SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " question " 4,221 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Whole Hog Politics: Trump proves hard to follow for GOP
[Watch “Whole Hog Politics” live: Join us today at 9 a.m. EDT at TheHill.com as Chris Stirewalt and host Bill Sammon break down this week’s political news and answer questions from a li…
Obama says U.S. may be ‘worse off’ now than before Iran war
The former president told NBC’s “TODAY” show he questioned the rationale for President Donald Trump’s war on Iran.
#PostPulpit mailbag: What will happen at tight end?
The latest edition of our Patriots mailbag answers questions about the tight end position, Gabe Jacas, and more.
Todd Bowles Admits To Bucs "Just Taking Plays Off"
After locker room leaders signaled a lack of passion, Todd Bowles confirms his defense coasted through games, sparking questions about accountability and his future leadership in Tampa.
Our biggest questions for Underwood and Illinois in 2027
No team is bulletproof, and the Illini have holes that need addressed.
How Politicized is Public Healthcare in Orange County?
There are growing questions over what politicians should be involved in healthcare for the county’s poorest residents through CalOptima.
Five questions with the Colangelo College of Business' Paul Waterman
EDITOR'S NOTE: The following article was originally published in the April issue of GCU Magazine, available in the purple bins on campus or digitally. Paul […]
Health kicks off Aspen Ideas June 22-25
Since 2014, Aspen Ideas: Health has preceded the Aspen Ideas festivals. This year, from June 22-25, it offers more than 60 sessions with seven program tracks revolving around patient care, new treatments and technology, longevity and vitality, creativity, medical enterprise, leadership and how health-related questions often lack black or white answers.
3 Burning Questions for the Rams Ahead of Training Camp
With training camp set to take place in July, here are three burning questions to be answered for the Los Angeles Rams.
What science reveals about the ‘magic’ of enlightenment
We often ask how to reach enlightenment, as if it’s a destination. A better question may be: how do we practice enlightened behavior in everyday life?
Trump Iran framework gambles on diplomacy despite warning Tehran will 'lie and cheat'
Trump administration's Iran framework offers immediate oil sanctions waivers while postponing key nuclear questions, a gamble officials say carries risks.
Nancy and the politics of deterrence: reading the French nuclear offer to Poland
A year after the Nancy Treaty, Polish-French defence cooperation is deepening and building a tangible element of European deterrence. The question is what kind of relationship Warsaw and Paris are actually building, and whether it will outlast the leaders who started it.
Rubio lets Vance take the fall as Iran deal questions mount
A split over Iran between two top presidential contenders has burst into the open.
Katie Couric (@katiecouric)
3,068 likes, 268 comments - katiecouric on June 17, 2026: "Rahm Emanuel has been a major force in Democratic politics for decades—from congressman and White House chief of staff to mayor of Chicago and U.S. ambassador to Japan. As the 2026 midterms approach, he joined me on Next Question to discuss President Trump's second term, why Democrats "lost the plot," why he believes the U.S. should end taxpayer-funded military aid to Israel, and what it will take for the party to reconnect with voters and regain lost ground. 🎧 Watch the full interview on YouTube or listen wherever you get your podcasts.".
Despite concerns, CDPAP users question Trump lawsuit
The Trump Department of Justice filed a lawsuit Wednesday alleging that the state Department of Health conducted a “sham bid process."
Despite concerns, CDPAP users question Trump lawsuit
The Trump Department of Justice filed a lawsuit Wednesday alleging that the state Department of Health conducted a “sham bid process."
Cramer's lightning round: Buy Vistra
"Mad Money" host Jim Cramer rings the lightning round bell, which means he's giving his answers to callers' stock questions at rapid speed.
Allegheny Health Network helps cancer patients know they're not alone
When you hear you're diagnosed with cancer, it can be overwhelming. It can leave questions, anger and a feeling of seclusion.
iPadOS 27 Hands-On: Everything New for iPad
Like iOS 27, iPadOS 27 gains a smarter, more capable version of Siri, the Siri app, and new Apple Intelligence features in apps, but there are a few iPad-only standouts. Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos. Siri AI on iPad has all of the same features as Siri AI on the iPhone, so it can access your personal data, search the web for answers, complete tasks in apps, and answer questions about what's on your screen.
When Health Results Raise Questions but Provide Few Answers
Older people are often treated as if their judgment is less valuable, creating the risk of a future where human intelligence is seen as something that depreciates with age.
Google Releases Free Android Upgrade To Millions: Samsung Galaxy Next
Samsung's Android 17 upgrade is coming to Galaxy phones via One UI 9. But the biggest feature, Gemini Intelligence, raises serious security questions. Here's what to know
Politics: Can Divides Over War Be Bridged At The G7 Summit?
This week, on the southern shores of Lake Geneva, leaders of the Group of Seven countries gathered for their annual summit.There are several pressing issues that require attention including the U.S. and Israeli war with Iran, the resulting economic crisis, the state of the Persian Gulf, and long term questions about the future of relations with Iran.The G7 meeting also notably brought Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy face-to-face with President Donald Trump. Trump told reporters that the war Ukraine was not a priority for the United States, saying that his country had “nothing to do” with a war that was “thousands of miles away.”We discuss what this 2026 G7 meeting reveals about the state of the U.S. relationship with its most important allies, especially after months of a war of choice with Iran.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.
Olivia Wilde knew her relationship with Jason Sudeikis was over when he asked her this
Filmmaker and actress Olivia Wilde said that she knew her relationship with ex-fiancé Jason Sudeikis was over when he asked her this cutting question.
Earth Might Have Been Sprinkling Europa With Life Since Before Animals Existed
Hundreds of sextillions of dust grains may have escaped Earth and reached Europa, raising intriguing questions about the possible transfer of life through space.
Will Sunshine Health see job cuts tied to parent Centene reductions?
Healthcare giant Centene is offering voluntary buyouts to staff, raising questions about its Florida subsidiary.
Panthers Reacts Survey: What should a Bryce Young extension look like?
The Panthers have more questions than time when determining Young's future
The 'Cool Demo' Era of AI Is Officially Over. Here Is the Real Question Business Leaders Should Ask Now
Sometime this spring, AI stopped being a passive tool you pick up and started becoming an active system that runs in the background.
More Details on the UAP Science Advisory Council
Below is a set of questions that I was asked today about my new leadership position regarding the UAP Science Advisory Council.
