SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " decide " 1,214 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Texas: 3 games that will define 2026 season
The Texas Longhorns have three challenging games in the regular season that will decide if the team competes for the CFP.
Merchants of Doubt and the attacks on Extreme Event Attribution science
Last week, I attended a meeting at Columbia University on attribution science and climate law, hosted by the Sabin Center. It was a fantastic event, bringing together scientists and legal experts working at the intersection of extreme event attribution and climate law. Subscribe For those unfamiliar with it, extreme event attribution attempts to quantify the contribution of climate change to an extreme event. For example, several groups analyzed the impact of climate change on Hurricane Harvey’s enormous rainfall totals over Houston, Texas and they found that climate change increased rainfall by 15 to 38%. One thing that came up again and again was how terrified fossil-fuel interests are of extreme event attribution science. They are acutely aware that this research could land them in court. And losing those cases would leave them legally liable for billions of dollars in climate damages. Because the legal stakes are so high, the blowback has turned ugly. I spoke with several scientists at the meeting who are facing ongoing harassment over their work. This blowback is a coordinated campaign to make the entire field look suspect. The goal is to create the impression that attribution science is too uncertain, too political, or too conflicted to be useful in court or in public policy. The strategy is not based on actual science or evidence of misconduct, but on the generation of doubt. The new Merchants of Doubt We’ve seen this before. In fact, not that long ago: We only have to go back a year to the Department of Energy (DOE) Climate Working Group (CWG) report to see an example of using doubt as the tool to push back against well-established science. This strategy is laid out in an email from a member of the CWG, Dr. Roy Spencer, that was released during litigation over the Climate Working Group process. The key quote is: About all I can hope is that what we write will provide sufficient “reasonable scientific doubt” regarding the science claims in the 2009 TSD [technical support document], based upon almost 2 decades of new science, to call into question the original reasoning for the EPA Administrator’s decision that CO2 presents a threat to human health and welfare. This statement is strong evidence that at least some members of the committee were working to support a particular policy outcome: revoking the Endangerment Finding. The email also explains how they planned to do it: by attempting to generate “reasonable doubt”. This is going to be hard, Spencer implies. Despite falsely claiming that “2 decades of new science” weakens the case, Spencer explicitly acknowledges that the actual peer-reviewed science of climate change overwhelmingly rejects his position: But if the science argument is decided upon by a vote, or by the number of published citations, we lose the science argument. We can go back even further: This CWG email shares unmistakable DNA with the infamous 1969 tobacco memo that declared: “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” The tobacco memo also acknowledges the limit of this strategy: Like the CWG, they knew the science was not on their side. Share The new new Merchants of Doubt The people attacking the IPCC chapter on extreme event attribution are the newest iteration of the Merchants of Doubt. Their goal, like all Merchants before them, is to introduce doubt into the process. Because the report is not even out yet, they cannot attack its conclusions. So they are attacking the authors instead. Here is a press release from the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee: In the letter, the Chairmen express concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving members of the Attribution Committee, stating that “publicly available information suggests a troubling pattern” in which committee members are affiliated with nonprofits that support climate accountability lawsuits, “raising the appearance of impropriety and member bias.” To be clear, this is just innuendo. There is no actual evidence of bias. And given the robust process that these reports go through, including multiple lines of peer review, it seems very unlikely that significant bias can survive into the report. When the report comes out, critics will have the opportunity to make legitimate criticisms of the report — if any exist. If none do, however, they’ll still make criticisms, but they’ll be bogus, simply designed to generate doubt. We’ll see. A note to the press: Fix your frame To any journalists reading this: The public debate over extreme event attribution science is not going away. The science is simply too dangerous to fossil-fuel interests for them to stop fighting it. You very well might be assigned to write an article about this area of research in the future. When you do, do not automatically adopt the framing that climate misinformers want you to use. They want you to frame the story around questions like: Are climate scientists trying to put their thumb on the scale to achieve a predetermined, politically motivated result? Are climate scientists improperly letting their politics invade the science of the IPCC? That frame is a trap. Instead, you need to view this through the historical lens of the Merchants of Doubt. How does the ecosystem of doubt operate? Who funds it? What methods do they use to misrepresent science and slime researchers? What scientific results are they trying to keep people from understanding are legitimate? Ultimately, you instead need to focus your article on the generation of doubt as a way to maintain the fossil fuel industry’s social and legal license to keep burning oil, gas, and coal. If you treat the misinformers’ frame as a legitimate, good-faith scientific critique, you are helping them produce doubt. Don’t do it. Don’t be a Merchant of Doubt. Thanks for reading The Climate Brink! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe other stuff The Staying Curious Substack has an interesting post about the different flavors of climate sensitivity. This is crucial information if you want to understand how scientists think about how much warming the Earth will experience. I’d be grateful if you could hit the like button ❤️ below! It helps more people discover these ideas and lets me know what’s connecting with readers.
Science is under pressure again. Here’s what that means for young researchers
When Emma Scales decided she wanted to be a scientist, it seemed logical—simple, even. Now a Ph.D. candidate at Cornell University, Scales is studying symbiosis, specifically the way bacteria can gro...
Stablecoins Can Power Micropayments. Business Models Will Decide Their Future.
Micropayments are arguably, and so far, among the digital realm’s great unrealized opportunities. Every few years, advances in payments technology have
Supreme Court will decide if 'criminal aliens' can be held indefinitely while they fight deportation
The case could give the administration more power to arrest and hold immigrants, including green card holders, who have criminal records.
Supreme Court to decide if migrants detained for months must receive bond hearings
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide if the government may hold noncitizens in detention for prolonged periods without a bond hearing, a case that could have significant implications for the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.
They’re Uninsured After Obamacare Became Too Costly. And They’re Far From Alone.
After congressional Republicans let expanded subsidies for Affordable Care Act plans expire at the end of last year, some families have decided the price is too great of a financial burden and canceled their coverage.
Business roundup: Garden center closes, cookware shop opens and Ore House timeline uncertain
In this week’s business roundup: Botanical Concepts Garden Center in northeast Durango decided to call it quits this spring, a new cookware shop is set to open on Main Avenue, and a timeline for the r...
Ronald Araujo interview: ‘I needed help with my mental health. That’s why I decided to step away.’
The 27-year-old defender took a leave of absence from Barcelona last year. Now he's set for his first World Cup appearance
How Long Do Owners Say iPhones Usually Last?
Buying a new iPhone every year might be a thing of the past. Before you decide to upgrade to a new phone, find out how long owners say their IPhones last.
Rockies Hit Early, Often, and Late in Destroying Athletics
Colorado Rockies decided to have some batting practice in Las Vegas on Sunday, totally dominate Athletics.
Donald Trump's legacy rests in the hands of federal courts
From immigration policy to elections and more, courts are poised to decide what President Donald Trump can accomplish in office.
