SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " topic " 681 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Poll: Home Run Derby or All-Star Game?
Editor's note: Welcome to Athlon Sports' poll of the day, where we ask readers to weigh in on the biggest topic of the day. Thanks for voting, and be sure to sound off in the comment section. We've got one more day of baseball action before most of the MLB's players get to relax during the all-star break.
WATCH: Politics Today for the week of July 12, 2026
On July 12, this episode of Politics Today on KAMR Local 4 News, Mari Ferrel reviews multiple political topics in the area.
SEGA talks importance of Sonic, failing to reach its goal, wanted new game to sell more
As part of a wide-ranging Famitsu interview with SEGA, president Shuji Utsumi touched upon a number of different topics, including Sonic the Hedgehog. The Japanese magazine published a lengthy discussion with the executive in this week’s issue. During their talk, Famitsu mentioned that Sonic the Hedgehog plays a pretty big role in the transmedia business. Utsumi said in response: “Sonic...
Trump Administration Taps Climate Science Critic to Oversee National Climate Assessment
Matthew M. Wielicki has criticized the scientific consensus on global warming as alarmist. Now he’ll oversee a major federal report on the topic.
World Cup betting surge fuels renewed push to legalize sports wagering in Texas
With the Texas Legislature set to return in January for their regular session, sports betting advocates are hoping lawmakers prioritize the topic.
World Cup betting surge fuels renewed push to legalize sports wagering in Texas
With the Texas Legislature set to return in January for their regular session, sports betting advocates are hoping lawmakers prioritize the topic.
WHO calls for urgent action as new cancer cases are projected to nearly double by 2050
Millions of people are facing physical, emotional and financial toll of cancer, a disease that claims more than 26 000 lives every day, according to a report released today by the World Health Organization (WHO). With an estimated 20.6 million new cases and close to 10 million deaths annually, cancer remains the second leading cause of death globally, after cardiovascular disease.
Candidates for Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District make their case to Lexington business leaders
Ralph Alvarado and Zach Dembo squared off Tuesday on topics including tariffs, immigration and federal spending
Explaining The Comcast and NBCUniversal Divorce
(Welcome to the “Most Important Story of the Week”, my bi-weekly strategy column analyzing the most important (but often not buzziest) news story of the last two weeks. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. Please subscribe.) I hope everyone had a happy Fourth of July in America, celebrating the country’s 250th birthday. Frankly, I am bummed the 250th wasn’t a bigger celebration, but that’s a different topic for a different Substack. While it was generally a quiet week on the entertainment/streaming/media business fronts, we still had some interesting news stories. Actually, that kinda undersells one of the stories, a huge, huge, huge divestment that could upend the entertainment landscape... So let’s get right to it. In today’s column, I’ll cover Comcast spinning off the rest of NBCUniversal, an entertainment company investing in an LLM company and an LLM-owner investing in a movie studio, the latest round of threats of digital tariffs, and more. Let’s dive in. Subscribe Most Important Story of the Week - Most: Comcast/NBCU Breakup!!!! If I had to describe my reaction to Comcast spinning out NBCUniversal, it feels like a relationship ending, either breaking up or divorcing. Comcast’s decision to spin off the rest of NBCUniversal, after spinning off some of its cable assets into Versant last year, really does feel like a family breaking up under “irreconcilable differences”. Of my stereotypes of the entertainment moguls, my go-to for Comcast CEO Brian Roberts—heir to the Comcast fortune, but a man who’s been at the helm for 24 years now, and president for twelve years before that—is that he likes building empires. He cut his teeth acquiring cable rivals in the 1990s and tried to buy Disney repeatedly, then settled for NBCUniversal after a long court battle. (Contrast this with Rupert Murdoch, a man who also loved to buy, but would also sell when the price is right. Murdoch made Fox out of nothing, but then sold 20th Century Fox to Disney, arguably at the top of the market. So I understood why he sold.) But I don’t understand Roberts’ motivation to sell now. I have some explanations but no single, super-satisfying explanation. Strategically, it would just make more sense to have kept NBCUniversal in-house, especially for a one-time empire builder like Comcast. Yet one powerful force—arguably the decider in modern capitalism—likely overwhelmed all other considerations. At first, I thought I’d arrange my thoughts as a “Five Why” analysis, digging through each layer of the puzzle. But instead, I found myself asking, “But…why?” (And I only ended up with four sections.) So let’s look at Comcast from that angle. Then, at the end, I’ll give my biggest strategic recommendation for every company in Hollywood. It’s obvious, but sometimes, the obvious strategy is the most ignored. But…Why? The Stock Market, Conglomerations, and Sum of the Parts Analysis We’re just getting started with this issue, but the rest is for paid subscribers of the Entertainment Strategy Guy, so if you’d like to find out… Why Comcast could never get a “tech company” valuation The not-so-secret motivation for Comcast What Versant has to do with all of this The key strategic advice I think every entertainment exec should follow (though it’s really obvious) Some big AI investment news… Whether we’ll see digital tariffs… And more… ...please subscribe! We can only keep doing this great work with your support.
ACC takes on DOAC use with new scientific statement
Direct oral anticoagulants continue to be underutilized and inappropriately dosed. The American College of Cardiology hopes a new scientific statement can help address those issues and provide clinicians with an updated look at this important topic.
Minnesota K-12 health standards’ future unclear after administrative judge objects
Officials expected to phase in the state’s first-ever statewide school benchmarks on topics from nutrition and first aid to sex abuse prevention through 2028. That timeline is in jeopardy now after an administrative law judge ripped the state’s process to implement the standards.
Men’s health fair planned Friday
PARKERSBURG — Youth participants in the Student Summit are addressing men’s mental health and will host a fair Friday at Boys & Girls Club of Parkersburg. The summit is a leadership and advocacy program hosted by the Boys & Girls Club of America. Four club teens chose men’s health as the topic for their advocacy […]
Why A.I. Distillation Has Become a Hot Topic in the Race with China
U.S. companies complain that competitors in China are unfairly copying their A.I. systems using a technique that has been around for years.
Gran Turismo 7 survey focuses on player progression
A Sony-issued survey about Gran Turismo 7’s player experience covers all topics, but seems heavily focused on progression systems.
MSU student group helps foster conversations across the political aisle
MSU Middle Ground is a group that fosters conversation about hot-topic issues with people across the political aisle to create empathy for the other side.
Breast cancer
WHO fact sheet on breast cancer, including information on prevalence, risk factors, symptoms, management, global impact and WHO's work on breast cancer.
Long Reads for the Long Weekend
(Welcome to the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a newsletter on the entertainment industry and business strategy. I write a weekly Streaming Ratings Report and a bi-weekly strategy column, along with occasional deep dives into other topics, like today’s article. Please subscribe.) Happy Fourth of July weekend! As has been a tradition of mine going back to the beginning of the EntStrategyGuy website, I’m sharing my favorite long reads of the last year, like I did in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2024, and 2025. Let’s dive right in! Subscribe “Different Prices for the Same Ride: How Uber and Lyft Use AI to Get More Money Out of You“ by Derek Kravitz in Consumer Reports I don’t think surveillance pricing, like the kind described in this brilliant Consumer Reports article, is long for the world—it’s toxically unpopular—but we’ll see if either party takes on this issue. If I ran a political party focused on affordability, I would focus on a few pro-consumer and pro-market policies: Banning non-compete agreements. Ending surveillance pricing Eliminating junk fees (read more here...) Ensuring “right to repair” for consumer (and military!) products Capping excessive app store fees Stopping digital/algorithmic price-fixing tools. Preventing automatic subscription price increases. And more. If you want to fight inflation, there are a lot of great ways to do it quickly. Speaking of higher prices... “Secret Documents Show Pepsi and Walmart Colluded to Raise Food Prices Across the Economy“ by Matt Stoller in BIG Again, I think a political party should focus on lowering prices for consumers. And deals like this—Walmart making a deal/forcing Pepsi to offer the lowest prices at its stores and nowhere else—hypothetically lower prices at Walmart...but raise them everywhere else. “15 DUIs, still driving: California’s failure to take repeat drunk drivers off the road“ by Robert Lewis and Lauren Hepler in CalMatters CalMatters does terrific reporting in California, something the Golden State desperately needs more of, and this article is a great example of that. “PugLips: The next insanely popular thing you’ve never heard of…” by Simon Carless in Game Discover Co I thought that this parody article (and yes, it’s a parody, but I was definitely unsure at first) was hilarious and totally nailed how much tech/business journalism feels these days. Actually, three of my favorite articles this year were on hype in the video game industry, including Georg Zoller’s “The Video Game Industries Very Dark Night”—which I linked to recently and wrote a follow-up here—and Owen Mahoney’s “Derek Zoolander, Videogame Exec”. In particular, I like Mahoney’s focus on user experience as a guide to what trends will actually grab hold of customers. “The Matrix Lies“ by Evan Shapiro in Media War & Peace Evan Shapiro’s first person account of his experience with AI was hilarious. I think LLMs capabilities have significantly grown from last summer, and yet...my editor/researcher just had an abysmal experience using an LLM to do a quite basic task (which our LLM normally does each week) and the LLM made a mistake on every single data entry...along with seven different mistakes affecting twelve of the twenty or so entries, including mistakes that are explicitly spelled out in the prompt. That’s a brutal failure rate. Again, if you use AI/LLM for data collection, you need to take a lot of extra steps to verify and check the data. “Ghosts in the Balcony: A Cross-Country Trip to 58 Theaters Fighting to Survive“ by Matthew Frank in The Ankler I thought Matthew Frank’s pitch to head across America to visit theaters sounded insane aggressive at the time—at least it felt that way to someone a decade older than him; man, to be in your twenties again, am I right?