Latvia pilots citizen engagement in research grant evaluations
Latvia has introduced an element of citizen engagement to the evaluation of nationally funded research grants. The aim is to both create more connections between science and society, and to improve the quality of its evaluations. The move comes as research funders across Europe are experimenting with ways to improve evaluation processes in the face of a sharpened focus on science’s impact on society. Evaluators of grant applications submitted to Latvia’s Fundamental and Applied Research Programme (FLPP), the country’s main research funder, will this year have the option of consulting citizen feedback on challenges the public thinks science should focus on to inform their decisions. “In recent years, both public discussions and policy-level debates in Latvia have highlighted the importance of demonstrating how publicly funded research contributes to society, the economy and the resolution of real-world challenges,” said a source at the Latvian Council of Science (LCS), which manages the FLPP. “At the same time, research institutions themselves expressed interest in improving the project evaluation framework while continuing to ensure that funding is awarded to the highest-quality projects,” the source added. The citizen input comes from a survey that was conducted between 25 February and 16 March 2025, to which 1,737 people responded. It gathered information on what the public views as problem areas for Latvia, and the role of science and technology in providing solutions to these problems. A summary of these responses has been included as an annex to the FLPP 2026 call for proposals that evaluators can refer to, purely in an advisory manner, when judging proposals. Results from the survey show that the main problem areas identified by the public were in healthcare and public health, followed by the development of new treatment methods and medicines, and then digital technology, data security and cyber security. At the bottom of the list was research aimed at acquiring new knowledge about the universe, matter and the laws of nature. Further analysis looked at the public view of the possible role of science in solving these problems. The survey charted 4,167 individual responses based on open-ended questions that were derived from the participants’ answers. The analysis again found that medical and health sciences topped the scoring, with 788 responses referring to the field. Humanities and the arts were bottom of the list, with 625. Digging further into the details, the survey suggests citizens are aware of and concerned about a number of research areas. This includes technologies and innovation to improve the environment or reduce pollution, the development of modern military technologies and cybersecurity tools, and the development and application of artificial intelligence, among others. “We hope this initiative will help strengthen public trust in science and create a more meaningful dialogue between researchers and society,” the LCS source said, adding that it offers benefits to researchers, evaluators and to the general public. More space for citizen engagement in evaluationsThere is a gradual but increasing use of citizen engagement in research evaluation processes around Europe, especially in healthcare, but it remains relatively rare, said Henry Sauermann, a professor at the European School of Management and Technology in Berlin and an expert in citizen science.“Given that we are at a point where citizen involvement is extremely limited, there is presumably space for more, but it's not that we should do it just because we want to do it,” he told Science|Business. He said some research lends itself better to having citizen input, and this usually tends to be on the applied end of the science spectrum where the public can offer useful feedback based on their experiences. He added that advising scientists on certain topics to study is also a useful approach, in the way that Latvia is doing. “The public does fund a lot of science, there's a lot of tax money going into this. We of course do want to preserve academic freedom, but it's also not unreasonable to incorporate more feedback or input from citizens where possible,” he said. Related articlesCitizen science: where, when, and how to let the public contribute to researchHow can Europe cope with a flood of AI-assisted research grant proposals?Data Corner: Horizon Europe’s AI, digital and data call success rate is 5.2%There are several ways of involving citizens in science funding. The most minimal way is having a few representatives on a panel, such as members of a patient group or union. The most direct way is crowdsourcing funding for specific projects. There is an increasing number of online platforms that allow the public to chip in to support scientific proposals.Sauermann studied this in a recent paper and found that it can have its uses, but it still is not clear if there are benefits to it. There are various assumptions linked to citizen engagement, for example that it increases public trust in science, or that it provides a representative view of what the public thinks about science. These are not necessarily true, Sauermann found. People who participate in engagement activities tend to already be very trusting of science, and, on the whole, it is generally the well-off and well educated who contribute, giving a narrow view of public opinion. On whether citizen input can help manage the increasing number of proposals that are being submitted due to assistance from AI, Sauermann is more sceptical. “The obvious answer to the flood of AI-written proposals is AI-driven evaluation,” he said, adding that it doesn’t mean citizen engagement shouldn’t be a part of evaluations in a well thought-out manner. Southern Denmark’s successful approachOne successful example of citizen engagement in science evaluations was implemented in southern Denmark. Between 2019 and 2025, citizens in the region were invited to vote to fund one of five pre-selected projects in the field of healthcare. The project, called A Healthier Southern Denmark, was a collaboration between regional authorities, the University of Southern Denmark, and two media partners. Over the seven years, there were 75,000 votes and significant public engagement online and on social media. “It was a bit of a wild project, we’d never done something like that before and we were a bit nervous about what would be said in the media about it. But actually, people were very positive,” said Anne Kathrine Overgaard, one of the main organisers of the project from the University of Southern Denmark. The university and its researchers have learned a lot from the experience, particularly about engaging with society and shaping their research to match real-world needs. This is important with Europe’s increasing focus on competitiveness and bringing innovations to market faster, Overgaard said. She hopes to see more citizen engagement in evaluation processes and in science more broadly. “For many years, citizen engagement has been a bit of an add-on to proposals, just to check a box. But I think things are changing,” she said. It’s less about citizens just gathering data and more “about the dialogue between the public and the scientists,” she said. The initiative ended last year as the team wanted to regroup to find fresh momentum. The development of AI and AI-written proposals has made Overgaard reflect on how the project could be reworked to help evaluators. She hopes to bring it back in the future. “It could be a good idea to try this initiative again in a slightly re-worked format,” she said.
Merchants of Doubt and the attacks on Extreme Event Attribution science
Last week, I attended a meeting at Columbia University on attribution science and climate law, hosted by the Sabin Center. It was a fantastic event, bringing together scientists and legal experts working at the intersection of extreme event attribution and climate law. Subscribe For those unfamiliar with it, extreme event attribution attempts to quantify the contribution of climate change to an extreme event. For example, several groups analyzed the impact of climate change on Hurricane Harvey’s enormous rainfall totals over Houston, Texas and they found that climate change increased rainfall by 15 to 38%. One thing that came up again and again was how terrified fossil-fuel interests are of extreme event attribution science. They are acutely aware that this research could land them in court. And losing those cases would leave them legally liable for billions of dollars in climate damages. Because the legal stakes are so high, the blowback has turned ugly. I spoke with several scientists at the meeting who are facing ongoing harassment over their work. This blowback is a coordinated campaign to make the entire field look suspect. The goal is to create the impression that attribution science is too uncertain, too political, or too conflicted to be useful in court or in public policy. The strategy is not based on actual science or evidence of misconduct, but on the generation of doubt. The new Merchants of Doubt We’ve seen this before. In fact, not that long ago: We only have to go back a year to the Department of Energy (DOE) Climate Working Group (CWG) report to see an example of using doubt as the tool to push back against well-established science. This strategy is laid out in an email from a member of the CWG, Dr. Roy Spencer, that was released during litigation over the Climate Working Group process. The key quote is: About all I can hope is that what we write will provide sufficient “reasonable scientific doubt” regarding the science claims in the 2009 TSD [technical support document], based upon almost 2 decades of new science, to call into question the original reasoning for the EPA Administrator’s decision that CO2 presents a threat to human health and welfare. This statement is strong evidence that at least some members of the committee were working to support a particular policy outcome: revoking the Endangerment Finding. The email also explains how they planned to do it: by attempting to generate “reasonable doubt”. This is going to be hard, Spencer implies. Despite falsely claiming that “2 decades of new science” weakens the case, Spencer explicitly acknowledges that the actual peer-reviewed science of climate change overwhelmingly rejects his position: But if the science argument is decided upon by a vote, or by the number of published citations, we lose the science argument. We can go back even further: This CWG email shares unmistakable DNA with the infamous 1969 tobacco memo that declared: “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” The tobacco memo also acknowledges the limit of this strategy: Like the CWG, they knew the science was not on their side. Share The new new Merchants of Doubt The people attacking the IPCC chapter on extreme event attribution are the newest iteration of the Merchants of Doubt. Their goal, like all Merchants before them, is to introduce doubt into the process. Because the report is not even out yet, they cannot attack its conclusions. So they are attacking the authors instead. Here is a press release from the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee: In the letter, the Chairmen express concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving members of the Attribution Committee, stating that “publicly available information suggests a troubling pattern” in which committee members are affiliated with nonprofits that support climate accountability lawsuits, “raising the appearance of impropriety and member bias.” To be clear, this is just innuendo. There is no actual evidence of bias. And given the robust process that these reports go through, including multiple lines of peer review, it seems very unlikely that significant bias can survive into the report. When the report comes out, critics will have the opportunity to make legitimate criticisms of the report — if any exist. If none do, however, they’ll still make criticisms, but they’ll be bogus, simply designed to generate doubt. We’ll see. A note to the press: Fix your frame To any journalists reading this: The public debate over extreme event attribution science is not going away. The science is simply too dangerous to fossil-fuel interests for them to stop fighting it. You very well might be assigned to write an article about this area of research in the future. When you do, do not automatically adopt the framing that climate misinformers want you to use. They want you to frame the story around questions like: Are climate scientists trying to put their thumb on the scale to achieve a predetermined, politically motivated result? Are climate scientists improperly letting their politics invade the science of the IPCC? That frame is a trap. Instead, you need to view this through the historical lens of the Merchants of Doubt. How does the ecosystem of doubt operate? Who funds it? What methods do they use to misrepresent science and slime researchers? What scientific results are they trying to keep people from understanding are legitimate? Ultimately, you instead need to focus your article on the generation of doubt as a way to maintain the fossil fuel industry’s social and legal license to keep burning oil, gas, and coal. If you treat the misinformers’ frame as a legitimate, good-faith scientific critique, you are helping them produce doubt. Don’t do it. Don’t be a Merchant of Doubt. Thanks for reading The Climate Brink! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe other stuff The Staying Curious Substack has an interesting post about the different flavors of climate sensitivity. This is crucial information if you want to understand how scientists think about how much warming the Earth will experience. I’d be grateful if you could hit the like button ❤️ below! It helps more people discover these ideas and lets me know what’s connecting with readers.