Spielberg’s new alien movie asks: Who gets to decide the truth?
In 1977, Steven Spielberg’s "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" imagined contact with aliens as an event inspiring awe. Five years later, "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" envisioned another arrival as a
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...
Legislative primaries could determine whether business issues take top priority
Voters will decide 23 legislative primaries on June 30. Many pit candidates focused on economic issues with those focused on social issues.
Time for California business lobby to grow a spine
The primary has only just ended, yet the California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber) has already decided to endorse Xavier Becerra for governor.
Meet the Democratic candidates for New York's 54th Senate District
Voters get the chance to decide who represents their interests as early voting gets underway Saturday.
The Researcher Who Decided Not to Know
Her decades of work on Huntington’s disease helped lead to the creation of a genetic test for the devastating condition. Why didn’t she take it herself?
The road test: Inside Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s strategy ahead of a potential 2028 campaign
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is truly undecided about what she’ll do in 2028, when she can run for president or for the seat held by Sen. Chuck Schumer. But Ocasio-Cortez is positioning herself to try to reach nationally beyond the deepest blue parts of the Democratic base — and making clear in private that whatever she decides, she has no interest in being merely a protest candidate.
Parents and doctors should decide what healthcare kids receive, not DC
To end the federal attack on gender-affirming care, residents want its agencies to trust good science, dismiss misinformation and respect medical consensus.
Palantir's Karp says businesses are 'unhappy' with the frontier AI labs
Palantir CEO Alex Karp says AI will drive the most important political decisions in the U.S. and shouldn't be decided by party lines.
New OMB rule could break science in the United States
The drug that saved your mother. The treatment your doctor recommended. The clinical trial that bought someone you love more time. None of it was inevitable. It required a system built to operate outside politics and sustained over decades, because science doesn’t operate on the timeline of a politician. That system is now under direct threat. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a new rule to regulate all federal grants, not just science, but housing, education, defense, NASA and everything in between, that would fundamentally change how research is conducted in the United States. There have been a lot of fires in the past 16 months, and if everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency. But this is a very big deal. These rules would strip away the independence that has kept science from becoming a political tool. The good news is there’s still something we can all do. How the grant system was designed to work When I was a new faculty member, I was full of millions of ideas, so I sat down and wrote an NIH proposal. I worked on it for months and thought it was so good. Then I sent it to my mentor. It came back covered in comments. Places where my reasoning wasn’t as airtight as I’d thought, methods that could be stronger, gaps in my thinking that I had been too close to the work to see. It stung, as honest feedback always does, but peer review almost always makes the work better. In fact, it’s the backbone of how American science has functioned for generations. At NIH, submitted proposals go to a panel of scientists who have experience in the field. These are the people who can read research methods and spot their weaknesses, who understand when an experiment is designed well and when it isn’t. Applications are scored rigorously, and often only the top 3-20% of proposals receive funding. The people making funding decisions are required to justify them based on these reviews. To be clear: this is not a perfect system, and good science still goes unfunded more often than any of us would like due to limited resources. There is also criticism that peer review may undervalue bold ideas that are risky but could have high payoffs. But the peer review system is nonetheless a meaningful part of the grant selection process. While thoughtful and careful changes could improve the system, the changes being proposed by OMB will not make things better. The rule that could change everything Through this OMB proposal, the system that helps decide what gets funded is being dismantled. There are many troubling elements buried in this proposal, but three provisions stand out in particular. Each would be damaging alone. Together, they would change what kind of science gets done in America, and who it serves. 1. Political appointees would decide which science gets funded, and peer review would be explicitly sidelined or ignored. The guidelines your doctor follows, the standards that determine what’s in your air and water, the drugs that get approved for your family: all of it starts with a funding decision. Right now, that decision is made by scientists who can evaluate whether the work is actually sound and whether it could move the needle forward. Under this proposal, funding decisions could be made by political appointees. The careful, expertise-driven review process that shapes grant funding would be effectively sidelined. That means that a poorly designed study could get funded simply because someone in a political office liked the sound of it, while rigorous, important work doesn’t get funded because it no longer aligns with the administration’s priorities. In other words, critical work that benefits all of us could now be missed just because it has become politically inconvenient. 2. Grants could be canceled at any point, without warning, in the middle of ongoing work. Say your tax dollars have been paying for a cancer study for two years. The grant was awarded for five years, so the team is mid-experiment. There are three additional years’ worth of answers that could change how the disease is treated for hundreds of thousands of people. With this new rule, the federal government could cancel the remaining funding tomorrow, walk away from the commitment it made with your money, and have no legal obligation to finish what it started. This is a huge waste of money. There are rarely other sources of funding for this work, which means the team, the graduate students, postdocs, and research staff who have dedicated years of their careers to this project could lose their jobs. Patients who have contributed their time to studies may not see it turn into useful learnings for others. Every hour of work already completed could result in nothing useful. Science can take decades to get to tangible outcomes. It needs a stable funding system to flourish. 3. Researchers would have a harder time communicating their findings without pre-approval from the federal government. There is a saying from Sir Mark Walport: “Science isn’t finished until it’s communicated.” Science is no use to anyone if it is kept locked away in the labs that produced the data. The proposed rule could make communicating research findings harder in a number of ways: Make it harder for scientists to widely share their findings in scientific journals. Publication costs, including journal fees that allow for broad public access, could not be paid for by federal funds which is often how scientists pay these costs. Restrict researchers from engaging publicly about how their findings should inform policy or public health guidelines. This would restrict scientists from doing the work that transforms years of lab work into decisions that actually affect people’s lives. Make it harder for scientists to attend conferences. Conferences would now need to be approved by the federal agency at the time of grant award. This disadvantages conferences or publications that are not politically aligned. Conferences are a key way in which scientists learn about work happening in their field so they can collaborate and build on each other’s findings. What good is science with a muzzle? The long-term impact These changes could (and hopefully would) be reversed under the next administration. But by then, damage has been done. Once projects are halted or denied funding by political appointees, people leave their science careers for other paths or even leave the country to do their amazing science elsewhere. You cannot pause a scientific study the way you pause a subscription you decided isn’t useful anymore. You cannot freeze a research team that depends on salaries to feed their families, causing a scramble for replacement funding that, in most cases, simply does not exist. When the money stops, everything stops, and all the work in progress and its potential are lost. Despite all of the language about reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, this new proposed rule increases the administrative burden tremendously. Every