—but I knew the result would be great. And it was, a terrific feature by a great young writer. Also, I loved Matthew’s recent article on who’s getting the precious few entry level jobs in Hollywood. (Hint: nepotism.) “Disney erased FiveThirtyEight“ and “Did Las Vegas get too greedy?” by Nate Silver in Silver Bulletin I love media history and analysis, and there’s no one better to get the history of FiveThirtyEight than from Nate Silver, who wrote about his personal experience in one of my favorite pieces from this year. I also loved Nate’s breakdown of what’s causing Vegas’ woes, but I’ll offer one criticism, summarized as “Might I suggest antitrust?” Many centrists/center-right/libertarian thinkers (Nate is self-described as the latter) often don’t consider consolidation or antitrust as factors in policy issues like housing, America’s military readiness, or, in this case, Las Vegas. Even if libertarians want to debunk antitrust/consolidation concerns, I’d love to read that debunking. In this case, Vegas is incredibly consolidated (though it also has been for a long time) and I’d have loved to read Nate at least contending with this factor, since he addresses almost every other potential factor for Vegas’ decline. “Why Microsoft’s Carbon Removal Pullback Is Such a Big Deal“ by Robinson Meyer in Heatmap News I’m a big supporter of carbon removal efforts, but this nascent industry faces a lot of headwinds, including this big move most recently. I think it’s clear that solar panels and batteries should be able to get the world to its carbon footprint goals, but effective carbon renewal remains necessary to prevent the worst impacts of global warming. “AI is killing the cheap smartphone“ by David Oks LLMs and AI will impact the world in ways we’re not ready for, and already, third world countries are seeing the prices of cheap cellphones skyrocket due to the cost of chips skyrocketing. This article by David Oks is a terrific breakdown. “100 Days of Madness: Netflix, Paramount, Warner and the Future of Hollywood“ by Wade Major at Hollywood Heretic Wade Major dove deep into Hollywood/streaming’s financials in this must read piece. Not that I agree with everything in this article (read my take on Warner Bros./Paramount here) but the analysis is top notch. I think many people discount how quality thinking, regardless of the argument/conclusion, will make you a better thinker. “Erased by the UFC: Frank Shamrock, The MMA GOAT of the 20th Century“ by Nate Wilcox in The MMA Draw Newsletter Growing up playing the UFC fighting game on the Dreamcast, Frank Shamrock was my favorite MMA fighter, and this history/tribute to him was great. Other Fun Reads “The Hardest Part Of History To Tell Is How It Felt“ by Craig Fehrman at Defector “Unmasking the Sea Star Killer“ by Craig Welch at bioGraphic “What Could Save the Industry? Fin-Syn“ by Richard Rushfield in The Ankler Alex Rollins Berg in Underexposed on movie bumpers, pillow shots, Disney trash cinema, cult films, and Casablanca. David H. Montgomery in YouGov’s The Surveyor on punctuation marks, condiments, dinosaurs, and comic strips and kids media. “How Medium finally pivoted its way to profitability“ and “Why the best journalists on YouTube are all former Vox employees“ by Simon Owens in Simon Owens’s Media Newsletter “It’s Not Just You, Netflix Shows Have Gotten Slightly Shorter: Here’s What the Data Says“ by Kasey Moore at What’s on Netflix “Numlock Awards: How Diane Warren became the biggest loser in Oscar history“ by Nathaniel Rakich and “Numlock Awards: The Oscar Bait era is over. The Oscar Chum era is here.” by Walt Hickey & Michael Domanico at Numlock Awards
Xtalks Announces its Life Science Webinar Calendar for July 2026
Stay on top of current hot topics through free webinars presented by leading experts in the pharma, biotech, medical device and food industries. Access to all webinars is free, so be sure to register today to save your place! Participate in the discussion and stay relevant in your field!
Mamdani delivers address to mark nation's 250th birthday
Mamdani’s 15-minute speech covered a range of topics about America.
Opinion: Proposed federal grant rules are attempt to ‘muzzle’ science | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
A proposed overhaul in how federal grants are awarded is aimed at shutting down scientific research on disfavored topics such as health disparities, climate change, gender identity, and vaccines, according to Harvard Chan School’s Nancy Krieger.
New study: Americans’ perceptions of the health harms of climate change
Awareness of climate change as a health issue is increasing, but polarization on the topic is, too.
A.I. takes center stage in health topics discussed at the Aspen Ideas festival
Right now, some of the world's brightest leaders, scholars and artists are in Colorado for the Aspen Ideas festival. NBC News’ Kate Snow went to discuss how A.I. Is reshaping the classroom and how we manage our health.
Efzimfotase alfa demonstrated improvements in bone health in treatment-naïve pediatric patients with hypophosphatasia achieving median difference of 1.67 vs placebo in RGI-C Score at week 25 in MULBERRY Phase III trial
Positive results from the MULBERRY Phase III trial showed that efzimfotase alfa (ALXN1850), an investigational enzyme replacement therapy, demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in bone health in children (2 to
30-Day Challenge: All-Time Favorite Bears Defensive Back
Each day in June, we’ll roll out a fresh topic to get Bears fans thinking in our 30 Day Challenge, and today we want to know your all-time favorite defensive back.
Air-conditioning becomes political amid sweltering Europe heatwave
Much of western Europe baked under a “heat dome” as temperatures soar. Authorities warn that the extreme conditions could endanger lives across countries, many of which have limited air conditioning, a topic of which has left the people of Paris divided.
The Business of Beauty Global Forum: Inside the Industry
Jane Hertzmark Hudis, Simone Dominici and Vicky Tsai were among the speakers unpacking the most pressing topics for the industry in the second session of The Business of Beauty Global Forum 2026.
Making Our Own Luck
We are cross-posting a piece that former NIH official Kris Willis wrote for Macroscience. Kris is now the President and Founder of the Woodley Park Institute, for which I’m a board member. Picking winners or hedging bets? Federal science agencies have long wrestled with the question of how to ensure their billions of dollars of grants and contracts result in maximum benefits for Americans. On the surface, it might seem that a goal-oriented, interventionist style of management would be the best policy: prioritize our most pressing problems and distribute funding accordingly.This top-down strategy creates a unique hazard, though: bad choices can send resources in the wrong direction, resulting in slow progress that impedes the delivery of tangible benefits to citizens. Moreover, if decision makers pursue an applied advance when the underlying scientific principles remain poorly understood, they risk costly failures and a loss of support for the research enterprise at large. Examples include Nixon’s 1971 War on Cancer, undertaken on the premise that a cure could be achieved in less than a decade, the drive to build an operational commercial fusion plant by the mid-1990s, and the National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease, which failed to produce the effective treatments and prevention strategies promised by 2025. The contrasting laissez-faire approach is to hedge your bets. If the path to an advance is impossible to predict, then the wisest choice might be to distribute funding to as widely as possible. The main risk of this strategy is that spreading funding thinly may limit the resources available to the most promising research, resulting in the same negative outcomes as the interventionist approach: limited support for the most promising topics, slow progress, and delayed returns. In reality, at science agencies like the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, program managers navigate between these two extremes, setting some funds aside to target high-priority areas and using the rest to cover the widest possible range of meritorious proposals. This middle path seems like the most rational way to proceed, but it still requires making choices. How much should be set aside for high priority topics? What should those topics be? How should we define merit? Expert opinion can provide a helpful guide, but leading experts can have remarkably different opinions about what matters and what should be prioritized. Moreover, experts and administrators alike can be risk averse, giving an edge to high-profile, well-established concepts. What’s really needed is a data-driven framework to help guide decision-making, one that doesn’t simply repackage prestige or incumbency. Recognizing breakthroughs years in advance Many breakthroughs fail to attract funding or recognition at the earliest stages of development. Katalin Karikó, for example, spent years struggling to win grants for work on mRNA that would eventually win her and Drew Weissman a Nobel Prize. Similar stories can be told about Jim Allison’s groundbreaking studies leading to the development of cancer immunotherapy, Stan Pruisner’s demonstration that prions can self-replicate without DNA, or Robin Warren and Barry Marshall’s proof that Helicobacter pylori, not stress, causes ulcers. Yet at some point, the scientific community recognizes and responds to transformative breakthroughs like these. How does that change happen? And what if science funders could identify the areas that are on the cusp of a breakthrough? Those questions led my collaborators and me to study how scientists responded to past breakthroughs. Based on patterns in that data, we developed a means of predicting future breakthroughs, using biomedicine as a proof of concept. It’s worth taking a moment to describe how our approach works. Briefly, our prediction process begins by grouping the 18 million or so peer-reviewed papers in PubMed, the authoritative database of biomedical research, into roughly 50,000 unique topics. A small subset of these topics are so widely acclaimed as breakthroughs that they have been recognized with a major prize like a Nobel or a Lasker Award. We theorized that studying the development of these outliers over time, especially before they gained acclaim, was the key to identifying future instances of them. After defining topics, we chose 21 representative breakthroughs and asked what they looked like before they won prestigious prizes. To answer that question, we re-ran our topic-mapping algorithm repeatedly, winding back the clock one year each time, stringing together the years to follow the progress of each field as it grew and advanced. We found that in each case, the years leading up to a discovery followed a pattern: a burst of papers on a new, rapidly evolving topic, many of which quickly became influential. These characteristics—the percent of papers that are new, the percentage of papers that are brought in from other topics, and the influence of each individual paper—can all be measured separately for any given topic. Together, they act as a predictive signal that is detectable an average of five years before a transformative discovery is made, and up to thirty years before the discovery receives a major prize. Scanning the current research landscape for topics that display this signal allows us to predict what work will likely produce a future breakthrough. Each year we analyzed includes four or five signals, a number that appears to have remained constant across a twenty year time frame. In their classic work on the sociology of science, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar established that the desire to participate in a major discovery is an important motivator for scientists as they consider whether they should take up (or abandon) a research problem. Although further work is needed, the simplest explanation for our results is that this behavior is widespread enough to detect at scale. A foundational advance, or something like it, draws the attention of scientists and causes them to change the direction of their research. They vote with their feet, staking their own reputation and careers by publishing on and citing the new idea. That upswell of interest is the foundation of our breakthrough signal. What kind of research does our model identify as a breakthrough? After building a model based on the patterns in our 21 preselected breakthroughs, we tested it by identifying all early signals of discovery from 1994 through 1997. Of the 18 signals we