Oklahoma independents show up to vote on minimum wage question, denounce closed primaries
Oklahoma’s nearly 500,000 registered independent voters were eligible to vote on State Question 832 in Tuesday’s election, which would raise the statewide minimum wage to $15 per hour.
Arman Tsarukyan urges UFC to cut former title challenger
Arman Tsarukyan is urging the UFC not to allow one of its former title challengers to step into the octagon again. As the dust settles on a historic night at the White House, several key talking points have surfaced. Most are directed toward fighters at the top of the bill, with questions being ...
Mamdani's affordability problem worsens as NYC business leaders blast his housing plan
‘The Big Money Show’ discusses Manhattan's median rent, which climbed to a record $5,125 in May, up 7% from a year ago, raising new questions about affordability as demand continues to outpace housing supply across New York City.
People are betting on elections. Congress is watching
As prediction markets stir debate over betting on politics, the Los Angeles mayoral race raised a new question: What happens when people wager on elections?
Questions surround Bo Nix's health as Broncos Minicamp begins on Tuesday
Opinion: Being Alaska Native is not a political label
Voters must look beyond identity and question those who exploit it.
Judge who had sex in courthouse and attended political event agrees to exit Georgia election case
A federal judge who was disciplined after an investigation found that she had sex with a police officer in her chambers and attended a partisan event, then lied when confronted with the allegations, has recused herself in a fight over Georgia election records after the U.S. Department of Justice raised questions about her ability to be impartial.
Judge who had sex in courthouse and attended political event agrees to exit Georgia election case
A federal judge has recused herself in a fight over Georgia election records after the U.S. Department of Justice raised questions about her ability to be impartial
Vance’s Book Tour Begins With a Visit to ‘The View’
The vice president is promoting his book about faith and facing questions about his political ambitions and the war with Iran.
Trump's Iran agreement raises a basic question: Is it actually a deal?
Trump hails Iran memorandum as normalizing relations, but officials say core issues like sanctions relief and nuclear concessions remain for future talks.
This Portland PAC said it got $270,000 from an organization that only had $7,000 to spend
The PAC misidentified the source of nine separate donations over eight months before media questioned the discrepancy.
Utah stepped in. Brendan Sorsby stepped out. But questions still abound about the future of NCAA football.
Utah’s attorney general and governor say the Brendan Sorsby case will ‘extend well beyond’ Texas Tech.
Human Cell Atlas leader’s tie to 10x Genomics raises conflict-of-interest questions
As the Human Cell Atlas project marks its 10th anniversary, a leader's ties to a major single-cell RNA sequencing company raise conflict-of-interest questions.
Video of Patriots rookie Gabe Jacas training surfaces amid controversy
With Gabe Jacas' contract status still in question, the rookie second-round pick is preparing away from the team for the 2026 season.
UNM Professor Champions Community Voices in Health Research
The special April 2026 themed issue of the Journal of Clinical and Translational Science explores a defining question in modern health research: “How do academic health centers build trust, break down barriers and advance research shaped by the...
Designing the Health Systems AI Promised
Every technology transition in healthcare has produced the same pattern: capability arrives before governance, deployment outpaces integration, and the accountability gap closes, eventually, through incident, litigation, or regulation. AI is running the same pattern, faster and at greater scale, in systems that were already fragile before it arrived.The more uncomfortable question shifts the lens away from what AI is doing to health systems, toward what health systems were never built to be. The institutions now absorbing...
A vague Iran deal leaves more questions than answers
Trump hailed the document as a breakthrough after months of negotiations. Yet its broad contours remained unclear over a day after the deal was announced.
MSU professor reflects on the ‘pursuit of happiness’ 250 years since America’s inception
Raul Rodriguez, professor and director of MSU's LeFrak Forum forum, answers questions on what the “pursuit of happiness” means two-and-a-half centuries later.
The Iran war’s end is being greatly exaggerated
There are many questions unresolved in the latest ceasefire deal and many ways the conflict could begin again.
Whoopi Goldberg refuses to let Jalen Brunson answer Ana Navarro's question on 'The View'
Whoopi Goldberg stepped in, refusing to let Jalen Brunson answer Ana Navarro's question on 'The View' in an awkward on-air moment: 'Girl,' Goldberg said.
👀 Spain wait on Lamine, can he play this afternoon?
The Spanish national team begins its World Cup campaign this afternoon (18:00 CET) against Cape Verde. The big question surrounding the starting eleven is the physical condition of La Roja’s young s...
Meet Amanda Archer. She helps keep Canton healthy
In our latest "Five questions with" feature, meet Amanda Archer, health commissioner with Canton City Public Health.
Avalanche Expect Full Health Despite Makar Injury Questions After Playoff Exit
Department of Veterans Affairs stops LGBTQ+ veteran support
Internal VA guidance obtained by The Advocate raises questions about the future of specialized assistance for those who served.