researcher watching this unfold will make a rational decision: don’t start anything that will take a decade to finish. This includes not building a team around funding that could vanish, or asking the big questions that need patience and stability to answer. The most consequential science, the kind that produces the treatments and the breakthroughs that reach your doctor’s office twenty years from now, is exactly the science that would be abandoned first. This is still a proposal, so we can all do something Some worry this rule is already a done deal. But by law, OMB is required to open a public comment period. Those comments matter because they inform members of Congress, they can be used in litigation, and they create a public record. So here’s what you can do: Submit a public comment. The public comment period on this proposed change is open until July 13. Anyone can submit a comment, and OMB is required to respond to substantial ones. Each comment must be different to count as distinct; identical comments will be counted only once. Comment as an individual, not on behalf of your organization. Here’s a full resource to help you, with useful examples, but in general: Share a story about how science or federal funding has benefitted you or is involved in your work. Are you or someone you loved a cancer survivor? Do you know someone with Alzheimer’s? Have you received NIH/NSF or other federal funding? All of these can be stories you use to highlight why you care. Explain why you’re worried about these proposed changes. You can use the wording found here or in other resources to help you. Ask them to withdraw this proposed rule. Contact your elected representatives. Congress allocates money to federal agencies to spend, and it has oversight of how that process works. You can let your representatives know this proposed change concerns you and ask them to intervene. There are levers they can push that can help at this moment. Let others know why federal funding matters. This isn’t just about science, but ALL federal grants, including for education systems, defense projects, and more. The process, including the importance of federal funding, is invisible to many. We can all make it more visible by sharing how science benefits us and why we value it. You can also share this article, or any of the resources linked here, to help spread awareness! Bottom line We are quickly losing ground in scientific research in the U.S. More changes, like the proposed rule by OMB, would decimate our ability to conduct research here, leaving us all worse off: fewer treatments for pancreatic cancer, less research on pollution impacts, fewer answers for patients with rare disease, and more unaddressed health needs. The impact will be very real for all of us, regardless of where we stand politically. Using our voices for science is more important than ever. Love, LM Big thanks to Dr. Megan Ranney for reading this over and providing brilliant insights, as always. Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective at YLE and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health. You can find her on Substack, LinkedIn, Instagram and Threads. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “Translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Subscribe
Neemias Queta’s Breakout Season Should Earn Him an Extension
When the 2024-25 season ended, the Boston Celtics were faced with frontcourt issues. With Al Horford and Luke Kornet departing in free agency and Kristaps Porzingis being traded to the Golden State Warriors, Boston needed to find help in the frontcourt. Instead of targeting another big man in the market, the Celtics decided to give developing center Neemias Queta a chance. This […] The post Neemias Queta’s Breakout Season Should Earn Him an Extension appeared first on The Lead.
SoHo Business Alliance sues Tampa over flood relief project records
A coalition of South Howard Avenue businesses is taking the City of Tampa to court in an effort to obtain records tied to the controversial South Howard Flood Relief Project before city leaders decide...
SoHo Business Alliance sues Tampa over flood relief project records
A coalition of South Howard Avenue businesses is taking the City of Tampa to court in an effort to obtain records tied to the controversial South Howard Flood Relief Project before city leaders decide whether to move the project into construction.
Yakima's insurance company authorizes appeal of verdict in ex-business owner's plaza lawsuit
Since the city has already met its $100,000 insurance deductible in the case, CIAW is bearing the costs of the case and could decide whether to appeal.
Colorado Supreme Court to decide whether out-of-state defendant may be prosecuted for in-state crime
The Colorado Supreme Court recently announced that it will decide whether Douglas County prosecutors had grounds to pursue criminal charges against a woman in New York whose conduct occurred outside of Colorado. Erin Brennan and her children lived in New York, and her ex-husband moved to Colorado after their divorce. In 2022, she proposed a […]
Stellar Blade: Blood Rain Dev Comments on Launch Platform Plans
Stellar Blade: Blood Rain developer Shift Up says nothing is decided on day one platforms, leaving the door open to Xbox Series, PC, and PS5.
Recent college grad: I moved from New York to Texas, it's cheaper
When I got a job after college, I decided to leave my home on Long Island, where I couldn't afford anything, and move to Texas, where I could save.
I bartered with an AI shopkeeper at ElevenLabs' NYC pop-up
ElevenLabs' NYC pop-up boasted that "every part of the experience is run by a voice agent." I decided to visit.
I shaved my beard to try to find a job at an AI company
A tech consultant said he often faces hiring managers half his age, so he decided to send a message by changing his appearance.
Liverpool’s New Era Could Spark a Brutal Summer Clearout
Liverpool Squad Overhaul Looms as Iraola Era NearsLiverpool are approaching one of those summers where a football club has to decide what it still believes in. The badge remains the same, the stadium ...
Jon Maples has big lead over Jonathan Rubin in HD 87 GOP Primary, and he’s got room to grow
Even with more than 1/3 of voters undecided, Maples already has majority support.
Xbox boss Asha Sharma still can't seem to decide on a stance regarding console exclusivity
The Xbox exclusivity conversation continues, and it doesn't look like much is actually changing.
NBA writer predicts Draymond Green will decline his player option
Draymond Green has a player option for next season with the Warriors, but the 14-year veteran has not yet decided to exercise it.
Florentino Perez advisor made €10m commission from Barcelona deal
Real Madrid are in the heat of elections, with just three days to go before the next president of the club is decided. As such, both sides are keen to cast doubt on the leadership of the other, and it...
Researchers say this new Trump rule could destroy American science as we know it. They’re fighting back
By Ella Nilsen, Andrew Freedman, CNN (CNN) — Scientists across multiple disciplines are sounding the alarm after the White House proposed taking greater control over how scientific research gets funded and allowing political appointees to decide whether to approve scientific grants. Critics of the proposed rule say it would codify the administration’s attempts to destroy
Researchers say this new Trump rule could destroy American science as we know it. They’re fighting back
Scientists across multiple disciplines are raising the alarm after the White House proposed taking greater control over how scientific research gets funded and allowing political appointees to decide whether to approve scientific grants.
When science answers to politics
The White House Office of Management and Budget has proposed new rules that would require political appointees, not scientists, to decide which research…
When science answers to politics
The White House Office of Management and Budget has proposed new rules that would require political appointees, not scientists, to decide which research…
Peru’s Politics Are a Disaster, but Does It Matter?
Peru’s runoff election, on June 7th, will decide which of two candidates—down from 36, in the first round of voting—becomes the next President. The economy may not notice.
Republicans won the redistricting battle. Now voters will decide whether they win Congress
Republicans have won a partisan redistricting battle for Congress. The GOP could gain about 10 U.S. House seats in the upcoming November elections if the new voting districts perform as intended.
Why climate scientists have dropped a worst-case scenario
International scientists decided it is no longer useful to study the most extreme model of runaway global warming. So why are some people upset?
Some of the biggest U.S. sporting towns decided not to host any World Cup games, fearing a ‘major financial burden to our cities’
Chicago, Phoenix, and other big sports towns dropped their World Cup bids. History suggests it may have been a smart choice.
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.