found in that time period, 17 can be traced forward in time to a breakthrough. Examples include super-resolution fluorescence microscopy (see the image above), the directed evolution of proteins and enzymes (Chemistry Nobel, 2018), and sequencing the human genome (National Medal of Science, 2008). The discovery of the role of leptin signaling in obesity is a particularly interesting case study. Around 1950, scientists noticed the existence of a type of lab mouse that suffered from a unique inherited form of obesity. When given the freedom to choose their own diet, these mice ate more than normal and preferred food that was high in fat. Researchers had few clues as to why the animals overate; early experiments pointed to the existence of a soluble ob factor found circulating in the bloodstream that regulated appetite, but its identity was unknown. In 1994, Jeffrey Friedman and colleagues identified and sequenced the ob gene, noting that the protein it encoded appeared to fit the profile of a circulating factor. A year later, a trio of high-profile publications demonstrated that ob was a hormone that regulated body weight and fat deposition by regulating appetite. One of these was co-authored by Friedman, who christened it leptin from the ancient Greek word for thin. Using our model, the data from 1996 make it clear this advance would become a breakthrough. Scientists had flocked to study the biology of the new hormone, generating the flurry of new papers and citations required to produce a signal. One of these demonstrated that serum leptin concentrations reflected the amount of adipose tissue in the human body, providing clinical validation of the earlier mouse studies. Before the identification of leptin, scientists were unable to point to a specific molecule that controlled appetite and adiposity, so that it was impossible to rule out non-physiological causes of obesity; its characterization fundamentally changed our concept of weight gain. In 2010, Friedman and fellow pioneer Douglas Coleman were awarded a Lasker for the discovery. Our work also identifies breakthroughs in clinical practice and behavioral and social sciences, even though these areas are less likely to draw the attention of major prize committees. One example that falls into this category is the introduction of endovascular aneurysm repair, a minimally invasive surgical procedure for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm, a leading cause of death among Americans over the age of 65. Relative to the previous standard of care, it reduces in-hospital mortality by almost four-fold. In 2017, Timothy Chuter received the American College of Surgeons’ prestigious Jacobsen Innovation award for his multiple refinements to the technique. Another under-recognized breakthrough identified by our model is the development of standardized survey instruments to assess the quality of life for HIV+ patients. The antiretroviral cocktails introduced in the mid-1990s reduced AIDS mortality, but treatment came with serious side effects. The new evaluations showed that patients whose disease progressed had worse physical functioning than Americans with other chronic diseases, while those who were asymptomatic maintained a health-related quality of life on par with the overall US population. This evidence made it possible for patients and activists to argue that even in the absence of a total cure, and in spite of the side effects, alleviation of symptoms was a worthwhile priority for clinicians. My colleagues and I have failed to identify any significant recognition for the physicians and health policy experts who pioneered this advance, although in 2016, researchers called for the World Health Organization to set targets for good health-related quality of life as part of its framework to end the AIDS pandemic. From forecasting to funding How should science funders use our predictions? Any serious discussion of what we should do with this new capability needs to begin with an understanding of its limitations. We can’t (and shouldn’t) invest all of our resources in the small number of topics predicted to produce breakthroughs. Innovative new fields are born from existing ones; they rarely arise de novo. If funders don’t maintain a diverse portfolio, the breakthroughs of tomorrow will have no antecedents. Think of this as eating the seed corn, or killing the goose that lays the golden egg. There are also multiple goals of funding beyond basic scientific discovery, including translating discoveries into clinical practice, developing new technologies, supporting economic development, and training new scientists. The investments needed to accomplish these goals are likely different from those required to support emerging breakthroughs. Finally, we must be aware that we may not capture every instance of a breakthrough. The concept is fuzzy, and not every significant discovery is recognized with a major award. Further, breakthroughs are rare, meaning that our dataset is, by necessity, small. This makes formal estimates of accuracy challenging. Although our overall success rate appears to be high, any one signal may turn out to be a false positive. We found one apparent example: the development of the third generation COX-2 inhibitors, Vioxx and Celebrex, which were much celebrated in the early 2000s as effective but non-addictive pain relievers, meets all the algorithmic criteria of a breakthrough. Five years after it received FDA approval, researchers demonstrated that Vioxx was associated with serious cardiovascular complications, and the manufacturer voluntarily pulled the drug from the market. Celebrex remains available, although like other NSAIDs, it carries an FDA warning for increased cardiovascular risk. Decision makers who were overly focused on the breakthrough potential of this research might have wasted substantial resources nurturing an area that ultimately proved to be a failure—but so would those who relied on expert opinion at the time. That said, the potential benefits of funding the next mRNA vaccine or cancer immunotherapy years earlier than we might have are large. When we can’t assume the outcome of an action, it’s worth conducting an experiment. Can targeted support for areas that are poised to produce a breakthrough increase the return on scientific investment without cannibalizing future advances? With the necessary administrative infrastructure in place, conducting this experiment would be straightforward. First, identify all the breakthrough signals between 2018 and 2023, select half at random, and commit to a decade of investment. For biomedicine, a six year window should yield about 30 topics with the potential to produce a breakthrough. Providing strong support to half of these might be accomplished for $300 million a year. That’s roughly half of the recent annual budget of the NIH Common Fund or around 20% of the fiscal year 2025 budget for ARPA-H. After five years, then again at ten, compare to see which group — the one that was actively managed, or the control — produced more breakthroughs, and on what timescale. Although we used biomedicine as an example, the same experiment could just as well be run for physics, materials science, or any other discipline. Any attempt to undertake such an experiment should keep three points top of mind. First, we can predict the topic of future breakthroughs, but the people and vision for how to move the work forward are still important. In practice, this means success requires active program managers with the expertise to develop the science and the authority to do so, including by recruiting investigators. Second, we would be wise to learn from the failures of past attempts to fund transformative research. High among these are funding modestly repackaged work, confusing the genuinely novel with the merely unfamiliar, and relying too much on incumbent investigators. All of these risks can be mitigated by thoroughly and intelligently integrating high quality data into portfolio management. Finally, we need to have patience. Even with strong funding support, producing a breakthrough takes time. If supporting breakthroughs is the best way to nurture the birth of new fields, we also need to accurately describe and properly manage the other two stages, so that we invest wisely throughout the productive lifetime of ideas and divest once they reach the point of diminishing returns. We would benefit from more study of all of these phases, especially the transition from one to another. More research could answer questions like: When does a breakthrough become an established field? How do the availability of funding, the size and characteristics of the available workforce, and the accumulation of evidence that disagrees with prevailing models affect a field’s decline? Exactly how do old ideas give birth to new ones, and can we speed up the process? The more we understand about the dynamics of scientific progress, the better we can maximize the odds that our curiosity leads to results. I’d call that finding a way to make our own luck.
Another look at carrots and eyesight; how to get more fiber; why mosquitoes bite some people and not others; plus other stories with Vanderbilt Health sources
AARP reporter Stacey Colino interviewed Milam Brantley, MD, Associate Professor of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, in 2020 for a story about whether eating carrots can improve vision. Sacramento Bee reporter Samantha Agate has now used Brantley’s comments in an AI-curated story created by content specialists on the same topic that has been picked up by MSN and others. Prevention magazine interviewed Heidi Silver, RD, PhD, Founding Director of the Vanderbilt Diet, Body Composition, and Human Metabolism Core, for a story about the importance of fiber and how people can get more of it in their diet. William Schaffner, MD, Professor of Preventive Medicine, was quoted by several news outlets about public health issues, including: Women’s Health (tick bites and alpha-gal syndrome); The Washington Post (tetanus); and Healthline (why mosquitoes prefer to bite some people and leave others alone). A visit to Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt by some Banana Ball baseball players was covered by The Tennessean and WZTV Fox 17 News, and The Tennessean’s story was also picked up by Yahoo! Sports. Clarksville Now published a story written by the Montgomery County Economic Development Team, whointerviewed Bradley Stancombe, MD, professor of Clinical Pediatrics, Vanderbilt Neonatology, about the new energy of Vanderbilt Clarksville Hospital and how the facility is recruiting physicians. Healio Allergy/Asthma group editorial director Richard Gawel interviewed Mark Rolfsen, MD, Clinical Fellow in the Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, for a story about his presentation at the American Thoracic Society meeting on metal health outcomes following ICU discharge. Nashville Scene reporter Hannah Herner interviewed James Crowe, MD, Director of the Vanderbilt Center for Antibody Therapeutics, for a story about his efforts to prepare for the next pandemic by isolating antibodies that can neutralize dangerous viruses. Medscape reporter Kathleen Doheny interviewed Neesha Choma, Associate Chief of Staff of Vanderbilt University Hospital, for a story about how hospitals can reduce readmissions.
Politics in the Park: GOP gubernatorial candidates share visions for Wyoming governor
CASPER, Wyo. — Three Republican gubernatorial candidates shared their views on a myriad of topics spanning taxation, energy production, resource rights
Politics in the Park: GOP gubernatorial candidates share visions for Wyoming governor
CASPER, Wyo. — Three Republican gubernatorial candidates shared their views on a myriad of topics spanning taxation, energy production, resource rights
Student From Des Plaines Wins National Science Foundation Award
Elmhurst University biochemistry major Hannah Cardenas, of Des Plaines, recently received a National Science Foundation Research Experiences for Undergraduates (NSF REU) award to participate in a 10-week summer research internship at the University of Texas at Dallas.