In Retrospect: Poland, Russia, Europe
In April I spent a few days with Zryw, a Polish non-profit organization that recruits young people to enter politics and public life. Their aim is to build a new generation of civic leaders in Poland. I’ve followed their evolution from the beginning; my son is one of the founders. (“Zryw” means “impulse” or “burst of speed” in Polish). Julie Chmielewska, one of Zryw’s leaders, interviewed me at the event. Here is the conversation, lightly edited for grammar and context: Julia Chmielewska: Assuming that culture shapes institutions, could we conclude that some cultures are more prone to authoritarianism? Anne Applebaum: I don’t think so. Every culture, every nation, and every country has the potential for change. When we look at history, we can see that nations do change. Poland has changed, for example, from the 1980s to today. There’s a completely different mentality here than the one I encountered when I first visited, in 1988. The current generation sees the world through a different frame. So no, I don’t believe that certain nations are doomed to authoritarianism, or to anything. Of course, there are political and cultural traditions, but they can always be challenged. JC: So do you think there’s something intrinsic in human nature that pushes people to democracy, freedom? AA: I think there is something in human nature, a deep instinct, that pushes people towards freedom, yes. People who live in authoritarian countries – and I’ve heard this from them over and over again – sooner or later find themselves angered by a feeling of helplessness. They can see the unfairness of crooked courts, irrational political decisions. They naturally dislike the fact that somebody has all the power while they have none. In those circumstances, people who have no political background at all sometimes are politicized just by that frustration. I’m thinking of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, for example, who was a Belarusian housewife, until the circumstances of her husband’s arrest forced her to become a politician. I met a woman who is a Uyghur from China, and who had come to live in Turkey. After several of her family members were arrested, she too was propelled into a political role. These kinds of experiences make people interested in democracy or political reform, even if they thought they didn’t care. I also think that the opposite is true: some people instinctively prefer homogeneity, order, hierarchy. They don’t like the confrontation of opinions or the noise of debate, and they lean towards a single leader or a unified regime. I think that most of modern history is shaped by the clash between those two different sides of human nature. JC: Which force do you find more powerful today? AA: I think they both have a lot of power and there’s no way of predicting who wins. Even in countries that seem very shut off or stuck in an authoritarian system can change. We’ve seen that happen. And vice versa, I think democracies can also begin to fail and slide into authoritarianism. So it’s very important not to be complacent in either direction. JC: I want to go into your history and your experiences. You’ve lived in Russia during a time of incredible change in the late 80s, and then you came back to do research in post-Soviet Russia. AA: I was a student in Russia just before the collapse of the Soviet Union. I then traveled and worked there extensively in the 1990s, and I met people who really were full of hope. They hoped that Russia could become a democracy, or at least a place that guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of the press. These weren’t ideas that came from Washington. Although now the narrative in the Kremlin is different, I met many people who were working towards exactly that kind of transformation. A friend of mine ran a series of seminars – once a year, and then later several times a year, in cities all over Russia – designed to get people to discuss politics in new ways. She invited young politicians and journalists, as well as foreigners. I went to many of them, in Moscow as well as Volgograd and Novosibirsk. Over two decades, hundreds of people came to these seminars, and all of them wanted Russia to be different. I remain convinced that many Russians still want Russia to be different. It’s just that the old system, in the form of Putin, a representative of that system, returned. The KGB reimposed their power. And this wasn’t because of something to do with culture, this was to do with money and politics, and who was in charge. JC: You’ve partially answered my question... I wanted to ask whether that excitement of the 1990s was an exception from the Russian historical norm which has been rather authoritarian? AA: Of course, if you look at the history of Russia since the 18th century, there have always been liberal groups, reformers and revolutionaries. There were the Decembrists, in the early 19th century, and the rural populists later on, who tried to organize the peasantry. A significant group of liberal Russians appeared at the turn of the 20th century, people like the father of the writer Vladimir Nabokov, who was a Russian politician before the revolution. These groups were small in number, but sometimes had a broader significance. The Russian dissident movement in the 1950s and 1960s actually invented the modern human rights movement. It was their idea to hold the leaders of the Soviet Union accountable for the language they used, to remind them of the treaties they had signed and the promised they had made. They created the Helsinki group, for example, that held Soviet leadership to the language of the Helsinki Treaty, which formally ended the Second World War and which contained guarantees of human rights, at least on paper. That idea spread to Eastern Europe, and similar tactics were used here in Poland. (Benjamin Nathans recently wrote a great book about the Soviet dissidents, To the Success of Our Hopeless Cause) JC: But seemingly, even if they do ever get power, they could never hold on to it. AA: We don’t know, because they have never really had power. But in any case, we also don’t know what will happen in the future. There is no reason to assume that Russia will forever be condemned to totalitarianism. Even during the first fifteen years of Putin’s regime there was some form of democratic politics. Only when the full-scale war began did he bring everything to an end: he shut down all remaining independent organizations and killed his most important opponent, Alexi Navalny. But does that mean he is popular, that he enjoys legitimacy? Even now, we don’t really know what Russians think about him, or about the war. There is no way of doing real polling in Russia because nobody will answer an independent pollster over the phone. JC: Do you think that the flock of young people, especially young men, who fled Russia after the start of the war represent a continuation of liberal movements that refuse to partake in the authoritarian state, or do you think they are moving for the sake of self-preservation – “I don’t want to go to the army, so I leave”? AA: I’m sure it’s both. I actually know many people who left Russia for political reasons either in the very last years before the war, or else just after the war began. JC: And do you see a change in the young generation versus the old one that have fled? AA: It’s hard for me to say because the people who I know were mostly already politicized. I do know some younger people who left, but most of them were already either active in the opposition, or working as journalists. Many of them very self-consciously think of themselves as maintaining Russian culture abroad, just as in the 20th century the Soviet dissidents or the anti-communist White Russians once thought of themselves as people who maintained the true Russian culture, outside of Bolshevik Russia. JC: Let’s move on to Poland. One of your first experiences with Poland was reporting on Margaret Thatcher’s first state visit, in the autumn of 1988. You followed her around the farmers’ market. AA: She was making a symbolic gesture. She wanted to welcome free markets, but the only one she could really visit was the farmers’ market at Hala Mirowska. JC: And I want to talk about this area because today you can look out of any window in that district, Mirów, and see rows and rows of skyscrapers. How does it feel to see a country built from the ground in such a short time, both politically and economically? AA: You know, when you’re living in a period of dramatic change, it’s always hard to know whether the change is positive or negative. The transformation in Poland created winners and losers, as well as new classes of people, new political movements of different kinds. At the time, it sometimes just felt like turbulence. Now, we can look back at the 1990s and early 2000s in Poland and see in retrospect that the country was headed in towards prosperity and European integration. In around 2009 or 2010, I remember speaking to a woman who worked cleaning government offices, and who asked me if her daughter should study in Amsterdam or in London. This seemed to me to be a real transformation, and it happened very fast: within a few years, Poles stopped feeling like second-class Europeans, and a generation of younger Poles appeared who had no qualms about crossing borders. JC: We again live in turbulent times. Do you think we’re heading towards positive outcomes? AA: I can’t make predictions, because everything that happens tomorrow depends on what people do today. Also, history doesn’t have a trajectory. It doesn’t move in a particular direction. You only think it does afterwards. As I said, you can look afterwards at Poland in the 1990s and you could say this was a period of great progress. But not everybody at the time saw that. Sometimes people are very wrong about a given country’s trajectory. I remember people writing about Ukraine in the 1990s, about how dangerous