The work you can't always see: Beer is political, part 2
Recently I published a piece about beer, politics, and the question of who speaks up and who doesn’t. I meant every word of it. I still do. And then my inbox opened up. Cleveland Prost is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe I’ve been writing about beer since 2014. For most of that time, I kept things deliberately light — taproom profiles, new releases, the people behind the pints. Gradually, over years of building this thing, you gave me something I didn’t expect: permission. Permission to go deeper. To say what I actually saw in this industry and what I actually believed about it. That trust isn’t something I take lightly. It’s why that piece existed at all, and it’s why this one does too. I’m not walking anything back. But I want to go further. In that piece, I wrote that beer has never existed outside the system. That immigration policy affects who staffs breweries and harvests ingredients. That labor policy affects taproom workers. That civil rights policy affects who feels safe walking into a taproom. That “beer does not exist in a vacuum. The idea that it does is comforting. It is also false.” I believe that as much now as I did when I wrote it. But one idea came back at me, in different forms, over and over (from reader emails, comments, and conversations): that beer itself isn’t political — that it only becomes political when someone decides to make it that way. That what we’re really seeing is a choice by individuals to inject division into something that doesn’t inherently require it. It’s a comforting idea. It’s also wrong — and I think it’s worth being precise about why. That framing assumes that breweries operate outside the conditions shaping everything else. That politics is something you choose to bring into a room that was, until then, clean and neutral. That if you stay quiet, you stay clear of it. But the room was never neutral. It was never clean. Politics is already in the room. It’s in who walks through the door comfortably and who hesitates. It’s in whether a space can be used for organizing without fear. It’s in whether helping someone quietly might carry consequences you have to think carefully about in advance. It’s in who staffed the brewery, who harvested the grain, who can afford to be a regular. The idea that you opt out of all that by staying quiet is an illusion. You only change how visible your response to it is. This is, I realize, a hard thing to hear if you came to a beer newsletter for something lighter. I wrote recently that “beer, for me, has always felt like a refuge — a third place in an increasingly fractured world.” I meant that. I still do. But a refuge is not an escape from reality. It’s a place to gather strength to face it. Here’s what I actually missed — and what I want to correct. Multiple people in the industry reached out to me. I’m not naming them and I’m not identifying their businesses, because that’s not my call. If and when they want to be loud about what they’re doing, that agency belongs to them. What I can share is the substance of what they said, because it complicated something I presented too cleanly. The overall message: *You don’t know what we all are doing.* And they’re right. I don’t. One example involved a collaboration brewed quietly to support another business facing serious challenges in a whole different region, with proceeds directed toward solidarity, community, and keeping operations afloat. No announcement. It could have been broadcast widely. The point was never publicity. Another example involved logistical support for community efforts: organizing safe transportation, providing space for meetings on otherwise closed days, facilitating gatherings under difficult conditions. All of it happening while balancing real financial pressure and genuine concern for personal safety. None of what they described is a brewer “deciding to make beer political.” It’s people responding to the conditions around them — conditions that are already shaping who feels safe, who has access, who can gather, who needs help, and who has the capacity to offer it. Politics, again, already in the room. Already shaping choices. Whether anyone announced it or not. I’ve spent decades in taprooms, at barrel releases, at festivals, in back offices and brewing floors, talking to the people who built this industry from nothing. I know how much happens that never makes it onto social media. I know the owner who quietly comp’d a tab for someone having a crisis. The brewer who drove an hour to pick up a stranger who needed a safe ride. The taproom that stayed dark on a Tuesday so a community group could use the space without it becoming A Whole Thing. None of that gets a post. Most of it never will. So when I wrote recently about silence — when I said that “silence right now doesn’t feel neutral, it feels like complicity” — I was writing about what I could see. And I was right about what I saw. The public silence of breweries that have the platform, the stability, and frankly the safety to say something and choose not to? That still troubles me. I’m not softening that. But some of what I read as silence is actually something else entirely. It’s people doing the work with their hands instead of their phones. It’s people who are genuinely afraid — not of being canceled, but of real consequences for their families, their employees, their ability to keep the doors open at all. That deserves more than a footnote. It deserves to be named clearly. Here’s the tension I want to sit with honestly: public statements matter. They matter because people can’t rally around something they can’t see. Visibility creates awareness and solidarity. It helps people find each other. It tells someone standing outside your taproom door, uncertain whether they’ll be welcomed inside, something they need to know — or whether it’s even safe for them to be in public at all. That’s not performative. I wrote recently that the craft beer movement “was built on collective defiance. It was built on rejecting consolidation. On pushing back against homogeneity.” I believe that too. And I’ll extend it: breweries should be at least as loud about their values as they are when they drop a new seasonal. Your hazy IPA gets a full rollout — the label art, the tap handle photo, the countdown post. Human dignity deserves the same energy. Be as loud about human rights as you are about your beer. There is no reason those two things should require different levels of courage from you. But visibility isn’t the only form of courage. And not everyone can be visible right now without real consequences — financial, personal, sometimes physical. There are people in this industry doing hard, unglamorous, sometimes risky work in the background, and announcing it would compromise it or paint a target on someone who’s already stretched thin. That’s not silence as complicity. That’s operational discipline under pressure. What I want to push back on — clearly, not gently — is the idea that behind-the-scenes action and public visibility are in competition with each other. The person organizing quietly in the back room and the person posting a statement of solidarity on a Tuesday morning are both doing something real. We need both. We need the quiet infrastructure and we need the visible signal. We need people to know that this industry — at its best, at its most independent, and human — gives a fuck. I closed that piece with a question: “Reactive and fearful? Or clear and values-driven?” That question still stands. But having heard from you, I’d add a corollary: the values-driven path isn’t always the loudest one. Sometimes it’s a phone call and a recipe. Sometimes it’s a room made available on a closed Tuesday. Sometimes it’s a drive across town for someone who needed a safe ride home. All of it is political. All of it was always political. You don’t get to opt out of that — you only get to decide what you do with it. I’ve spent more than a decade writing about this industry because I believe it can be exactly that. I’ve been lucky enough to build an audience that lets me say so plainly. That’s a privilege I intend to use. The work is happening. Some of it you’ll see. Some of it you won’t. Support it either way. Cleveland Prost is a reader-supported publication covering beer and brewing across New York state. To receive new posts and support this work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Cleveland Prost is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
Live Results: New Jersey midterm primaries
New Jersey voters will nominate candidates for both chambers of Congress in a state primary on Tuesday, including in one key battleground district that could decide control of the U.S. House.
Iowa voters head to the polls to decide the candidates for a soon-to-be open U.S. Senate seat
Alajbegovic awaits Roma’s approach
Kerim Alajbegovic is aiming to play in Italy next season.According to Sky Sport, has indicated Roma as his priority. It will now be up to the Giallorossi to decide whether to pursue the 2007-born Bosn...