EPA Tells Staff Not to Smuggle Politics Into Official Opinions
The EPA’s comment letters to other agencies seeking input on environmental reviews must stick to the topic—clean air, water, and land—according to a Wednesday memo from David Fotouhi, the agency’s deputy administrator.
Summer drives in your GM vehicle get an upgrade with 200+ new apps on Google Play and more passenger entertainment
The latest selection of in-vehicle apps on Google Play put a wide range of streaming, gaming, and interactive content directly on the center display
Roku May Help Fox Avoid Aggregeddon
(Welcome to the “Most Important Story of the Week”, my bi-weekly strategy column analyzing the most important (but often not buzziest) news story of the last two weeks. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. Please subscribe.) Scrolling through links over the last week, I stumbled across this fun headline: Wow. Formula 1 (the sport, not the docu-series) is the perfect “dog not barking”. As a reminder, each week in my Streaming Ratings Report, I call out the shows that miss every viewership chart. I dub them “dogs not barking”—like the Sherlock Holmes mystery—because without any data, we forget they even exist. This is in contrast to something like, say, a film flop—cough The Mandalorian and Grogu cough—where even underperforming at the box office is widely discussed here, there and everywhere. In the US, Formula 1 is now in “no public viewership data, so not discussed” territory. After moving to Apple TV from its former home of ESPN, basically no one talks about it. Apple did publish an initial, unsourced, unsubstantiated, (dare I say unserious) datecdote claiming more folks are watching Formula 1 on Apple than ESPN, but we haven’t gotten any updates since. This stands in contrast to when the sport streamed on ESPN, and ESPN PR provided weekly viewership figures. Formula 1 was, at best, a niche sport in America—averaging 1.3 million viewers in the Big Data Plus era—but now it’s basically anonymous. (And yeah, after moving to Apple, I very, very, very much doubt its ratings increased.) Unfortunately, that story isn’t quite big enough to warrant a section in today’s “Most Important Story of the Week” column, but I wanted to call it out, because otherwise, no one else will! Certainly, no one will write articles about the silence/ratings decline, unlike when they wrote breathless articles connecting the rise in viewership to Netflix’s Drive to Survive, including Reuters just last month. (This is a topic I’ve tried to provide a moderate/nuanced/non-hyped take since 2022.) Anyway, on to this week’s issue. I was a bit worried I didn’t have a juicy topic, then the Murdochs went out and did their Murdoch thing: buying Roku. So that’s the story of the week, and it happens to touch on quite a few themes of the streaming wars and the disruption therein. I’ll cover that, plus why more consolidation in Hollywood media looks likely, more good news on the Hollywood labor front, whether we’ll see an uptick in production in Los Angeles, some Broadway and theme park news, cellphone prices going up in the third world (and possibly everywhere), and more. Subscribe Most Important Story of the Week - Another Big Media & Entertainment Merger The story of the week is clearly Fox is buying Roku for $22 billion. I read a lot of good strategy takes on why Fox bought this streaming TV device maker—and I’ll have mine below—but what fascinates me more is how this deal connects to quite a few themes of the streaming wars, linking to everything from the pace of M&A to “aggregeddon” to Netflix’s recent M&A actions/inactions to the shift to advertising from pure play streaming and more. The only topic I can’t really connect it to is my old theory, “never bet against Rupert Murdoch” because he isn’t the one who did this deal; his son Lachlan inked it. (Do I think he provided advice, even at his 95 years of age? Sure.) That plus I have one additional piece of strategy for all entertainment players, inspired by this deal. So let’s dive into all those topics, starting with why I like this deal. Roku is a Great M&A Buy
Breaking Business News: AbbVie To Acquire Apogee Therapeutics
AbbVie is set to acquire Apogee Therapeutics and its pipeline of multiple clinical-stage candidates in development across inflammatory and immunological diseases, including its lead asset, zumilokibart (APG777), a subcutaneous half-life extended monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin (IL)-13 in atopic dermatitis (AD). Under the terms of the transaction, AbbVie will acquire all outstanding shares of Apogee for $135.11 per share in cash. […]
Taken on the often-taboo topic of mental health and Black men
Gannon-Doak role 'main topic' for Scotland
Scott Allan believes Ben Gannon-Doak's role in Scotland's final World Cup Group C fixture with Brazil is "the main topic" in how the Scots prepare. The winger started the win against Haiti, playing a role in the winning goal, and came off the bench in the loss to Morocco. "I feel like when we land on the ball, we never really know what the next pass is," former Celtic and Hibernian midfielder Allan told the BBC's Scottish Football Podcast.
World Refugee Day 2026
Marking World Refugee Day 2026 and 75 years of the Refugee Convention, WHO calls for inclusive and resilient health systems that ensure refugees access to quality, continuous and culturally sensitive care. With 117.8 million people forcibly displaced worldwide, the organization emphasizes that protecting refugee health strengthens public health, preparedness and social cohesion. WHO highlights progress in integrating refugees into national health policies while urging greater investment, stronger data systems, emergency preparedness and meaningful participation of refugees in health planning and governance.
New workshop trains Catholic scientists to fight myth of faith-science conflict
This year at its annual conference, the Society of Catholic Scientists offered a new workshop designed to prepare Catholic scientists to speak on science and faith topics in the public square.
Now two powerful NC politicians say Raleigh would be a good MLB expansion city
MLB in NC has been a topic for years. Now the governor and Senate leader say Raleigh is a desirable location for a team.
Most TikTok sunscreen content is accurate but misinformation goes viral, study finds
A study found that videos promoting misinformation about sunscreen got more engagement on the platform, despite making up a fraction of the most popular posts on the topic.
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.
2026 Governors’ Health and Human Services Policy Advisors Institute
Health and human services policy advisors from states and territories across the country gathered in New Orleans for NGA’s annual HHS Policy Advisors Institute. Over one and a half days, advisors shared priorities, surfaced common challenges, and learned from peers on topics ranging from healthcare affordability to child welfare, SNAP administration, and the use of […]
Scientists Break Major Barrier: Are We Closer Than Ever to Real Invisibility? - Futura-Sciences
From H. G. Wells to Stealth Mode Invisibility has long been a topic that fires up our imagination. From the colorful camouflage suits designed to outsmart surveillance cameras, to military-grade technology meant to dodge radar, humanity’s efforts to disappear are almost as old as fiction itself. While we’re still far...
How morals influence food, health decisions
Olin’s Sydney Scott researches why consumers act the way they do in the grocery aisle – and the doctor’s office.
Me, worry? For US small businesses, Trump’s tariffs are now a non-issue
A year ago it was the hot topic, but business owners have seen there’s a limit to the president’s royal decrees
The Daily Hilario: Sunday
Your daily dose of off-topic shenanigans
Sonic Team head wants all Sonic games on modern platforms, would "magically do it" if possible
If Sonic Team head Takashi Iizuka had his way, he’d have all modern Sonic the Hedgehog games on modern platforms. Iizuka was speaking with Jeremy Klinger about various topics pertaining to the series. At one point, he was asked to select the one game he’d remake if given the opportunity. In response, Iizuka mentioned that he’d love to be able...
Column: New federal rules threaten scientific research
Proposed changes to US research funding and administration threaten public health and scientific progress. Political oversight and restrictions on research topics.
Dybala on his future: “I haven’t decided yet.”
Paulo Dybala spoke to Algarabía Deportiva, and the central topic of the interview was his future. The Argentine striker, whose contract with Roma expires at the end of the month, preferred not to rev...
Judge blocks Trump national parks order, calling it ‘censorship’
A federal court barred the Trump administration from continuing to remove information about civil rights, climate change and other topics from national parks, directing the government to restore what it changed within the coming weeks.
Trump admin must restore displays at national parks by July 4, judge rules
Federal judge orders exhibits and signs on topics like slavery and climate change that were removed be put back at parks and monuments by July 4th.
Trump administration must re-install exhibits on slavery, climate change and other topics at national parks, judge rules
President Donald Trump last year directed the Interior Department to make changes to parks, monuments and memorials to address any “false revision of history.”
Trump administration must restore history, science materials at parks, US judge rules
A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Friday to reinstall exhibits and signs touching on topics like slavery and climate change that it had removed from parks and monuments nationwide.
Trump administration must restore history, science materials at parks, US judge rules
A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Friday to reinstall exhibits and signs touching on topics like slavery and climate change that it had removed from parks and monuments nationwide "that do not align with its preferred narrative."
