire. We will just build anything to make ourselves God.A good example today is transhumanism. Transhumanism is this pseudo-religion dressed in technoscientific language whose goal is very religious. They promise immortality, they promise redemption, they promise transformation of the entire natural world, but it's done by human means through technology. Are you suggesting that we can't have ethics without religion?Well, we should have ethics with or without religion. That's another pruning that has happened in science. We say, forget about aesthetics, although some physicists still think that beautiful means probably true, and forget about politics. We pretend there's no backstage of science, and even let's forget about ethics.___Science needs to be in the service of mankind.___Scientists, when they become more like engineers, they're just thinking how to make things work so that they can go to the moon, go to Mars, make machines that think, but they don't think whether that's a good idea.And also consider metaphysics. Many scientists for a long time pretended, and maybe that comes from the stream of positivisms, that really one doesn't need metaphysics at all, except that materialism is always the metaphysics running the system.You see, it's not just ethics. It's the pruning of all of these, you could say, five main legs of philosophy that just makes a kind of unconscious science, a science that doesn't really know what it's doing. It's doing it very well locally, but it just doesn't know what it's doing globally. Do you think science has to have an ultimate vision and purpose behind it for it to be effective or for it to be meaningful and transformative?Yes, a way I would say that is that science needs to be in the service of mankind. And it hasn't been that. And we can see it through, you know, when we discovered the secrets of the atom, and all of a sudden, the Manhattan Project, and then we create nuclear weapons.And now we're trying to crack how machines may think, and now we're creating this mess, right? So science needs to be in service of mankind, not in service of a few ideas that maybe want to make more money or just dominate upon nature. What about planes, trains, automobiles, and modern medicine? Hasn't science served mankind by helping us develop those technologies?Yes and no. I see where you're going, and it's fair.I came here by plane, and it's a blessing. When I almost died, the surgeons did their job, and they saved my life. But these two forced choices between Luddites and Silicon Valley types, I think, of course, it's a false dichotomy.Progress, in a way, it's good, but we often don't speak about the dark side of the moon. We say the great things that progress has brought, and we don't speak about the disasters, the side effects that it has come with, and the same when we promise new technologies. We tend to think that any technology is great, that email is going to save us so much time because we don't need to write letters and send them anymore.Is that true? I spend so many hours a week writing emails. Let's just say there are great things about it and bad things about it. People like Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, for example, argue that we've made moral progress over time because of the Enlightenment. Do you think that's totally wrong-headed?I think he's emphasizing a side of the moon, and he does that very well, and you can find tons of plots where there's a slope going up and say it's great. But I think he should also tell the not-so-friendly story.But if your ideology is just to resist and continue to explain that the Enlightenment is the best thing ever and reason is the best thing ever… this feels to me like you're worshipping these abstractions.I'm very critical of it and also of these, again, science communicators and scientists that say, Oh, science says, in the name of science, experts say. It's like, come on, let's be careful because we can shoot ourselves in the foot by putting forth to the people an image of science that we know is not really true. Recently there's been a resurgence of spirituality and of people who say that they're spiritual but not religious, especially in the United States. If materialism is going away, what is going to fill that gap? Are we going to return to traditional religion? Do you see that being connected with the rise of the political right?I'm not a fortune teller, so I don't know what's going to happen. But, yeah, we could say we're in this post-materialist age and even post-secular age. One cannot come back to the past, but maybe just to contact with the roots is a good idea.What do I mean by that? I think we need to do a science 2.0, a science that says thank you to Galileo and thank you to materialism, but we need to reinvent even a new kind of scientific method. We need to do so in a culture where we realize humans cannot thrive in a vacuum where there's this idea that the sacred has to be removed.Now, how do we do that without bringing in back all the vices of religion? I don't know. I'm from a Catholic country.Here we are in England, so there are differences and interreligious dialogue has always been a challenge. But I think maybe a way of putting it is: after all these conflicts and branchings I was quickly alluding to, science from philosophy and then also from religion, now there's a time of reconciliation perhaps and maybe debates in the proper sense, like exchange of ideas in service