Arizona lands commitment of Texas DB Jaylen Oliver
Arizona hosted a slew of recruits over the weekend, and some of them liked the visit enough to decide Tucson is where they want to play college football. Jaylen Oliver, a defensive back from Texas, was the first to announce his commitment from this weekend’s official visits. Oliver is a 6-foot, 170-pound safety that plays […]
ERC Opinions Yield Mixed Results For Essential Businesses
Two cases interpreting requirements to qualify for the ERC were decided on May 28, 2026, applying different standards to the causation standard taxpayers must meet.
The battle for the Senate could come down to candidate baggage
Problematic candidates have mostly been a hurdle for Senate Republicans in recent years. But in 2026, they could be a real problem for both parties — and could potentially decide Senate control.
OC Officials Won’t Pursue Renewing Funding For New Black Infant Health Program
OC Health Care officials decided not to pursue a grant for a program aimed at supporting Black moms and their kids.
7 takeaways from Sunday’s marathon political debates ahead of the runoffs
Georgia voters head to the polls again on June 16 to decide matchups for the midterms in November. A dozen candidates faced off in debates on Sunday.
Josh Shapiro couldn’t avoid the questions about him. He decided he doesn’t want to
For now, Josh Shapiro says his focus is on Pennsylvania – “the state that decides it all,” as he likes to say. But a politician who alludes to a famous passage from a rabbinic text in nearly every major speech has also decided to talk more about his views on Israel, whether for a future presidential campaign’s sake or just to influence a conversation that tends to land on him more than any other Jewish politician in America.
Pro-Trump candidate to face Petro ally in Colombia presidential runoff election after surprising performance
In a surprisingly strong performance, right-wing outsider candidate Abelardo de la Espriella will face leftist candidate senator Iván Cepeda in a runoff to decide Colombia’s presidency, setting the stage for a battle over Colombia’s political future and the direction of its relationships with key international partners, including the United States.
Jazz pre-draft process progressing this week
The next phase of the pre-draft process gets underway for the Utah Jazz this week. Now that the NBA combine is over and the deadline has passed for players to decide if they want to remain in the draft or return to college, it’s time for teams to take another step toward draft night. After the combine concluded, team officials and draft prospects remained in Chicago as team physicians and medical experts arrived.
How to live stream Phillies vs Dodgers: MLB, TV channel
The Philadelphia Phillies (30-28) evened their series with the Los Angeles Dodgers (37-21) on Saturday night, ending the Dodgers’ six-game winning streak, as the teams get set to decide the three-game series on Sunday at Dodger Stadium. How to Watch…
Brendan Sorsby gambling investigation: Judge to rule on Texas Tech QB's injunction to regain NCAA eligibility
A judge will decide Monday whether to grant Sorsby an injunction amidst a gambling investigation
California Politics 360 full episode | Final days until the June primary
Voters will decide who they want in several statewide races, including the next governor.
Spurs vs. Knicks: The three biggest questions that will decide the NBA Finals
Can Victor Wembanyama cap off his historic season with a Spurs title, or will the red-hot Knicks break their 53-year drought?
Breaking Down Detroit’s Biggest Offensive Storylines From OTAs
Three days of OTAs won’t decide the Lions’ season, but they did reveal some early clues, including a surprising frontrunner at right tackle and a rookie receiver making noise.
When used in the ‘wild’ conditions of the real world, large language AI stumbles
Asking medical questions of AI with language spoken “in the wild”—meaning with consumer-level LLM prompts—brings back answers with decidedly mediocre accuracy—76%—a new study shows.
Report: Cleveland Browns Starting QB Battle Seemingly Decided Already
Delta Communities Must Plan for the Future They Want
Everyone has a plan. The farmer decides months before the first warm day of spring which crops will go in the ground, how many acres each will take, and what inputs will be needed to give each row its best chance. The retailer studies last year’s numbers and plans which products to stock before the […]
Creighton lands commitment from local talent London Dada
London Dada, a 6-foot-7 small forward out of Omaha Westside (NE), has decided to stay home and commit to Creighton, he told Rivals. A three-star recruit, Dada is ranked as the No. 119 overall prospect in the 2027 class according to the Rivals Industry Ranking. He’s also the No. 35 ranked small forward nationally and […]
Who's tired? Bukayo Saka warns PSG: 'It's moments, not minutes, that will decide Champions League final'
Despite playing far more minutes than their French opponents this season, Mikel Arteta's side say they're rested and ready for a shot at European glory
Trump holds Situation Room meeting to decide on Iran deal
Trump faced a politically fraught decision to enter an agreement that would invariably require significant concessions to Tehran.
Bungie Reportedly Considered Relaunching Destiny as 'Destiny Infinity' Before Deciding to Pull the Plug on Destiny 2
Bungie's issues with its storied sci-fi shooter, Destiny 2, began around the time of the last summer's Edge of Fate expansion, which reportedly underperformed. The decision to pull the plug was allegedly made "earlier this year" after it decided not to relaunch the franchise as "Destiny Infinity."
One Judge’s opinion: Why a ruling in Broward County doesn’t signify the end of school safety in Florida
'Elected officials still have the right to decide if school zone speed enforcement technology should be implemented in their communities.'
Black Women Political Candidates Are Expected to Be 'Likable,' Qualified and Tireless. Men Aren’t.
What I had experienced during that run wasn’t entirely unfamiliar to me. The year before, in 2013, I had run for president of the Young Democrats of America (YDA), a national political party office role, against a popular opponent. The opponent was a Black man, so race wasn’t a factor in the election; however, gender was. Before my campaign, I was vice president of YDA and had heard only good things about my service: my fundraising efforts, the partnerships I had engineered with progressive organizations, and programming coordination for the membership. However, when I decided to run for president, I instantly became ‘difficult to work with’ and ‘mean.’ Research on women candidates confirms that voters are less likely to vote for a woman if they don’t like her; by comparison, voters don’t need to like men to elect them. But when I was running as the Black woman candidate in a seven-candidate primary for public office, with two other women in the race, I noticed almost nothing about my being ‘difficult’ and more about my ability and work ethic. My experience running for public office reflected the systemic bias and double standards not just for women candidates, but Black women candidates who dare to aspire to any sort of political leadership—and that needed to change. We need more progressive Black women in public office for a myriad reasons, but we also specifically need the younger generation of Instigators in office, candidates who understand the times in which we live currently. Electing more Black women will take real investment in changing the biases and attitudes (conscious and unconscious) of mostly white donors, media, campaign staff, consultants and institutional leaders to help shift the culture and systems. But this support needs to be substantively increased so that we can rebuild an inclusive, multiracial democracy with the leaders we want and need. (Excerpted from The Instigators: How Black Women Have Been Essential to American Democracy by Atima Omara.)