What Genres and Streamers Won 2025? And Who Lost? Plus Six Strategy Thoughts
(Welcome to the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a newsletter on the entertainment industry and business strategy. I write a weekly Streaming Ratings Report and a bi-weekly strategy column, along with occasional deep dives into other topics, like today’s article. Please subscribe.) Okay, time for the tenth and final article in my ten-part series recapping 2025. As I wrote two articles ago, my barometer for whether these articles are worth writing/publishing is whether they yield strategic insights, and once again, every subsection in this article has a strategic takeaway (or two). Honestly, these are the most important takeaways, since I step back and look holistically at the streaming wars in 2025. After I declare which streamers won and lost the year and which genres won and lost the year, I have six bonus thoughts. If you’d like to review the whole series... You can find the film flops here and here. You can find the TV shows flops here and here. You can find the top films here. You can find the top TV shows here, here and here. Then I declared my winners and losers in various categories here. You can find my 2024 recaps here. You can find the 2023 recaps here and here. And my 2022, 2021 and 2020 are all stored here. Yeah, it’s halfway through the year, and I’m just finishing this series up now. This year, I tried to space things out to not clog up my writing calendar, plus I had to wait for Fallout to (finally) drop off the charts. Well, that ended up pushing this series wayyyyy too far back on the calendar. Oh well. Next year, the goal will be to finish this series in March, but frankly, I just need more staff to make that happen. So please subscribe. Or, if you’re an advertiser (movie studio, FYC firm, or other), please reach out. Subscribe Streamer of the Year: Netflix Honorable Mention: Paramount (and CBS) So, just last week, I wrote about how Netflix has lost seven of its top twelve scripted shows in the last year. And I shared two very dour looks at Netflix’s potential slowdown this year and last. Guess what? They’re still the number one streamer in America. In 2025, they dominated new streaming shows (even if most of those new hit shows aren’t coming back for future seasons), they had the two biggest films, and they had the top returning TV show by a mile. The world is complicated, nuanced and messy. There may be warning signs of a future Netflix slowdown, but in 2025, Netflix was still the number one streamer. Note what I didn’t say? That Netflix has “won” the streaming wars, because obviously the streaming wars are still ongoing and, more importantly, YouTube is still growing—so now YouTube has “won” the streaming wars?—while Netflix’s share of TV consumption has stalled out. Avoid simplistic talking points, especially if they’re constantly repeated and could fit on a bumper sticker. I had trouble picking the second-place streamer this year, because all of the candidates for second place—Prime Video, HBO Max, and Paramount+—had some hits, but no one stood out. Then I saw this update from Nielsen on the top shows on TV in the 2025-206 season. Sure enough, Netflix had five of the top ten shows! And they had ten of the top 31 shows and fifteen of the top fifty. But CBS/Paramount+ actually had more shows in the top thirty and the top fifty. Paramount+/CBS had twelve of the top thirty shows and nineteen of the top fifty. Let me emphasize that: CBS/Paramount+ had more top shows in the 2025-2026 season than Netflix. And this look was just for TV shows, not live sports, an arena Netflix barely plays in. Meanwhile, Paramount-Skydance’s market cap is a fraction of Netflix’s. That’s weird, right? Streaming Loser of the Year, TV… We’re just getting started with this issue, but the rest is for paid subscribers of the Entertainment Strategy Guy, so if you’d like to find out… ...what streamer lost the year in TV... …whether Netflix could win the title for “film” streamer too… …who won the Disney vs Warner Bros. battle for theaters… ...what TV genres won and lost the year... ...what film genres won and lost the year... ...what film genre people think is thriving on streaming but isn’t… …why F-BOSSS TV shows don’t hold the same sway in the 2020s… …what it means to “flop” as a film on streaming… …UK shows underperforming on streaming… And a lot more... ...please subscribe! We can only keep doing this great work with your support. If you’d like to read more about why you should subscribe, please read this article about the Streaming Ratings Report, why it matters, why you need it, and why we cover streaming ratings best.
‘Oppenheimer And The Science Of Hinduism’ Is Topic Of June 17 Los Alamos Faith & Science Forum Event
LAF&S FORUM NEWS RELEASE The Los Alamos Faith and Science Forum (LAFSF) 2026 Summer Series presents ‘Oppenheimer and the Science of Hinduism’ by Dr. Victoria Erhart on Wednesday, June 17, at Tr…
Energy Secretary Takes Heat in First House Science Hearing
Democrats used the opportunity to challenge the department’s decision-making on a host of science topics, including Genesis, clean-energy projects, and last year’s Climate Working Group report.
Whoopi Goldberg collapses live on “The View ”in shock over Knicks game
The EGOT-winning actress displayed her latest feat of feigned unconsciousness at the Hot Topics table.
You can just tell the Instagram algorithm what you want now
You’ll be able to change topics that Instagram shows you.
The first-ever reverse-aging treatment has been injected into a human
Cellular reprogramming is the hottest topic in longevity science, with tech titans like Sam Altman investing in it. It's now being tested in humans.
Apple Brings AI Tab Organization and AI-Generated Extensions to Safari
Apple today unveiled a raft of Safari upgrades powered by Apple Intelligence, including automatic tab organization, AI-generated custom extensions, and new privacy-first browsing tools. The centerpiece feature is automatic tab organization, which uses Apple Intelligence to group a user's open tabs into relevant topics without any manual intervention. If someone is planning a weekend trip, for example, Safari can pull all of their travel-related tabs into a single topic.
World Pork Expo discussions driven by swine disease and herd health
Swine disease pressure and herd health were major topics during last week’s World Pork Expo in Des Moines. CBS Bio Platforms vice president of innovation and commercialization Rob Patterson says the threats aren’t universal. “Every producer has their own challenge, their own way of doing business.” He tells Brownfield their technology and innovative approach is […]
Science-based approach to aspiration thrombectomy could help physicians achieve more optimised and effective procedures
This advertorial is sponsored by Penumbra. The proliferation of new thrombectomy devices coupled with a deepened understanding of these procedures has led to strategies like ADAPT (a direct aspiration first-pass technique) becoming one of the hottest topics in the neurointerventional space. With this in mind, Alex Solich (Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden) sat down with […]
Trump Escalates War on Science
The Trump administration, having already made cuts to research on topics it disfavors, now wants scientists to submit to political control.
Experts say we should use passkeys, but can a smartphone PIN really be safer than a password?
The long-running series in which readers answer other readers’ questions explores a topical issue of personal cybersecurity
Leader to expand health coverage
Leader Publications will begin providing expanded coverage on health-related topics after the Missouri Press Foundation received a $40,000 grant from the Jefferson Foundation.
100 Game Countdown: The Cardinals’ exciting rebuild
We zoomed through the first third of the season and now the St. Louis Cardinals have just 100 games to go in this rebuild season. Unlike most rebuilds, this one has been fun and honestly, maybe we are spoiled by being fans of the Cardinals. That was one of the topics of conversations on Cardinals […]
WOSU PRESENTS: Politics and a Pint
WOSU is excited to host another lively political discussion in a casual setting. Grab a pour at Seventh Son Brewing and engage with our expert panel about the upcoming general election, current news, issues and topics. Admission is $10. Seventh Son will generously donate $1 of every beer and Kitty Paw hard seltzer purchased from the sunroom bar to support WOSU's mission (must mention that you are a guest of WOSU). Panelists scheduled to appear are:Mike Thompson, host of WOSU TV’s Columbus on the Record and political podcast SnollygosterAmy Juravich, host of WOSU’s All Sides with Amy JuravichMark Ferenchik, WOSU News DirectorSarah Donaldson, Ohio Public Radio Statehouse Reporter
Unsafe food causes 866 million illnesses and 1.5 million deaths annually, young children at highest risk
Children aged less than five years face almost three times the risk of illness from unsafe food than older children and adults, according to new estimates released today by the World Health Organization (WHO).
Health system's ‘Heads Up’ series supports young people’s mental well-being
The series includes short videos, online materials and community discussions on topics highlighted in the survey.
Bob Costas: Mike Tirico ‘aced’ being the face of NBC Sports
Bob Costas was once the face of NBC Sports, but Mike Tirico has thrived in the role since receiving the baton. Costas recently joined SiriusXM NBA Radio host David Shepard for an interview discussing the NBA Finals, the NBA on NBC, and his own media career among other topics. With the reboot season of the…
Open Thread: June 3, 2026
The Open Thread/Daily Merengue is a place where you can discuss anything and everything related to football. Feel free to discuss the topics presented here, or start your very own discussions! The Open thread will be posted every day by one of the mods you’d totally do a movie marathon night with: Valyrian Steel, Felipejack, […]
Elections to top science bodies test Croatia’s gender equality in research
Croatia’s track-record on gender equality in science has been both questioned and lauded in recent months, following both bad and good news on the topic. On the one hand, a senior awards committee was announced without a single woman researcher included. On the other, the national science academy welcomed its first cohort of fellows with more women than men.Members of the committee, which gives national awards recognising scientific achievement, are proposed by the ministry of science and endorsed by the parliament. The current line-up does include a woman, but she is culture minister Nina Obuljen Koržinek rather than a researcher. Even then, she didn’t make it into the photograph released to announce the appointments on April 16. “The image speaks a thousand words,” says Tanja Rudež, a science journalist for Jutarnji List newspaper. “I am surprised that none of these men, all well-known scientists, saw a problem with the fact that there was not a single successful female scientist on the committee,” she told Science|Business.Ivan Đikić, a prominent Croatian biochemist based at Goethe University Medical School, commented on LinkedIn that the news illustrated a “sad truth” about the state of science in Croatia.“It [. . .] reveals a system where women, despite contributing a substantial share of high-quality, internationally competitive science, are systematically excluded from the very processes that determine recognition and influence,” he wrote. Some 60% of researchers in Croatia are women, according to the Croatian Bureau of Statistics, and they perform well in international competitions. For example, of the 12 European Research Council (ERC) grants awarded to Croatian researchers, seven went to women.“So how is it possible that decision-making bodies are still dominated by men over 60, while not a single female ERC laureate is involved in the selection process?” asked Đikić. “This is not a marginal oversight; it is a structural failure.” The ministry of science did not reply to a request for comment. The awards committee is not unusual. For example, a scientific advisory body announced by the ministry of demographics in April comprises 35 men and five women. The board of the Croatian Science Foundation, newly appointed by the parliament, is a little better, with five men and two women, but still unequal. “This is especially significant because such bodies do not merely distribute prestige. They shape research priorities, funding allocation and long-term scientific development,” Marija Lugarić, chair of the parliament’s committee on gender equality, told Science|Business. “Representation here matters not only symbolically, but materially.”Referring to the awards committee and the board of the science foundation, Lugarić says that while both bodies were appointed by parliament, neither met the minimum 40% gender balance threshold that Croatian law and EU guidelines expressly recommend for public bodies.Đikić wants to see EU institutions put pressure on the government to ensure basic standards of fairness, transparency and democratic governance in science policy are met. “Meaningful change will not come without pressure,” he wrote. “It must intensify both within Croatia and at the level of European institutions. Anything less undermines the credibility of Europe’s commitment to excellence and inclusion in science.”Rudež also underlined the importance of talking and writing about this topic, “because public opinion in Croatia does influence changes in the status and visibility of women in science.”The European Commission has not yet responded to a request for comment.Good news from the academyA more positive story came from the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts on 21 May, with the announcement of seven new women fellows and five men. This is the first time in the academy’s 165-year history that women have outnumbered men in a new intake.One of the new fellows, two-time ERC grantee Iva Tolić, credits the academy leadership with trying to be more modern and inclusive, representing the whole community better. “The academy is really aware that so far, before this election, there were very few women,” she told Science|Business. “So, they are actively trying to make this more equal.”Related articlesExplained: How the MSCA is close to achieving gender balanceCall for EU to leverage academic freedom in global talent raceRudež is more cautious, noting that despite the academy’s “breakthrough this year [. . .] it is still a predominantly male institution, with only 18% women.”This reflects a wider imbalance in Croatia’s research landscape. “The key levers of power in science are still in the hands of men,” she went on. “For example, all 14 rectors of private and public universities are men.”Similarly, Lugarić says a structural glass ceiling still exists in Croatian science, which is “most visible precisely where power is exercised.”She cites data from the Commission’s She Figures 2024 report, which shows that Croatia ranks second in the EU for gender equality in research and innovation overall, with an equality index of 79.6 out of 100. It is in the top five for women’s career advancement, participation in research; representation across all research sectors and for scientific publications.In stark contrast, it ranks second to last when it comes to women in decision-making positions in science. “This is not a coincidence,” Lugarić says. “It is a structural pattern.”Informal barriersThe persistent under-representation of women in the highest structures of Croatia’s academies, boards, award committees and leadership positions is not down to formal barriers, Lugarić says, but arises from more subtle obstacles such as “informal networks, persistent expectations regarding traditional gender roles and the unequal distribution of care responsibilities.”Tolić would like to see more support for young women in terms of affordable housing and child support, and higher salaries. Currently, she says, salaries in science stay low for the first 10-15 years, while housing and spaces in kindergarten are limited and expensive. “You have to work a lot, you get very little money, so it’s not great to have a family in this situation,” she says.But despite the challenges, Tolić is optimistic, saying that gender equality in research in Croatia is “definitely improving and going in the right direction.” The situation is particularly promising in biology, she adds, where most full professors, heads of department and deans of faculties are women. Lugarić, too, see the glass ceiling “very slowly, cracking,” and cites the academy election as an example that structural change is possible. Yet the situation in the national awards committee is a “stark reminder that without a conscious, systemic commitment to gender balance, progress will remain slow and uneven.”