of learning and getting into something higher than both poles. We need science to talk to religious people and it's interesting when people say they're spiritual and not religious.I think this is just a way of saying, no, I don't want to go back, I want to go forward. But at the end of the day, religions have offered us practices and grounding that we now desperately need. Everybody can and should just meditate or pray or do whatever they want, but we're in a crisis and it's time for reconciliation. What do you say to critics that say you are merely projecting our need for meaning onto a fundamentally indifferent universe?Yeah, I know that the typical science communicator says something like this. But we're not projecting. Human beings feed on meaning.It's the other way around. If you're a materialist, because the only thing that there is is matter, all that comes next, free will, consciousness, meaning, this is a kind of illusion that we need to explain.They're just craving for meaning, but there isn't really for them. I would also like to remind my materialist friends that for decades, if not centuries, they've said in the name of science, we know that this and this and this doesn't really exist. I think now they sense they're forced to say, well, actually, we don't know. We've been saying, for instance, that there's nothing after you die, and now probably they need to admit that they don't know the answer.___We need to do a science 2.0, a science that says thank you to Galileo and thank you to materialism, but we need to reinvent even a new kind of scientific method.___So it's a moment to open up possibilities and also to gently but fiercely critique these claims that I think harm society. If you say in the name of science, get on with it, when your father dies, you'll never see him again. Well, what the F do you know about it? You haven't studied the literature, you haven't had any of those experiences, and basically what you're doing is you're just doing marketing on ideology. This needs to stop. Do you think that it's scarier for some people to entertain the thought that there might be life after death, compared to a materialist worldview where you just die, given that there might be consequences for unsavory behaviour?Well, death and dying is scary. It's maybe the ultimate ending. It's a limit on life, and when we're in this conquest mode, we don't like limits.And it also has, there's a shockwave backwards, so I think if you change your notion of what death is or may be, you live differently. It also has consequences, as you're saying, for the future because this is not our only goal here and we come back in whatever form. And again, different religions would say different things. I the East, they are more happy with the idea of reincarnation, and here in the West, there are other preferences. But in any case, it changes how we live, and that's really what matters.It's not about just projecting or imagining what we'll be after, but how we live now and also how we treat those who are dying. So it goes from the individual to the families, to the hospitals.Now in the near-death research I do, this has ramifications at all these levels, all the way to society.But our society is thanatophobic. It has a phobia of death. We don't want to hear about death, and this is another thing we need to put on the table and be willing to talk about it. Do you think that we might get closer to answering ultimate questions like why is there anything at all if we jettison materialism?That’s an excellent question, Simon. Two things: we should stop treating reality, I believe, as a great sudoku, as an enigma, as something that with intelligence, money, and time that we will crack and instead treat reality more like a mystery. And what you do for in front of a mystery is not to be the clever guy in a class and say “I’ll solve you” but more like “I will bow and you will transform me.”I know this sounds a bit like a scientist speaking like a mystic. But I think this reorientation is needed. In the end, we won’t crack the big questions, but they will transform us. If we free ourselves from this prison of materialism, the way we will explore these questions will be freer, more creative, and in service of mankind. Do you think exploring mystery is the reason why we are here?I think we are here because, and this pseudo-theological argument I’m making off the cuff, But the One, the Absolute, if there is such a thing, had everything except limitation. We are that absolute experiencing that contingency. It’s like an act of divine proprioception. It’s a wonderful adventure, it’s just incredible to be alive. Perhaps we have forgotten why we are here and the whole point is to experience the flesh.Let me end by saying this. I criticize materialism harshly. I bang on this dead horse, because I think it’s dead. But matter is a great mystery. So maybe my invitation is as follows: hey materialist friends, come here, let’s work on materialism 2.0! Consciousness is a mystery, but matter is also a mystery. The fact that we can have an intersubjective experience consensus, the fact that we can apply mathematics, that we can measure things... the physical world we take for granted, but it is a great mystery too.Maybe that’s related to your last question: why are we here? Why did spirit decide to incarnate? Being in the flesh may be a great thing if spirit decided to do so.Àlex Gómez-Marín, thank you very much.My pleasure.