Polish scientists and students rally in campaign for 3% funding target
Polish scientists and students have been flooding social media with calls on the government to raise research and development spending as part of 3% for Science, 100% for Poland, a campaign born earlier this month out of frustration with chronic underfunding in the academic sector. On May 27, thousands took the slogan on to the streets.The EU has been trying to convince member states to raise their R&D expenditures to 3% of GDP for more than two decades, but the idea has never gained traction in capitals. Finance ministers were too busy plugging budget holes created in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, then the Covid pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and now the war in Iran.Critics say that countries missed or ignored the target because it is voluntary, but also because research communities have rarely raised their voice to put pressure on national governments. The European Commission hopes to make the target legally binding in the upcoming European Research Area Act, an EU-wide regulation that should be announced by the end of the year. Academia in Poland has been faced with a funding crisis for years, often leaving its members with no other choice but to work abroad in order to access better resources, or leave the sector altogether in the hope of earning a decent living. The risk, in the long-term, is that brain drain stifles local innovation capacity and technological competitiveness.In just a few weeks, the movement rallied nationwide support, including from major academic bodies and trade unions such as the Conference of Rectors of Academic Schools in Poland and the Presidium of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Its public petition collected more than 23,000 signatures. On May 27, it formed the first large protest for science in Poland, gathering thousands of people in front of the parliament building in Warsaw.Ilona Uryga-Bugajska, representative of the Marie Curie Alumni Association Poland Chapter, was there. “The protest was peaceful, with no incidents reported, and the entire event took place in a respectful and calm atmosphere,” she said. Banners she saw in the crowd carried slogans such as “A little longer and I’ll be teaching in a supermarket,” “National culture, starvation salary,” “Stop the destruction of science,” “Passion will not pay the rent,” “Without action, don’t expect a better future,” and “Pull science out of the hole.” She also observed a strong presence of young researchers, who are on the frontline of Poland’s academic crisis.“Academics are usually people who prefer discussion, analysis, dialogue and compromise. We are not a group that protests easily,” said Katarzyna Marzec, professor at the Faculty of Pharmacy of the Jagiellonian University Medical College and AGH University of Krakow, who also took part. “But many of us feel that we have been pushed against the wall.”Aleksandra Rutkowska, translational neuroscientist and research group leader at the Medical University of Gdańsk, agreed. “Frustration in the scientific community is very high,” she said. “Science is often used politically as a symbol of innovation and modernity, but the everyday reality inside many institutions is much more difficult. There is a large gap between the public narrative and the actual condition of the sector.”Maria Wiktoria Górna, head of the structural biology group at the University of Warsaw and one of the organisers of the movement, told Science|Business that the campaign would continue without proven results. This might involve another strike in the autumn, she said. “Empty promises are not enough by now.”Campaign demandsAccording to Uryga-Bugajska, the organisers officially presented their demands and concerns to representatives of the government present at the event. These included Marek Gzik, deputy minister of science and higher education, and Karolina Zioło-Pużuk, secretary of state of that same ministry.The headline demand, for the government to increase national spending on R&D to 3% of GDP by 2030, should be within Poland’s economic capacity, Rutkowska said. “The real question is whether there is genuine long-term political commitment to treating science as a strategic priority rather than a slogan.”In 2024, R&D expenditure in Poland stood at 1.41% of GDP, which is slightly above the average for central and eastern Europe, with countries such as Czechia recording 1.82%, Hungary 1.31% and Romania 0.46%. However, it falls noticeably short of the EU average of 2.24%, which just a handful of countries exceed, including Germany, Belgium and Sweden.Campaigners are also asking for fair wages for scientific staff, including PhD stipends and junior academic salaries, which are widely considered uncompetitive. Starting doctoral scholarships amount to some €843 gross per month, when the statutory minimum wage stands at €1,135. By pushing early-career researchers out of Poland, growing precarity has caused a generational gap in the academic workforce, with just 25% of lecturers aged under 40. In this context, the movement fears that scientific careers could soon be accessible to a privileged minority only.Grzegorz Spólnik is a case in point. After 15 years working in mass spectrometry at the Polish Academy of Sciences, he decided to leave partly “to earn enough money to live a normal life,” he said. “At that time, my earnings were similar to those of people working in grocery shops, and the work-life balance is something that does not exist in science, or is very hard to achieve.”Now a senior field service engineer for Polish laboratory equipment supplier Bioanalytic, he would consider going back to research, “but never in the public sector, maybe some start-up or a big private company with ambitious R&D.”The campaigners want to see more support for basic research and have called for €236 million to be added to the budget of the National Science Centre (NCN) in 2027 so that the average grant application success rate does not fall below 25%.“At the protest, there was a banner I particularly liked: ‘NCN is not a lottery.’ Unfortunately, for many researchers, it increasingly feels exactly like one,” Marzec said. “Personally, I am one of the lucky ones. I work at two of the strongest institutions in the country, where the research standards are very high. I know that in many other institutions, the situation is much worse and obtaining funding for research at an early-career stage is becoming nearly impossible.”Rutkowska also considers herself fortunate. After studying abroad and holding a postdoctoral position, she returned to Poland, where her pay was supported through an NCN-funded project linked to the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions. “This also made me very aware that good research conditions in Poland often depend on external competitive funding rather than on stable support from the system itself,” she said.Long-term strategyBeyond the lack of funds for both salaries and grants, scientists believe that the issue is structural. “The biggest problem at the moment is the complete lack of a clear long-term strategy for the development of science and research from the current government,” Marzec said. “Everything ends with declarations and promises that are never truly followed by concrete actions or structural reforms.”Rutkowska agreed, citing a lack of infrastructure, continuity and long-term institutional support.“Running a research group in Poland often means functioning as an entire institution at once,” she said. “I am a principal investigator, a mentor, a recruiter, a project administrator and, when needed, still someone who returns to the lab bench to help with experiments,” she went on. “This creates a large hidden workload that takes time and energy away from actual science. At times, it feels as though scientists are no longer expecting extra help; we simply hope the system will stop creating additional obstacles that make research unnecessarily difficult.”Related articlesStrategic thinking: Germany funds joint research with Poland and FrancePoland to transfer €30M of regional funds to boost Horizon Europe participationPoland is funding fewer basic research grants as high inflation hitsIn short, “academics are expected to teach, publish papers, apply for grants and conduct high-quality research, while funding and salaries remain very limited,” said Uryga-Bugajska, who returned to her home country after 13 years in the UK.According to Marzec, another issue is the way that research institutions are evaluated. Previously, this took place every four years, with a clear differentiation between stronger and weaker institutions. “The current government, perhaps to avoid political backlash, effectively concluded that everyone is doing well, so in practice no meaningful evaluation took place,” she said.But in her view, “some form of serious assessment is necessary” to ensure the excellence and international competitiveness of Polish institutions, and to determine how to best use public resources and where institutional structures need reform. “Some institutions may need to rethink hiring practices in order to attract ambitious young researchers who are capable of obtaining competitive grants and building internationally visible research groups.” Rutkowska has already had to adapt. “When hiring PhD students, I often have to combine different funding sources creatively to make positions attractive enough for talented people to stay in science,” she said. “Many young researchers do not see a stable future in academia in Poland, and that is deeply worrying.”