New College Football Playoff schedule is latest NCAA mishap
One of the hottest topics of the college football offseason continues to be the future of the College Football Playoff. Expansion has dominated much of the conversation, but scheduling has emerged as an equally important issue. On Tuesday, a new…
How Science Works
The 2nd Weather and Climate Livestream is now underway. It is organized by a group of early-career researchers concerned about declining funding for the field and eager to demonstrate how weather and climate research makes a difference in our lives. Last year’s event was a great success, drawing terrific press coverage including a piece in the NY Times. This year features a strong lineup of talks aimed at a general audience — I highly recommend tuning in. Share I gave a talk yesterday about How Science Works in Three Steps. You can see the short presentation here (I’ve appended a transcript below): And please tune into the livestream here. It runs through tomorrow at 6 pm ET. Thanks for reading The Climate Brink! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe Cleaned up transcript: Thank you, and thanks to everyone tuning in. I want to talk about something I think a lot of people don’t really understand: how science actually works. Arguments over any scientific topic — climate change, vaccines, you name it — revolve around competing claims. For climate change, the claims are: Is the Earth warming? Are humans to blame? What will the impacts be? Over the last 150 years, the scientific community has developed a remarkably robust method for sorting out which claims are true and which aren’t. That method is what I want to walk through. So how does science generate knowledge? If you ask a high schooler, they’ll give you the version they learned in ninth grade: an individual scientist forms a hypothesis, runs an experiment, and draws a conclusion. That’s more or less what happens at the individual level, though in practice it’s more iterative — you design, test, and refine all at once, landing on a slightly different idea each time until you reach a conclusion about whatever hypothesis you’ve ended up with. But this isn’t science. It’s only step one. Any individual scientist can make mistakes — scientists are human. Maybe there’s a bug in the code, maybe there’s an error in the experiment. Just because someone ran an experiment and reached a conclusion doesn’t mean it’s right, and scientists don’t treat a single result as settled truth. Step two is peer review, the first layer of quality control. The scientist writes up what they did and submits it to a journal, which sends the paper to other experts in the field. Those experts judge whether the methods are sound, whether it properly references prior work, and whether the conclusions actually follow from the data. Ask any scientist and they’ll tell you peer review is miserable — the comments come back brutal, often harsh, and you have to revise and resubmit, sometimes multiple times, before an editor finally accepts the paper. Peer review catches an immense amount of bad science, but it can’t catch all of it. Reviewers get sloppy or overworked, they miss obvious mistakes, and they can’t catch hidden errors — a bug in the code, a misread instrument. So a peer-reviewed paper making it into a journal doesn’t mean the paper is right. Nobody treats a single paper as the final word. That’s where step three comes in: the crucible of science. Important results get retested by the broader community. If you publish something interesting, it gets dissected. Sometimes people try to reproduce your work directly but more often they test its implications. If someone claims X is true, and that implies that Y is also true, then scientists will go check Y. If a claim survives this gauntlet long enough, it becomes accepted. That’s how we generate knowledge. Let me give an example: the ozone hole. In 1985 — and I doubt many people watching were around then, but I remember it well — Joe Farman and his colleagues published observations from Antarctica showing that a huge chunk of ozone was disappearing every year. This was shocking because most atmospheric chemists had expected ozone loss to occur at mid-latitudes and high altitudes, not over the South Pole. When scientists see something they don’t understand, they rush to explain it, and several competing hypotheses quickly appeared in the peer-reviewed literature. One pointed to chlorine chemistry from chlorofluorocarbons. A second blamed nitrogen chemistry, possibly driven by solar proton events — meaning the sun was responsible. A third argued it wasn’t chemistry at all but dynamics: winds were carrying naturally low-ozone air from the lower atmosphere up into the stratosphere. Then the community went to work testing which theory could survive the crucible. Aircraft flew into the ozone hole and found no nitrogen, ruling out the nitrogen theory. Measurements showed the air in the polar vortex was descending, not rising — which would bring high-ozone air down, eliminating the dynamics theory. Meanwhile, those same flights measured enormous amounts of chlorine, strongly correlated with exactly the regions where ozone was being destroyed. That became known as the “smoking gun” paper, and it established that chlorine chemistry was the cause. Through this process, a consensus emerged. And it’s worth being clear that this consensus is organic. There’s no vote, no poll, no meeting where it gets decided. Scientists go to conferences, talk to one another, and independently arrived at the same answer. It’s the ultimate free market of ideas. After the consensus was established, the peer-reviewed literature doesn’t even mention the rival theories — it simply takes chlorine chemistry as given. That’s what a consensus looks like. It doesn’t mean every single scientist agrees, but it does mean there’s no longer any legitimate debate. So where can you see what scientists actually think? It’s all in the peer-reviewed literature, which contains the entire historical record of the argument: the discovery, the competing theories, the debate, the testing, and finally the community coalescing around one answer. But there’s a lot of room for misrepresentation. You can dig up an old paper claiming the ozone hole was caused by dynamics and wave it around as if there still was a debate about the cause of the ozone hole — without mentioning that the idea was disproven long ago and that even its own authors no longer believe it. There’s a bigger problem, though: the peer-reviewed literature is written in a language I call “nerd.” It’s extremely hard to read — honestly, some of it is hard for me to follow. It takes graduate students years to work through the literature in a single field, so we can’t expect policymakers or ordinary people to do it. This is where scientific assessments come in. The most famous is the IPCC — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The job of an assessment is to read and summarize the peer-reviewed literature, synthesizing what’s settled, what’s been disproven, and what remains genuinely debated. To ensure the assessments accurately summarize the peer-reviewed literature, assessments are written by large teams, which are far less prone to bias than individuals and which dilute the influence of any one scientist with an axe to grind. The teams are deliberately assembled to avoid stacking the deck, and the reports themselves go through multiple rounds of peer review. That rigorous process is exactly why you can trust them and why people consider the IPCC to be the gold standard of what we know about the climate system. An assessment produced through a different process may well not be credible. You can even watch the consensus evolve across assessments. Take the attribution of warming. The 1990 IPCC report said the observed warming was broadly consistent with model predictions but also comparable to natural variability — in other words, we don’t know whether humans are responsible. By 1995, it concluded that the balance of evidence suggested a discernible human influence — a sentence only a committee could write, and one that barely commits to anything. By 2001, most of the warming over the previous 50 years was judged “likely” due to greenhouse gases; by 2007, “very likely”; by 2013, “extremely likely.” The 2023 report says essentially the same as 2013 — there’s not much stronger language available. So, to wrap up: science is our ultimate tool for deciphering the universe — the most successful method we’ve ever developed for determining what’s true and what isn’t. Our understanding is written into the peer-reviewed literature, so if you want to know what scientists think, that’s where to look. And for those of us who don’t speak nerd, scientific assessments are the Rosetta Stone — they translate nerd into English. Let me open the floor to questions. Thank you.
Silicon Valley’s $140 Billion Tax Break Is Going Mainstream
At business breakfasts and investor lunches across the US, the topic du jour is a strategy pioneered in Silicon Valley to avoid paying taxes on billions of dollars of capital gains.