Cities put science in the spotlight
When three European cities launch an initiative next year to boost scientific excellence and collaboration, much of the action is likely to take place in public spaces rather than in the laboratory.That is welcome news for Ana Marušić. A medical doctor and professor at the University of Split Medical School in Croatia, Marušić champions close connections between “town and gown” to encourage citizen involvement in research, raise public health awareness and ignite young people’s interest in science. “Responsible research and innovation cannot be done in an ivory tower, answering only the questions that are relevant for scientists,” explains Marušić, who chairs the Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health and leads the Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. “The role of the university is to be a medium for transferring new discoveries in science to society, but also to listen to society about what is important and what is needed.”Three cities united by scienceMarušić’s efforts stand to gain traction through Science Comes to Town (SCTT), a new European project to highlight science’s role in society and strengthen cross-border collaboration in research, innovation and sustainability. With funding from the European Commission, three cities—Split, Brest (in France) and Kiel (in Germany)—plan more than 1,000 public events, workshops and competitions for citizens of all ages, researchers, businesses and policymakers. The year-long project kicks off in Spilt on 20 January with a conference involving partner institutions, community representatives and European policymakers. The three cities may be geographically far apart, but they share much in common. All are located on coasts and are home to top regional research institutions that are part of SCTT. Among the project's partners, the University of Western Brittany in Brest, Kiel University and the University of Split belong to the SEA-EU university alliance, uniting nine European coastal academic institutions to advance research, student exchanges and sustainable development. “These universities have a very strong connection between gown and town,” explains Marušić, who is one of Split’s SCTT ambassadors. “It's very important that these universities are there for the community so that we can learn from each other and grow together.”Tackling Europe’s STEM shortagesSCTT will also reinforce efforts to address Europe’s widening gap in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. Studies show that nearly eight out of ten small- and medium-sized businesses cannot find enough workers with the skills required in advanced computing and artificial intelligence (AI)—hindering initiatives to boost European innovation and competitiveness. In healthcare, the European Commission has estimated a shortfall in medical professionals of 1.2 million, due to fewer young people joining the field and an ageing population that needs more care.Strengthening knowledge and dialogue can also help build trust between scientists and the public at time when disruptive technologies are reshaping research and clinical practice, but are also sparking questions about ethics and accuracy. With experience in the classroom and in clinical epidemiology—a discipline involving monitoring and controlling public health problems—Marušić sees the potential risks of over-reliance on AI and chatbot answers for both research and learning. “AI is a very good tool, but one has to be very critical about it,” she adds. “Delegating brain activities will definitely diminish your neural capacities because you are not developing the circuitry that is important for higher-level cognitive engagement.” She stresses the importance of critical thinking and encourages students to use AI as a researcher’s tool to reinforce rather than supplant human discretion and brainpower.The power of outreachSplit’s experience in bringing scientists and the public together has provided a platform for discussing research ethics and explaining science in simple terms. Local efforts to expand health literacy and awareness have helped reduce cardiovascular disease among women, according to Marušić’s research. The city’s university also hosts events to introduce schoolchildren to science, using hands-on experiments to spark curiosity.Marušić’s own love of science began with an interest in studying molecular biology. “But my parents told me, why don't you study medicine?” she recalls. “I said, OK, why not? And that was the best decision that I made.” Marušić is not a practicing physician, but teaches anatomy and public health. She also co-edits ST-OPEN, an overlay university journal that works on capacity building for research publishing among students and their supervisors. Balancing teaching, research and editorial work, she is a strong advocate for medical studies, urging high school students to consider medicine “because later on it gives you a really wide perspective about human life and about society” as well as many career opportunities.As SCTT prepares to bring science into daily life in 2026, Marušić hopes that it will build permanent bridges between scientists and citizens across Europe. “We can be a showcase for making collaboration with the community stronger to share knowledge, attract young talent and integrate critical and scientific thinking into everyday life,” she explains, adding that "collaborating with businesses to improve cities and communities is also an important aspect of this project."Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.