it was that Ukraine was independent, that this was going to be an anti-semitic state, that Ukrainian nationalism was going to come back... and although you can say many bad things about Ukraine, the country made many bad choices, actually it became a pretty tolerant state which now has a Jewish president and until recently a Muslim defense minister. JC: In the 1990s Poland’s and Ukraine’s GDP were roughly similar. Ukraine was even a bit richer. So the starting point was similar for both of these countries, but they’ve turned out very, very differently. Even if we stop in 2014. Why do you think Ukraine “chose East”? Was it external influence? AA: No, I think Ukraine was in a different position. First of all, central and eastern Ukraine had been part of the Soviet Union since the 1920s, and had therefore experienced a longer period of occupation, repression, Sovietization and even Russification. Ukraine did not have, as Poland did, an alternative elite: a large cadre of economists and politicians, who already had some experience in opposition politics and in independent thinking. In Poland, the transformative finance minister, Leszek Balcerowicz, had already thought about how an economy might be decentralized before he took office. We can argue about how successful he was, but at least he was prepared to try something new. In Ukraine, people weren’t prepared. For one, there hadn’t been much space even for an illegal opposition in the previous couple of decades. Ukraine was also in many ways still emerging from colonial occupation. For the previous couple of centuries, many of the most capable Ukrainians had moved to Russia, and the first generation of leaders in independent Ukraine tended to be former Soviet apparatchiks. They didn’t immediately seek to become closer to western Europe. Instead, they looked for some kind of economic and political “third way” and an accomodation with Russia. Ukraine became stuck in this position, half-in, half-out and became pretty profoundly corrupt. JC: The Polish alternative elite had a vision of where they wanted the country to go. I think the general perception now is that this vision ends with the next election, right? Is this a natural process of gaining power? AA: Their vision, and it was shared by the time by politicians who now call themselves both left and right, was that Poland should join the EU and NATO, as fast as possible. My husband (Radek Sikorski) was in the very first government that said it wanted to join NATO. At the time this was taken very badly in Washington: the demand for NATO membership absolutely came from Poland, not from the US. But even then, in the early 1990s, many Poles already understood that the Russian sphere of influence would grow once again, that it was important to become part of the transatlantic alliance and an integrated Europe as fast as possible: NATO, the EU, the Council of Europe, all of the trading and security alliances. That consensus lasted through several different governments and over many years, even governments containing former communists. For twenty years, right, left and center disagreed about many things, but they all agreed on the direction that the country should go. In retrospect, that consensus created the basis for prosperity in Poland. JC: And regarding the Polish-Ukrainian relations. We know that antagonisms, e.g. the myth of Wołyń [a massacre of Poles that took place in what is now Western Ukraine, in 1943] are increasingly used in Polish political discourse today. In Ukraine, nationalist historians make heroes out of UPA, the Ukrainian revolutionary army, which is held responsible for this tragedy. Where do you see a start for burying the hatchet? Is the reconciliation of our nations possible? AA: So here’s a strange thing: For more than a decade after they both gained independence, Poland and Ukraine participated in a number of projects that were designed to solve exactly these kinds of Polish-Ukrainian differences. Books were published that were jointly written by Polish and Ukrainian historians, monuments were built. These projects were successful: If you’d asked me this question in 2010, I would have said that there are no real historical issues between Poland and Ukraine, that the two countries had mostly reconciled. For a number of reasons, this began to shift. In Poland, children and grandchildren of victims of the Wołyń massacre felt their tragedy hadn’t been fully recognized. In Ukraine, nationalist groups wanted the UPA partisans who had fought against the Soviet Union recognized for their heroism, despite the fact that some in this broad and not well-defined group were also linked to Wołyń. In both eastern Poland and western Ukraine, the memory of the ethnic cleansing that took place there in the late 1940s - Poles were moved West, Ukrainians East - to accomodate new borders has left feelings of displacement and bitterness. The wave of Ukrainian immigration, which started before the war, may have provoked some of this. But don’t underestimate the role played by Russia, which has always wanted to create discord between Poland and Ukraine, and pumps out propaganda to that effect in both countries. Vandalism on both sides of the border, damage done to cemeteries and monuments, is sometimes carried out by provacateurs working for Russia, just to create bad feelings. The Polish-Ukrainian conflict also hides a different reality: although there are real grievances and bad memories, the truth is that the biggest tragedies both nations experienced in the twentieth century were inflicted by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. That should unite these two countries, not divide them. JC: This week (19.04.2026 – Ed.) in Hungary we saw that using historical narratives to create grievance has no longer worked. Are you optimistic about the direction after Orban’s loss? AA: The Hungarian election was really important because it shows that people can actually resist powerful, dominant propaganda. The ruling party Fidesz controlled all of the TV, 90% of the newspapers, the constitutional court, the bureaucracy... and yet people had the nerve to vote against it and resist it. It’s also an important election because Hungary created a huge network of well-funded think tanks and foundations that were funding other far right groups and projects. So that loss is going to have a knock-on effect in other places too, maybe even in Poland. JC: What you’ve said about resisting propaganda reminds me of one of the interviews you did about talking to Russians in the post-Soviet era who claimed that people knew that the system was lying. Why do people choose to believe in these regimes anyway? AA: Because it’s useful. Stephen Kotkin, an American historian, once described how people would learn how to “speak Bolshevik”: It was just a language that you needed to use in order to get by in society. If you didn’t talk the way the regime wanted you to talk, then you might have problems, or lose your job, or your kids would not get into university. It was a way of getting along. Communist Poland was similar, at least in the early years. When I was writing a book about the Sovietization of Eastern Europe after World War II, I met a lot of people who wanted to talk a lot about the war, when many of them had done really heroic things. But almost nobody wanted to talk about the decade afterwards, between 1945 and 1956. This was when you had the short period of terror, violence and Polish Stalinism. To stay safe, people felt the need to just go along with what others were saying, or stay out of politics, or use communist jargon without necessarily believing it. I don’t judge them for it, and I wouldn’t describe all of those people as collaborators. It’s easy to feel moral certainty in retrospect, because we know that communism ended. But if you were living in 1949, it might not have been clear to you that communism was going to end. In very repressive societies, maybe about 10% of people who are really evil – collaborators, torturers. Maybe 10% of people are really brave and who find ways to resist. And then around 80% of people have kids, they have parents, they have to have jobs and they’ve had to get through it somehow. Strange though it may sound, I’ve found that the work I did on that book is now very useful in explaining some of what’s going on in the United States today. There are plenty of members of the Republican Party in Congress who know perfectly well that Donald Trump says many things that aren’t true. But they avoid criticizing him because it’s inconvenient, because they would get in trouble, because someone would attack them on the internet. So actually you don’t even need mass terror to get people to conform. JC: Is Gen Z reinventing agency? AA: We’ll see. In any generation you can find groups of people who want agency. If you live in a society that’s unfair, for example where a tiny number of people have captured most of the wealth, then at a certain point people rebel. This is always easier for younger people, who have you have less to lose. The question now is how the internet will affect the relationships between citizens and the state, and how it will change organizations. The “Twitter revolutions” people spoke about as early as 2008-9, mass protests organized online, have often proved to be very superficial. Although you can easily join something just by clicking, the work of creating a real movement requires physical participation. Successful mass movements of the past, for example the Civil Rights movement in the United States, were built by people who had spent many years together. They had participated in non-violent workshops together. They practiced and prepared. Just using the you can get everybody to show up at a certain moment, but then when the protest is broken up, nothing happens. It’s also true that the repressive regimes have more recently learned how to use the internet to undermine leaders and movements. Most of