Polish scientists and students rally in campaign for better conditions
Polish scientists and students have been flooding social media with calls on the government to raise research and development spending as part of 3% for Science, 100% for Poland, a campaign born earlier this month out of frustration with chronic underfunding in the academic sector. On May 27, thousands took the slogan on to the streets.The EU has been trying to convince member states to raise their R&D expenditures to 3% of GDP for more than two decades, but the idea has never gained traction in capitals. Finance ministers were too busy plugging budget holes created in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, then the Covid pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and now the war in Iran.Critics say that countries missed or ignored the target because it is voluntary, but also because research communities have rarely raised their voice to put pressure on national governments. The European Commission hopes to make the target legally binding in the upcoming European Research Area Act, an EU-wide regulation that should be announced by the end of the year. Academia in Poland has been faced with a funding crisis for years, often leaving its members with no other choice but to work abroad in order to access better resources, or leave the sector altogether in the hope of earning a decent living. The risk, in the long-term, is that brain drain stifles local innovation capacity and technological competitiveness.In just a few weeks, the movement rallied nationwide support, including from major academic bodies and trade unions such as the Conference of Rectors of Academic Schools in Poland and the Presidium of the Polish Academy of Sciences. Its public petition collected more than 23,000 signatures. On May 27, it formed the first large protest for science in Poland, gathering thousands of people in front of the parliament building in Warsaw.Ilona Uryga-Bugajska, representative of the Marie Curie Alumni Association Poland Chapter, was there. “The protest was peaceful, with no incidents reported, and the entire event took place in a respectful and calm atmosphere,” she said. Banners she saw in the crowd carried slogans such as “A little longer and I’ll be teaching in a supermarket,” “National culture, starvation salary,” “Stop the destruction of science,” “Passion will not pay the rent,” “Without action, don’t expect a better future,” and “Pull science out of the hole.” She also observed a strong presence of young researchers, who are on the frontline of Poland’s academic crisis.“Academics are usually people who prefer discussion, analysis, dialogue and compromise. We are not a group that protests easily,” said Katarzyna Marzec, professor at the Faculty of Pharmacy of the Jagiellonian University Medical College and AGH University of Krakow, who also took part. “But many of us feel that we have been pushed against the wall.”Aleksandra Rutkowska, translational neuroscientist and research group leader at the Medical University of Gdańsk, agreed. “Frustration in the scientific community is very high,” she said. “Science is often used politically as a symbol of innovation and modernity, but the everyday reality inside many institutions is much more difficult. There is a large gap between the public narrative and the actual condition of the sector.”Maria Wiktoria Górna, head of the structural biology group at the University of Warsaw and one of the organisers of the movement, told Science|Business that the campaign would continue without proven results. This might involve another strike in the autumn, she said. “Empty promises are not enough by now.”Campaign demandsAccording to Uryga-Bugajska, the organisers officially presented their demands and concerns to representatives of the government present at the event. These included Marek Gzik, deputy minister of science and higher education, and Karolina Zioło-Pużuk, secretary of state of that same ministry.The headline demand, for the government to increase national spending on R&D to 3% of GDP by 2030, should be within Poland’s economic capacity, Rutkowska said. “The real question is whether there is genuine long-term political commitment to treating science as a strategic priority rather than a slogan.”In 2024, R&D expenditure in Poland stood at 1.41% of GDP, which is slightly above the average for central and eastern Europe, with countries such as Czechia recording 1.82%, Hungary 1.31% and Romania 0.46%. However, it falls noticeably short of the EU average of 2.24%, which just a handful of countries exceed, including Germany, Belgium and Sweden.Campaigners are also asking for fair wages for scientific staff, including PhD stipends and junior academic salaries, which are widely considered uncompetitive. Starting doctoral scholarships amount to some €843 gross per month, when the statutory minimum wage stands at €1,135. By pushing early-career researchers out of Poland, growing precarity has caused a generational gap in the academic workforce, with just 25% of lecturers aged under 40. In this context, the movement fears that scientific careers could soon be accessible to a privileged minority only.Grzegorz Spólnik is a case in point. After 15 years working in mass spectrometry at the Polish Academy of Sciences, he decided to leave partly “to earn enough money to live a normal life,” he said. “At that time, my earnings were similar to those of people working in grocery shops, and the work-life balance is something that does not exist in science, or is very hard to achieve.”Now a senior field service engineer for Polish laboratory equipment supplier Bioanalytic, he would consider going back to research, “but never in the public sector, maybe some start-up or a big private company with ambitious R&D.”The campaigners want to see more support for basic research and have called for €236 million to be added to the budget of the National Science Centre (NCN) in 2027 so that the average grant application success rate does not fall below 25%.“At the protest, there was a banner I particularly liked: ‘NCN is not a lottery.’ Unfortunately, for many researchers, it increasingly feels exactly like one,” Marzec said. “Personally, I am one of the lucky ones. I work at two of the strongest institutions in the country, where the research standards are very high. I know that in many other institutions, the situation is much worse and obtaining funding for research at an early-career stage is becoming nearly impossible.”Rutkowska also considers herself fortunate. After studying abroad and holding a postdoctoral position, she returned to Poland, where her pay was supported through an NCN-funded project linked to the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions. “This also made me very aware that good research conditions in Poland often depend on external competitive funding rather than on stable support from the system itself,” she said.Long-term strategyBeyond the lack of funds for both salaries and grants, scientists believe that the issue is structural. “The biggest problem at the moment is the complete lack of a clear long-term strategy for the development of science and research from the current government,” Marzec said. “Everything ends with declarations and promises that are never truly followed by concrete actions or structural reforms.”Rutkowska agreed, citing a lack of infrastructure, continuity and long-term institutional support.“Running a research group in Poland often means functioning as an entire institution at once,” she said. “I am a principal investigator, a mentor, a recruiter, a project administrator and, when needed, still someone who returns to the lab bench to help with experiments,” she went on. “This creates a large hidden workload that takes time and energy away from actual science. At times, it feels as though scientists are no longer expecting extra help; we simply hope the system will stop creating additional obstacles that make research unnecessarily difficult.”Related articlesStrategic thinking: Germany funds joint research with Poland and FrancePoland to transfer €30M of regional funds to boost Horizon Europe participationPoland is funding fewer basic research grants as high inflation hitsIn short, “academics are expected to teach, publish papers, apply for grants and conduct high-quality research, while funding and salaries remain very limited,” said Uryga-Bugajska, who returned to her home country after 13 years in the UK.According to Marzec, another issue is the way that research institutions are evaluated. Previously, this took place every four years, with a clear differentiation between stronger and weaker institutions. “The current government, perhaps to avoid political backlash, effectively concluded that everyone is doing well, so in practice no meaningful evaluation took place,” she said.But in her view, “some form of serious assessment is necessary” to ensure the excellence and international competitiveness of Polish institutions, and to determine how to best use public resources and where institutional structures need reform. “Some institutions may need to rethink hiring practices in order to attract ambitious young researchers who are capable of obtaining competitive grants and building internationally visible research groups.” Rutkowska has already had to adapt. “When hiring PhD students, I often have to combine different funding sources creatively to make positions attractive enough for talented people to stay in science,” she said. “Many young researchers do not see a stable future in academia in Poland, and that is deeply worrying.”