Towards a responsive health system and equitable access to quality RMNCAH services
Indonesia’s vast geography and sociocultural diversity shape the delivery of reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health (RMNCAH) services in ways that are both enabling and challenging. Across provinces, significant variation has been observed in how services are planned, resourced, and delivered. These variations in service standards and quality are felt daily in the lives of women, newborns and adolescents. Despite these challenges, progress is visible. National estimates show a drop in maternal mortality ratio, from 331 to 140 per 100 000 live births since 2000, signaling improvements in care quality and access. Fertility has stabilised and contraceptive use has grown, yet unmet reproductive health needs persist, and adolescent pregnancies continue to reflect early marriage and limited access to youth-friendly services.To better understand how Indonesia’s health system has evolved under decentralisation, the Ministry of Health, supported by World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), IPAS and the Asian Development Bank (ADB), conducted a joint external review of RMNCAH programmes. This review draws on multiple sources of evidence, including existing literature, policy documents, national health system data, as well as field visits to six selected provinces to represent Indonesia’s geographic and administrative diversity. During the field visits, review teams observed service delivery in health facilities, spoke with health workers and local leaders and met mothers and families to understand how RMNCAH policies are operationalised. One of the challenges identified was the management of low birthweight (LBW) infants, a major contributor to neonatal deaths, under resource constraints. One midwife described a severe case of extremely LBW twins, one stillborn and the other died after three days of care. She recalled how the surviving infant struggled to swallow and may not have received breast milk, while simultaneous emergencies required the team’s attention, affecting the care provided to the infant.A subsequent review of the case by the district health office revealed insufficient antenatal care, fragmented maternal medical history due to population mobility, referral delays, limited provider capacity in neonatal intravenous access and a heavy workload that constrained proper newborn monitoring. These insights informed recommendations to strengthen both system-wide and service-level responses. Since the early 2000s, Indonesia’s decentralisation initiative has given much of the responsibility for funding, staffing and managing health services to regional governments. While the Ministry of Health sets national clinical standards, daily management of public health facilities falls under regional authorities through the Ministry of Internal Affairs. While this arrangement allows services to be tailored to local needs, it also depends heavily on local capacity for planning, budgeting and management. Health facilities and district health offices are better positioned to translate national priorities into local action when they have access to consistent technical support, helping health workers manage resource constraints and infrastructure gaps.The complexity of Indonesia’s health system governance is no easy feat to navigate. Understanding these dynamics is essential to strengthening policy, improving coordination and ensuring more equitable access to services across Indonesia. Under the leadership of Ministry of Health, recommendations from this exercise will be key in guiding the nation’s roadmap to an equitable and quality health system for RMNCAH.Written by Edit Oktavia Manuama, National Professional Officer (Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health), and Jessie Yunus, National Professional Officer (Gender, Rights, Equity, and Disability Inclusion)
‘Very close’ – Real Madrid president drops major Vinicius contract update
Real Madrid president Florentino Perez has addressed two topics that have generated significant discussion around the club in recent weeks, offering clarity on both Vinicius Jr’s future and Anas Lag...
The Office of Management and Budget tries again to cripple US science
Peer review now optional, political staff would screen grants for forbidden topics.
Highlights: What Betamax Teaches Us About AI – The Business of Entertainment: 2nd Princeton CorpGov Forum
Watch Highlights Video Below: CorpGov hosted the second Princeton CorpGov Forum on May 21, 2026, at The Nassau Inn in Princeton, New Jersey. Speakers featured industry leaders and alumni spanning five decades at Princeton, and topics comprised university endowments, shareholder activism, private equity, venture capital, private and public capital markets, entertainment and the finance of […] The post Highlights: What Betamax Teaches Us About AI – The Business of Entertainment: 2nd Princeton Corp
Exceptional military health professionals, facilities earn coveted awards
Physicians, nurses, dentists, and other Military Health System professionals, along with several facilities, were honored at 2026 MHS with in Dallas, Texas, May 28. The honors highlighted meritorious achievements in a range of topics, including leadership, innovation, and advancements in warfighter healthcare.
What political topics are church leaders most likely to talk about at religious services?
Abortion, Israel and homosexuality top clergy’s political topics, according to a new survey.
St. Louis business leaders seek to shake up the data center narrative
Data centers are the topic that just won’t go away, and given the public acrimony surrounding them, local business leaders and other supporters are keen on reframing the conversation. Case-in-point was the panel convened yesterday by the regional business association Greater St. Louis Inc. featuring representatives from the data center industry, labor unions, building trades, […]
Melatonin and Your Heart: Here’s What You Need To Know
Melatonin is a popular supplement that can help people catch ZZZs. But is it harmful to your heart? A cardiologist clarifies recent research on the topic.
From Art And Science To Current Affairs: The 30 Under 30 Asia Content Creators Using Their Platforms To Educate And Entertain
Content creators on the 30 Under 30 Asia: Social Media, Marketing & Advertising list are inspiring others to pursue their passion and demystifying complex topics for a Gen-Z audience.
Arkansas basketball notebook: John Calipari supportive of measures in new Protect College Sports Act
Speaking to reporters at the SEC's spring meetings in Miramar Beach, Florida, Arkansas men’s basketball coach John Calipari touched on a variety of topics.
Beyond the Game: How Utah is Leading the Charge for Mental Health and Performance in MLS and NWSL
By Isabella Rubis Mental health in sports is an increasingly important topic, highlighting the psychological challenges athletes face both on and off the field as they strive for peak performance while navigating intense pressure and public scrutiny. Through the partnership with Intermountain Health, Real Salt Lake and Utah Royals FC
Licensable picture: FRANCE-POLITICS-QUESTIONS-GOVERNMENT-NATIONAL-ASSEMBLY
Philippe Tabarot, minister of transport, speaks on the topic of transportation in the Ile-de-France region, at the public session of questions to the french...
Ebola, chemical plants and health, hantavirus, common colds, heat and more
As they say, bugs have ears. Public health has had a relentless May. Chemical plant (near) explosions, Ebola, hantavirus, and that's before you even get to the usual suspects: common colds, heat, and ticks. Here’s an attempt to keep you up to speed and, more importantly, what it means for you and your community. But first, an announcement: World Cup The World Cup starts in 15 days (not like anyone is counting down), and we are hanging TVs in the Health Security Operations Center. It’s going to be a gorgeous, chaotic celebration of basically every culture on earth. And it’s going to take a team effort—from communities to individuals, from public health to health care—to keep people healthy. That’s where you come in. If you’re going to the games or live within 30 miles of a stadium, we would love to hear from you. Sign up for a weekly survey here. Thanks to the more than 1,280 people who have already signed up…you will be hearing from us soon!! Global disease “weather report” Hantavirus: Two more cases The global count of cruise ship passengers with hantavirus has now increased to 13 cases (11 confirmed), with three deaths. The two new cases are overseas and among people who were already quarantining: A crew member in the Netherlands. A Spanish national passenger who was quarantining at home tested positive through daily monitoring. They are now in a biocontainment unit. In the U.S., everyone remains negative. There may be more cases, given that the incubation period of hantavirus (the time from exposure to infection) is 45 days. But this week, we will reach a major milestone: the median incubation window is 18 days, and that will pass on May 29. What this means for you: Your risk from this cruise ship outbreak remains essentially nil at this point. Ebola rages on in Central Africa Big thanks to Dr. Craig Spencer, a humanitarian physician who has treated and survived Ebola, for jumping in to provide the YLE community with an update. Craig, take it from here… The combined confirmed and suspected Ebola cases in DRC are now more than 1,000. All signs are pointing to a very long and catastrophic outbreak in Central Africa: This is a vast undercount. We know this because the test positivity rate is hovering around 50%, only 20% of contacts are being traced (and in some areas, no contacts at all), and more cases keep popping up with no known connection. This all points to widespread and undetected community transmission. This is in only a week of detection. Compared to previous outbreaks, the growth is very fast, as the huge West Africa outbreak in 2016 was first detected at 49 cases and rose to 208 cases a month later. It took four months for that outbreak to reach the size of the current one in the DR Congo. The cases are spread out across 16 health zones. There are now multiple epicenters, making containment very difficult. Next door in Uganda, the case count is seven. While this number is low compared to DRC, a concerning development is that two health care workers recently tested positive with uncertain exposure histories. If they weren’t treating known Ebola cases, this means it’s spreading undetected in Uganda as well. On the ground, backlash, including the burning of health centers, has emerged, a pattern seen in nearly every outbreak and rooted in deep community distrust. It often stems from outside actors working in communities without fully understanding or addressing local priorities. Affected populations may recognize the severity of Ebola while still holding other concerns as more pressing, such as where their loved ones are buried. Community trust is essential to an effective response, but difficult to build during an active emergency. It is best established long before a crisis begins. U.S. priorities are made clear, and may backfire. The U.S. Administration has shown that its first priority is keeping Ebola out, with helping end the outbreak in the DRC a secondary concern. That's meant travel restrictions broader than anything we've imposed before — covering travelers from across the region, and reportedly some green card holders and permanent residents as well. For example, just these past two days, news broke that high-risk American travelers will be subject to a mandatory quarantine in Kenya before they are allowed to return. If an American is infected, the U.S. government plans to send them to a hospital it is standing up from scratch in Kenya. (Currently, Americans who were in the area are allowed to return but are diverted to three airports—Houston, Atlanta, and DC—for further screening.) Past administrations have used travel notices and stepped-up screening; this goes much further. At first blush, these strict precautions may sound prudent. But this approach could backfire in three ways: Restrictions this blunt give people every reason to hide where they’ve been and whom they’ve been near — making the people we most need to find harder to track, not easier. They also breed a false sense that this is someone else’s problem. But diseases are humbling. They find the small cracks in even the most impenetrable-seeming defenses. Lives lost. There is no treatment for this Ebola strain, which means survival depends heavily on the quality of the health system. We have that system in the States, but we are choosing not to use it for infected Americans. This is unbelievable and infuriating. (See a deeper dive from me here.) The only real way to lower the risk to Americans — and everyone else — is to end the outbreak in the DRC and across the region. What this means for you: If you have travel plans to this region, it’s time to