all, they now understand how to make people cynical. The form of propaganda that most modern authoritarians use - and I think the Russians really pioneered this - deploys sneering cynicism. Instead of praising the rulers, the regime propagandists mock the opposition movement leadership for being supposedly corrupt or sexually degenerate, with the goal of undermining any kind of idealism. JC: MAGA grew on the internet? AA: MAGA is a real grassroots movement. They had symbols, red hats, they showed up at rallies. But you’re right that the cynicism, the sarcasm and the distrust that the movement embodies came originally from the internet, and this is different. Fifty years ago, most European political parties had a social base in real organizations, in trade unions for Social Democrats, in church groups for Christian Democrats. As people stopped going to church and as the trade unions became smaller, the social base of these parties disappeared. Now people who wouldn’t have known one another in the past meet on the internet and create new movements, many of which don’t last. JC: Is history ending? Going in stale circles? AA: History never ends. In truth, human beings want contradictory things at the same time: order and freedom, stability and change. These things are never resolved, and when a society swings too far in one direction, people always push it the other way. But each time that happens, the result is different. Certainly it is true that we are now in a period when old philosophers and ideas from the 1930s are undergoing a revival. Carl Schmitt, who was a philosopher who was very influential on the Nazis, is back as an influence on both the far left and the far right, once again inspiring people to think that all politics has to be existential, that all politics is about defining and defeating enemies. In the US, some are also bringing back dominionism, the idea that we need a Christian and not a secular state. It’s also true that we are living through a more fundamental shift. The old left-right divide, which was mostly about the size of the state, is much less important now. Instead, we are arguing about more fundamental things: what are our rights, what protects our freedom. Or how much power do we want to give small elites, versus how much power to give ordinary people. In America a small group of very wealthy people now control information, because they control the social media platforms and AI, which means they determine what people will read and learn. Finding a way to preserve preserve zones of autonomy and independent thinking, this is going to be the main task for the next generation. JC: What is the one book that a person interested in Central Europe should read? AA: You could read my book “Iron Curtain: the Crushing of Eastern Europe” which tells the story of how the Soviet Union imposed its culture on the region. Or read Tim Snyder’s history of the region, “The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus 1569-1999.” And everyone should read “The Captive Mind” by Czesław Miłosz, which describes exactly the phenomenon we were talking about: why do people collaborate? I joined Scott Galloway and the brilliant Fiona Hill in a discussion about the wars in Ukraine and Iran, the future of global power, and what these conflicts reveal about America's role in the world. Scott told us that this was the 400th edition of his podcast, which is quite a number: My friend Francesco Chiamulera runs a brilliant series of literary events, Una Colline di Libri, A Hill of Books, in the Prosecco Hills, a region of vineyards and elegant hill towns in the Veneto, north of Venice. We did an event in Vittorio Veneto and also drove and biked around the countryside. Buy Autocracy Inc Buy Iron Curtain Open Letters, from Anne Applebaum is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
There's no question, Melissa Ortiz is officially a BELIEVER
There's no question, Melissa Ortiz is officially a BELIEVER
UVA Health offers guidance on stopping psychiatric medications
A new effort at UVA Health is tackling a question many patients ask: when is it safe to stop taking psychiatric medications?
Prolific food and business reporter Katie Taranto leaving ARLnow after two years
After two years of connecting with local businesses, exploring Arlington's wide-ranging food scene and satisfying residents' questions and curiosity, reporter Katie Taranto is leaving ARLnow. Taranto, who is departing to cover federal climate policy at the trade publication Inside EPA, wrote prolifically about the arrival and departure of countless restaurants and retailers in Arlington, while
FBI searches office of Ohio group that supports voter registration efforts
Federal agents showed up at the Cleveland office of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative on Thursday and spent hours questioning staff, said Prentiss Haney, a board member of the grassroots organization.
Pinstack Entertainment Complex Opens in Kincora
Commuters along Rt. 7 wondering about the triangle-shaped tower emerging behind the treeline had their questions answered Thursday afternoon when Pinstack celebrated its grand opening with a ribbon cutting.
New series with veteran science journalist Miles O'Brien to feature ASU researchers
Extreme heat kills more people than hurricanes, floods and tornadoes combined in a typical year, but people don't recognize it as a serious problem. Why is that?That was the question veteran science journalist Miles O’Brien asked Arizona State University heat researcher Jennifer Vanos in front of a studio audience at Arizona PBS on Thursday.
#PostPulpit Mailbag: How can the Patriots bolster their pass rush?
The latest edition of our Patriots mailbag answers questions about the edge spot, Gabe Jacas, and more.
Sports fan questions sports merchandise after online purchase
A sports fan shares a lesson about knowing where you’re shopping before you hit “Buy.”
War-wary Hill Republicans question Trump’s Iran strategy with control of Congress at stake
A growing number of Hill Republicans say they are frustrated with President Donald Trump’s ever-changing strategy in Iran — dangling a ground invasion one day, touting progress in peace talks the next — in a conflict many fear will cost them their majority this fall.
Doctor Addresses Big Question After Trump, 79, Sets Alarming Health Record
Trump was probed by 22 specialists during a three-hour checkup.
UK Economy Shrinks as Iran War Damages Business Output After Earlier Growth
UK economy shrank in April on Iran war; West Ham’s ownership in question
Asking Eric: Why did my friend lie to me about her political beliefs?
A friendship is questioned after the letter writer finds out their friend follows thousands of radical organizations on Instagram.
Cancer dominates PFAS conversations — science points elsewhere
Studies link PFAS exposure to cholesterol, immune function, even bone density — findings that rarely make headlines. The cancer question remains open, and the list of what science is still […]
Political parties succeed when understand people
One of the more revealing political developments of recent years has been the Democratic Party’s growing concern about its declining support among male voters. After years of watching men drift toward the political right, many Democrats have begun asking a simple question: Why are men leaving? The answer may be simpler than party strategists would […]
Kayshon Boutte makes change with roster status in question
New England Patriots wide receiver Kayshon Boutte did not participate in competitive reps at Thursday's practice.
Rural health care shifts in Audrain County four years after hospital closed
MU Health Care highlights the success of its Mexico urgent care clinic, but a community members questions whether the services it offers are enough.
Oh boy, Xbox's chief strategist is floating the idea of in-game ads — but says "The question is not 'Can we cram ads in everything?'"
Microsoft's Xbox CSO Matthew Ball thinks in-game ads could help "keep our products affordable."
Editor's Note: The Difference Between Politics and Party Labels
As we prepare for the 2026 general election cycle, it’s worth questioning why some offices are partisan and others aren’t As I worked on this week’s story on who’s running […]
Small Town Politics: Ray City councilwoman questions mayor’s utility billing practices
In a public memo to WALB, a Ray City Councilwoman questioned the Mayor's practices when it comes to city utilities.
More Americans Are Using AI for Health Questions
As more adults, including those 50-plus, turn to AI for advice, research highlights certain limits and concerns, reinforcing the need for human medical oversight.
Xbox Boss Asha Sharma Asked Her Chief Strategy Officer if The Brand Was 'Fixable'
Xbox's new chief strategy officer Matthew Ball says he was asked a direct question about the brand's future by recently-installed CEO Asha Sharma: "Is it fixable?"
Ivermectin back in the spotlight as new health questions emerge
Start your morning with The National News Desk as Jan Jeffcoat sits down with the President and Chief Medical Officer of IMA Health, Dr. Joseph Varon.
Kamala Harris needs to break up with the Bidens
Somebody is going to break with the Bidens. The only question is who has the guts to do it.
First‑ever Arts in Health Conference at Rowan highlights innovation in healing through the arts
Rowan's George Family Center for Healing Arts hosted the first-ever Arts in Health Conference, bringing together healthcare professionals, educators, students, artists and community leaders from across the state. During the May 27 event, attendees explored a simple but powerful question: how can the arts help us live healthier, more connected lives?
South African Business Body Questions Rate Hike as More Seen
South Africa’s main industry body questioned the central bank’s decision to raise interest rates at a time of weak economic growth and fragile business sentiment amid the war in Iran.