🎁The surprises keep coming: thrilling Libertadores night
Tonight, Groups C, E, and H in the CONMEBOL Libertadores were decided, and here we bring you the star, the surprise, and the disappointment of the night.Platense did its homework and takes the starWit...
Granada Hills, Carson advance to a fourth straight final meeting to decide City Section softball title
Granada Hills defeats San Pedro 12-9 in Open Division semifinals; Carson eliminates Birmingham 12-2
WakeMed declines merger proposal from UNC Health in midst of Atrium deal
The health system received UNC’s offer to combine days after publicly announcing plans to merge with Charlotte, North Carolina-based Atrium Health. Ultimately, WakeMed decided Atrium is the best path forward.
WakeMed declined offer from UNC Health in midst of Atrium deal
The health system received UNC’s offer to combine days after publicly announcing plans to merge with Charlotte, North Carolina-based Atrium Health. Ultimately, WakeMed decided Atrium is the best path forward.
Charlotte plans to pick interim mayor before Vi Lyles leaves. Here’s the process
Public applications will open June 2, and a new mayor will be decided before Mayor Vi Lyles leaves office.
What is Measure ER? Why some say LA County sales tax increase is crucial after health cuts
L.A. County voters will decide on Measure ER -- a proposed half-cent sales tax increase that would last five years. While tax increases aren't popular, supporters say this one is a lifeline to healthcare services.
Virginia voters will decide 3 ballot measures in November general election
The measures are not affected by a Virginia Supreme Court ruling that blocked redistricting referendum results.
Secretary of state to decide whether transgender sports referendum qualifies for Maine ballot
Get up to speed fast on the California election with our guide for the undecided
Californians are voting on a wide-open governor's race in a June 2 primary election. Xavier Becerra, Steve Hilton and Tom Steyer are leading in polls.
Birmingham nightclub’s business license under review after shooting, suspect identified
Birmingham City Council will meet Tuesday to decide whether to revoke the business license of Nana Funks nightclub in Lakeview following a shooting and multiple police calls.
Is Sony Group (TSE:6758) Pricing In Recent Entertainment And Gaming Momentum?
If you are wondering whether Sony Group stock at ¥3,598 is giving you a fair deal or not, a clear look at its valuation can help you decide how it might fit into your portfolio. The share price return is flat over the past week at 0.1%, while the stock shows a 12.2% gain over 30 days, a decline of 11.8% year to date, a 1.6% return over 1 year, 45.0% over 3 years, and 80.6% over 5 years. Taken together, these figures give mixed signals about how the market has been reassessing the stock over...
Texas runoffs reset the races as smaller turnout clouds key battles
Tuesday’s showdown features volatile, lower-turnout contests in which momentum and shifting coalitions could decide the winners.
Dave Hyde: Sports lessons in a 20-minute commencement speech
Ray Lewis recently offered a window into his Hall of Fame football career. He said it turned at the University of Miami when he decided who he wanted to be. “Before I leave here, I will be the greatest Hurricane to ever walk through this university,” Lewis said to North Carolina Central University graduates. “That wasn’t arrogance. That was identity.” It’s one of my favorite seasons in sports: ...
Chris Taylor officially announces his retirement from baseball after two days of confusion about his future
The utility man announced his retirement on Friday but changed his mind on Saturday. One day later, Taylor finally decided that he is indeed retiring.
Nothing Is Decided on Arne Slot Until After Brentford
The Noise Around Slot Means Nothing Until MondayThe final weekend of Liverpool’s Premier League season has arrived and once again the narrative surrounding Arne Slot is shifting by the hour. One mom...
How a man transformed his tool shed into a man cave and cigar lounge
Tyler Graham said his old tool shed was always "a disaster." He decided to transform the space into a man cave where he can enjoy whiskey and cigars.
Newberg bear update: Cub shot, killed in Canby due to 'public health and safety concerns'
A bear cub who was previously spotted in Newberg has been killed in Canby. Authorities fatally shot the animal around 11:15 a.m. on Saturday, the Canby Police Department reported. Officials said multiple agencies "decided to stop the bear with legal force" as it moved toward the public.
As Trump Weighs Return to Conflict in Iran, Here’s What Could Be Targeted Next
There is no shortage of targets should President Trump, in coordination with Israel, decide to resume the assault on Iran.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz decides to run in CD 20, joining crowded Democratic Primary
A new congressional map dismantled her seat.
A 25-year-old left her $346K job to launch makeup brand Forta
Sarah Guller, 25, said she felt like she should have been happy with her private equity job — but she decided she needed to make a change.
Denuvo added to 007 First Light 6 days before release date, canceling pre-orders
Some James Bond fans have decided to skip 007 First Light, opting to wait for the next movie. With the game’s release date on May 27th, Denuvo has surfaced on its Steam listing. Buyers concerned about performance and DRM restrictions have canceled their pre-orders.
Even Republican Stomachs are Turning at Trump’s Latest Sweetheart Deal
The whole arrangement smells like week-old mackerel in a noonday suit. But it might not be illegal—unless GOP majorities in Congress decide to make it so.
Joe Hunter says 'Survivor 50' jury vote was decided before final Tribal Council
Joe Hunter says 'Survivor 50' jury vote was decided before final Tribal Council and addresses Cirie saying he needed to be babysat by tribemates on a 'Joetation.'
‘We’ve Never Been This Bad.’ Eastern Pennsylvania Weighs Its Rising Costs
With two swing districts, the region from Scranton to Allentown could decide control of the House, and voters are expressing profound economic distress.
US Health Secretary Kennedy fires heads of key preventive health panel
US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earlier this month fired the chair and vice chair of the influential task force that decides which preventive medical care is provided at no cost to patients.
US Health Secretary Kennedy Fires Heads of Key Preventive Health Panel
NEW YORK, May 20 (Reuters) - US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earlier this month fired the chair and vice chair of the influential task force that decides which preventive medical care is provided at no cost to patients. The Preventive Services Task Force, which typically has 16 ...