cancel them. This is a high-risk situation in Central Africa, and CDC released a Level 4 Travel Advisory. There is also great uncertainty if and when the Administration will let you back in. To the general public in the U.S., your risk remains very, very low right now. U.S. disease “weather report” Ticks: past peak season? Good news, especially for people in the Northeast and Midwest: tick numbers continue to decline. Though we are at the peak of the season, this unusually early year is trending favorably. Heat-related illnesses in the North Heat risk is certainly not blanketing the entire country yet, but this week it will be moderate in the Midwest and the Southeast. What this means for you: Be sure to check the CDC HeatRisk tool. A red day isn’t the best day for that soccer game for a kid with asthma, and a stretch of orange days is a great time to check on your elderly neighbor. Common colds surging As far as respiratory viruses go, the only thing really going around right now is the common cold. It is higher this year than last year, but should peak very soon before returning this fall. Spotlight: Chemical plants Over the weekend, YLE California covered the serious situation that unfolded around a chemical plant in Orange County, California. Thankfully, the worst-case scenario (a chemical explosion) was mitigated, but only through luck. The health implications in a densely populated area could have been catastrophic. As the situation was winding down, another chemical explosion struck Washington State. This one was fatal. Health officials say the risk to surrounding residents from chemicals in the air and ground remains low, though the community deserves far greater clarity. Clean air and clean water consistently rank as Americans’ top public health concerns — yet when chemical disasters strike, communities are too often met with reassurances rather than transparency and accountability. Residents near the 2023 East Palestine, Ohio train derailment, for example, are still waiting to understand the long-term impact on their health, with few clear answers. What this means for you: Many are wondering if facilities processing potentially dangerous materials are in their neighborhoods. This interactive map allows you to enter your ZIP code and see all facilities monitored by the EPA, including any violations. Good news Ebola vaccines and treatment for the Bundibugyo species are in development. Two vaccine platforms are being explored, at least one of which may be deployable in as little as 2 months. One vaccine is being developed by Oxford, and the other uses the same biotechnology as the FDA-approved Zaire species of Ebola. (It may provide cross-protection, but it’s unclear at this point.) On the treatment side, two promising monoclonal antibody cocktails are likely to be deployed, though doses are limited and logistical hurdles remain significant challenges. Anni over at The Biotech Tea had a great explainer about the Ebola vaccine gap, if you want to read more. [ The Biotech Tea The Ebola vaccine gap, reading vessel damage, & the Makary exit 🗝️ Paid subscribers get the Biotech Term of the Week at $30/year (~$2.50/month). I try to keep it intentionally accessible, but if cost is ever a barrier, send me a message. A few people asked about expensing your subscription, so I put together a short email template… Read more 6 days ago · 10 likes · Annicka Evans, PhD ](https://www.thebiotechtea.com/p/the-ebola-vaccine-gap-reading-vessel?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web) Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) has been officially renamed polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS), following more than a decade of debate and input from roughly 22,000 clinicians, researchers, and patients worldwide. This is good because the old name was medically misleading, leading to patients without visible cysts being dismissed or overlooked entirely. The WHO estimates that 70% of people with the condition remain undiagnosed. A more accurate name should improve recognition, reduce stigma, and ultimately help the millions of people living with this condition get diagnosed and treated sooner. Poll Loading... Bottom line Public health situations are everywhere right now. Staying healthy takes public health professionals and systems working tirelessly behind the scenes and each of us showing up for our neighbors and communities. Love, YLE Big thanks to Ed Nirenberg for staying on top of the Ebola vaccines, Hannah Totte for all the figures, Dr. Craig Spencer for the Ebola insight, and Dr. Matt Willis for covering the chemical situation in CA. 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. 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
Gov. Whitmer (D-MI), Mike Pence & Pete Buttigieg on Bridging Political Divide
Former Vice President Mike Pence, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) gather at a policy conference in Mackinac Island, Michigan, addressing topics like bridging the political divide.
Barcelona sporting director in London to make another attempt to sign Premier League star
Julian Alvarez has been the hottest topic in Spanish footballing media right now, following bombshell reports of his desire to leave Atletico Madrid this summer.It is widely believed Alvarez is not ha...
Global health leaders reaffirm commitment to Immunization Agenda 2030
During the Seventy-ninth World Health Assembly (WHA), held from 18 to 23 May 2026, Member States and global health partners reaffirmed commitment to the Immunization Agenda 2030 (IA2030), recognizing vaccines as one of the most powerful, cost-effective and equitable public health interventions.
14 books from JPMorgan's summer reading list: AI, World Cup, longevity
JPMorgan's 27th annual summer reading list features nonfiction books on trending topics, from AI to longevity.
The World Health Assembly adopts updated Global Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (2026–2036)
Geneva, 23 May 2026 – Member States at the Seventy-ninth World Health Assembly (WHA79) adopted the updated Global action plan on antimicrobial resistance (GAP-AMR) 2026–2036, marking a major milestone in the global response to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and delivering on a key commitment contained in the 2024 United Nations General Assembly Political Declaration on AMR. The updated plan was developed through a consultative process led by the Quadripartite organizations – FAO, UNEP, WHO and WOAH – with extensive engagement of Member States and stakeholders across sectors. AMR remains one of the most significant global health and development challenges, affecting humans, animals, plants, food systems and the environment. The updated GAP-AMR provides a comprehensive One Health framework to guide coordinated global, regional and national action over the next decade. It builds on the foundation established by the original GAP-AMR adopted by the World Health Assembly in 2015 while reflecting evolving evidence, lessons learned, and the commitments made at the 2024 UN High-Level Meeting on AMR. During the Assembly, Member States expressed broad support for the updated plan and its strengthened multisectoral and One Health approach. Delegates highlighted the importance of prevention-first interventions, including infection prevention and control, water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), vaccination, biosecurity, and environmental measures. They also highlighted the need for responsible, equitable and sustainable use of antimicrobials, strengthened surveillance, innovation, and sustainable agrifood systems. The updated GAP-AMR is intended to serve as the global framework for coordinated action against AMR through 2036. It aims to accelerate global progress towards the commitments and targets agreed by Member States and support countries in developing, implementing and financing ambitious multisectoral national action plans. The plan also reinforces the importance of accountability, monitoring and reporting, sustainable financing, and international cooperation to address AMR through a One Health approach. The adoption of the updated GAP-AMR reflects renewed global commitment to preserving the effectiveness of antimicrobials and safeguarding advances in human, animal and plant health, food security, economic development and environmental sustainability. As implementation begins, continued collaboration among governments, international organizations, civil society, academia and the private sector will be critical to translating commitments into measurable impact. The Quadripartite organizations will continue supporting Member States and partners in operationalizing the updated GAP-AMR and advancing coordinated One Health action against AMR at country, regional and global levels.
Journalists Distill News on Ebola, Licensing Midwives, and California’s Budget
KFF Health News journalists made the rounds on national or local media recently to discuss topical stories. Here’s a collection of their appearances.
WATCH: Trump speaks at N.Y.'s Rockland Community College, campaigning for Rep. Lawler
President Donald Trump, from a toss-up congressional district in New York on Friday, began testing his midterm-year message that was ostensibly on the economy. But he veered off-topic right from the start, going off on tangents about voter identification, crime in cities, transgender women in sports and “Dumocrats,” his new chosen moniker for the opposition party.
World Health Assembly endorses resolution on precision medicine
At the Seventy-ninth World Health Assembly, Member States endorsed a new resolution on Precision medicine: a path towards targeted, personalized and equitable care, taking an important step towards advancing precision medicine as part of efforts to strengthen equitable, effective and sustainable health systems. Precision medicine refers to the use of clinical, molecular, genomic and other health data to inform prevention, diagnosis and treatment, taking into account variability while applying appropriate ethical and legal safeguards. When integrated responsibly into health systems, precision approaches can improve outcomes across different disease areas and across the life course – from cancer and rare diseases to infectious diseases, maternal, newborn and child health, mental health and noncommunicable diseases. The resolution reflects rapid advances in genomics, diagnostics, data science and digital health, alongside widening global inequities in access to these innovations. Many populations – particularly in low- and middle-income countries – remain underrepresented in data and research, limiting the public health impact of precision medicine and risking the widening of health disparities if action is not taken now. "Precision medicine is not an aspirational idea for health delivery in the future – it is already transforming lives across the world. But its benefits remain out of reach for too many and the research driving progress is concentrated in high income countries. This WHA resolution gives global health leaders, ministries of health, and WHO a clear mandate: to act. From infant screening to setting up genomic databases WHO will work with countries to bring about the power of these innovations." Dr Meg Doherty, Director Science for HealthThrough the resolution, Member States commit to developing and strengthening national policies, infrastructure, workforce capacity and governance frameworks to support the safe, ethical and equitable integration of precision medicine into health systems, aligned with universal health coverage. This includes promoting affordability, ensuring inclusive research and data systems, strengthening regulation and data governance, and fostering collaboration across sectors and regions.WHO is requested to provide technical and normative support, review and coordinate existing guidance, facilitate global and regional collaboration, and develop a Global Strategy on Precision Medicine to guide equitable and context‑appropriate implementation. WHO stands ready to support Member States through tools such as a country maturity model for countries to self-assess capacity in implementing precision medicine depending on their context. In the immediate term WHO will map all existing guidance and frameworks and host extensive consultations with interest holders globally.By placing equity, inclusion and public value at the centre of precision medicine, the resolution reinforces WHO’s commitment to ensuring that scientific advances benefit all people, everywhere, and that no one is left behind in the next era of health innovation."By uniting people-centered healthcare with innovation, precision medicine has the potential to transform lives. This resolution helps ensure those advances serve the shared goal of health for all." Dr Sylvie Briand, Chief Scientist For further information please visit the Health Topic: Genomics
Net migration at new low – so why is immigration such a hot topic?
Despite latest evidence of falling migration numbers, debate around the subject remains ‘hostile’