Social Security is Facing a Political Crisis
On Tuesday the Social Security Trustees released their latest report on the system’s finances. The numbers didn’t change much: Unless something is done, the Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program, Social Security’s official name, will be unable to pay full benefits starting in either 2032 or 2034, depending on some technical issues. That’s not far away: If the Trustees are right, the prospect of a Social Security crisis will loom over the next presidential administration. It’s important to understand, however, the nature of the looming crisis. It won’t be an economic crisis. It won’t even be a serious fiscal crisis. Whatever you may have heard, Social Security isn’t in danger of going bankrupt. What we’re facing, instead, is potential political crisis. Congress and the White House could easily take action to sustain America’s retirement system. But given the current state of our politics, there’s no guarantee that they will. There is a widespread misunderstanding of how Social Security works. While Social Security was designed to look like a pension fund, it isn’t. A pension fund pays benefits out of a stock of assets it has accumulated over time. In contrast, Social Security operates as a government transfer program, like food stamps or Medicaid. Now, unlike food stamps — but like the highway trust fund — Social Security is on paper supported by a dedicated tax, the payroll tax, that is assigned to that program. But I say “on paper” because from an economic point of view assigning the payroll tax to Social Security is just an accounting convention. What matters for the U.S. economy is the overall balance between government spending and government revenue, not the difference between one type of spending and one source of revenue. So there’s no inherent economic significance to the fact that by 2034 payroll tax receipts will be insufficient to cover promised benefits. There is, however, a legislative issue. As long as the Social Security Administration can pay benefits out of payroll taxes and its cash reserve, there’s no need for Congress to vote each year to authorize benefits — they just keep going out until further notice. However, once those resources become insufficient, benefits will fall —by 17 percent according to the Trustees — unless Congress passes new legislation that “tops up” Social Security’s finances. Yet the current administration and Republican party are such extremists that there is a real risk that Social Security will be held hostage on behalf of their goals. If this should come to pass, the hostage-takers will claim that shoring up Social Security is unaffordable. Right on cue, Mike Johnson, the Trump-sycophant Speaker of the House, declared on Monday that “entitlement programs” like Social Security “have to be adjusted and fixed,” and that Republicans will introduce a plan to that effect next year. But this is a ploy, because while the cost of maintaining Social Security benefits at their promised level isn’t trivial, it is in fact affordable. According to the Trustees’ report, the actuarial balance of OASDI up through 2050 — the amount of additional funds it would need to keep paying full benefits for the next 25 years — is 1.06 percent of GDP. To put that number in perspective, the Trump administration proposes increasing military spending next year by $420 billion, equivalent to about 1.4 percent of GDP – without any discussion of whether that’s affordable Yet how did we get to the point where Social Security will need to be topped up? The main answer is that we have an aging population, with a growing ratio of retirees collecting benefits to workers paying into the system: Trump’s anti-immigration policies are making this problem worse. According to the Trustees’ report, lower immigration will deepen Social Security’s financial hole because many immigrants are working-age adults who will pay into the system for decades before they collect benefits. In fact, this problem may be much bigger than the report acknowledges: The report’s baseline assumption is that we’ll have net immigration of almost 1.2 million people a year, and even the pessimistic case assumes 750,000 a year. Meanwhile actual net immigration has already been cut far below that — and may now be negative. Moreover, Social Security is being financially damaged by growing income inequality in America. Payroll taxes are levied only on wages up to $184,500, and they don’t touch capital income. With the distribution of income increasingly shifting from labor to capital, as well as becoming more unequal among wage-earners, revenue from the Social Security payroll tax has been falling as a share of national income. From 1990 to 2024, it fell from 5.02 percent of gross domestic income to 4.46 percent. Which brings me to the question that, these days, we ask about everything: How might Social Security be affected by the advent of AI? A short answer: If, as many of us fear, AI accelerates rising income inequality, it will further reduce the payroll tax receipts that currently pay for Social Security and further endanger its finances. On the other hand, if AI, as its advocates promise, leads to faster economic growth, it will increase the potential tax base that could and should be used to support Social Security and other social insurance programs. But to take advantage of that larger base, we’ll have to get serious about taxing wealth and capital income. Is Social Security in trouble? Yes, but only because of the way its financing is currently structured — a structure that no longer works well because our society and economy have become so unequal. Moreover, Trump’s immigration policies are further endangering its already deteriorating financial condition. So don’t believe Republicans’ gaslighting that it will be necessary to cut Social Security benefits. All that is necessary to preserve Social Security is political will to raise taxes on the wealthy and a sensible immigration policy. MUSICAL CODA Actually 67 under current law.
Is It Time To Reassess Live Nation Entertainment (LYV) After Recent Regulatory Scrutiny?
Wondering whether Live Nation Entertainment at around US$167.50 is priced for perfection or still offers room for value is a fair question for any investor looking at the stock today. Recent returns, including 2.0% over the past week, 2.8% over the past month, 15.3% year to date and 16.7% over the last year, along with a 92.4% three year return and 92.0% five year return, show how much sentiment on the stock has shifted over different time frames. Recent news coverage has focused on Live...
Dear Abby: Politics Form Wedge Between Mother and Daughter
Syndicated columnist Jeanne Phillips, writing as Dear Abby, answers readers’ questions.
College sports is suddenly facing a major question that hinges on gambling, the ‘unpardonable sin’
Without legal protections, the NCAA struggles to enforce rules, leaving the future of college sports governance uncertain.
North Dakota judicial nominee questioned on political views during Senate hearing
A North Dakota federal judge nominated to serve on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals answered pointed questions from U.S. senators Wednesday about whether judges should speak out on political issues.
Farage suddenly returns to political stage – but dodges questions about £5m gift
Reform UK leader has been unusually quiet in recent weeks – at great cost to the party during a crucial byelection
Charlotte votes raise questions about business influence and ‘the Charlotte Way’
Two key votes by the Charlotte City Council in the past month have left some residents and business leaders wondering how much influence the city’s business community still has — and whether the so-called “Charlotte Way” is fading.
How Much Should Governments Invest in Sports? Soccer Offers a Test Case.
The growth of soccer in the United States reflects decades of public-sector involvement, raising broader questions about sports-related economic development.
Cell Therapy Clinical Trials: Breaking Down the Science
Breakthrough T1D is here to answer all of your questions about islet cell therapies, from the research lab to real-world treatments.
I went to the Xbox Showcase, met with Xbox execs, fans, and developers — Something HAS changed ... but for how long?
Xbox is on a tear right now, with a lot of positive momentum. But one question I wanted to ask above all others: are they ACTUALLY in it for the long haul?
College sports is suddenly facing a major question that hinges on gambling, the 'unpardonable sin'
Those anxious to tease out worst-case scenarios that could come from gambling's growing stranglehold on sports couldn't have found a better place for one of those scenarios to land — in the middle of college football, a sport that for decades has proven uniquely unable to deal with its most-press...
College sports is suddenly facing a major question that hinges on gambling, the 'unpardonable sin'
The controversy over gambling in college sports has intensified with Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby's court victory.
New OMB rule could break science in the United States
The drug that saved your mother. The treatment your doctor recommended. The clinical trial that bought someone you love more time. None of it was inevitable. It required a system built to operate outside politics and sustained over decades, because science doesn’t operate on the timeline of a politician. That system is now under direct threat. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a new rule to regulate all federal grants, not just science, but housing, education, defense, NASA and everything in between, that would fundamentally change how research is conducted in the United States. There have been a lot of fires in the past 16 months, and if everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency. But this is a very big deal. These rules would strip away the independence that has kept science from becoming a political tool. The good news is there’s still something we can all do. How the grant system was designed to work When I was a new faculty member, I was full of millions of ideas, so I sat down and wrote an NIH proposal. I worked on it for months and thought it was so good. Then I sent it to my mentor. It came back covered in comments. Places where my reasoning wasn’t as airtight as I’d thought, methods that could be stronger, gaps in my thinking that I had been too close to the work to see. It stung, as honest feedback always does, but peer review almost always makes the work better. In fact, it’s the backbone of how American science has functioned for generations. At NIH, submitted proposals go to a panel of scientists who have experience in the field. These are the people who can read research methods and spot their weaknesses, who understand when an experiment is designed well and when it isn’t. Applications are scored rigorously, and often only the top 3-20% of proposals receive funding. The people making funding decisions are required to justify them based on these reviews. To be clear: this is not a perfect system, and good science still goes unfunded more often than any of us would like due to limited resources. There is also criticism that peer review may undervalue bold ideas that are risky but could have high payoffs. But the peer review system is nonetheless a meaningful part of the grant selection process. While thoughtful and careful changes could improve the system, the changes being proposed by OMB will not make things better. The rule that could change everything Through this OMB proposal, the system that helps decide what gets funded is being dismantled. There are many troubling elements buried in this proposal, but three provisions stand out in particular. Each would be damaging alone. Together, they would change what kind of science gets done in America, and who it serves. 1. Political appointees would decide which science gets funded, and peer review would be explicitly sidelined or ignored. The guidelines your doctor follows, the standards that determine what’s in your air and water, the drugs that get approved for your family: all of it starts with a funding decision. Right now, that decision is made by scientists who can evaluate whether the work is actually sound and whether it could move the needle forward. Under this proposal, funding decisions could be made by political appointees. The careful, expertise-driven review process that shapes grant funding would be effectively sidelined. That means that a poorly designed study could get funded simply because someone in a political office liked the sound of it, while rigorous, important work doesn’t get funded because it no longer aligns with the administration’s priorities. In other words, critical work that benefits all of us could now be missed just because it has become politically inconvenient. 2. Grants could be canceled at any point, without warning, in the middle of ongoing work. Say your tax dollars have been paying for a cancer study for two years. The grant was awarded for five years, so the team is mid-experiment. There are three additional years’ worth of answers that could change how the disease is treated for hundreds of thousands of people. With this new rule, the federal government could cancel the remaining funding tomorrow, walk away from the commitment it made with your money, and have no legal obligation to finish what it started. This is a huge waste of money. There are rarely other sources of funding for this work, which means the team, the graduate students, postdocs, and research staff who have dedicated years of their careers to this project could lose their jobs. Patients who have contributed their time to studies may not see it turn into useful learnings for others. Every hour of work already completed could result in nothing useful. Science can take decades to get to tangible outcomes. It needs a stable funding system to flourish. 3. Researchers would have a harder time communicating their findings without pre-approval from the federal government. There is a saying from Sir Mark Walport: “Science isn’t finished until it’s communicated.” Science is no use to anyone if it is kept locked away in the labs that produced the data. The proposed rule could make communicating research findings harder in a number of ways: Make it harder for scientists to widely share their findings in scientific journals. Publication costs, including journal fees that allow for broad public access, could not be paid for by federal funds which is often how scientists pay these costs. Restrict researchers from engaging publicly about how their findings should inform policy or public health guidelines. This would restrict scientists from doing the work that transforms years of lab work into decisions that actually affect people’s lives. Make it harder for scientists to attend conferences. Conferences would now need to be approved by the federal agency at the time of grant award. This disadvantages conferences or publications that are not politically aligned. Conferences are a key way in which scientists learn about work happening in their field so they can collaborate and build on each other’s findings. What good is science with a muzzle? The long-term impact These changes could (and hopefully would) be reversed under the next administration. But by then, damage has been done. Once projects are halted or denied funding by political appointees, people leave their science careers for other paths or even leave the country to do their amazing science elsewhere. You cannot pause a scientific study the way you pause a subscription you decided isn’t useful anymore. You cannot freeze a research team that depends on salaries to feed their families, causing a scramble for replacement funding that, in most cases, simply does not exist. When the money stops, everything stops, and all the work in progress and its potential are lost. Despite all of the language about reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, this new proposed rule increases the administrative burden tremendously. Every researcher watching this unfold will make a rational decision: don’t start anything that will take a decade to finish. This includes not building a team around funding that could vanish, or asking the big questions that need patience and stability to answer. The most consequential science, the kind that produces the treatments and the breakthroughs that reach your doctor’s office twenty years from now, is exactly the science that would be abandoned first. This is still a proposal, so we can all do something Some worry this rule is already a done deal. But by law, OMB is required to open a public comment period. Those comments matter because they inform members of Congress, they can be used in litigation, and they create a public record. So here’s what you can do: Submit a public comment. The public comment period on this proposed change is open until July 13. Anyone can submit a comment, and OMB is required to respond to substantial ones. Each comment must be different to count as distinct; identical comments will be counted only once. Comment as an individual, not on behalf of your organization. Here’s a full resource to help you, with useful examples, but in general: Share a story about how science or federal funding has benefitted you or is involved in your work. Are you or someone you loved a cancer survivor? Do you know someone with Alzheimer’s? Have you received NIH/NSF or other federal funding? All of these can be stories you use to highlight why you care. Explain why you’re worried about these proposed changes. You can use the wording found here or in other resources to help you. Ask them to withdraw this proposed rule. Contact your elected representatives. Congress allocates money to federal agencies to spend, and it has oversight of how that process works. You can let your representatives know this proposed change concerns you and ask them to intervene. There are levers they can push that can help at this moment. Let others know why federal funding matters. This isn’t just about science, but ALL federal grants, including for education systems, defense projects, and more. The process, including the importance of federal funding, is invisible to many. We can all make it more visible by sharing how science benefits us and why we value it. You can also share this article, or any of the resources linked here, to help spread awareness! Bottom line We are quickly losing ground in scientific research in the U.S. More changes, like the proposed rule by OMB, would decimate our ability to conduct research here, leaving us all worse off: fewer treatments for pancreatic cancer, less research on pollution impacts, fewer answers for patients with rare disease, and more unaddressed health needs. The impact will be very real for all of us, regardless of where we stand politically. Using our voices for science is more important than ever. Love, LM Big thanks to Dr. Megan Ranney for reading this over and providing brilliant insights, as always. Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective at YLE and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health. You can find her on Substack, LinkedIn, Instagram and Threads. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “Translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Subscribe
Humans prefer to walk anticlockwise, scientists find
From Spain to Japan, experiments have repeatedly shown a left-turn bias, but exact mechanic ‘is still an open question’
Bill Gates to face congressional investigators about ties to Jeffrey Epstein
Bill Gates will testify behind closed doors on Capitol Hill Wednesday after the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files earlier this year raised questions about the billionaire’s ties to the late convicted sex offender – marking one of the most high-profile appearances before congressional investigators to date.
Man to appear in court over Belfast knife attack as rioting described as ‘race-based pogrom’ by SDLP leader
30-year-old man to appear in court today charged with attempted murder, with Keir Starmer expected to face questions on the disorder during PMQs