SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " academia " 100 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Sign in to save shuffle history.
Experts to examine the use of generative AI in science
The Assessing and Imagining the Impact of Generative AI on Science Symposium, March 3-5, will feature experts from across academia and industry engaging in discussions on the use and implications of generative AI.
The new "science golden age" looks suspiciously like a grift
This edition of PN is made possible by paid subscribers. Become one ⬇️ 🚀 Subscribe to PN 🚀 The Trump regime is trying to usher in a “Golden Age in Science” where scientific research is run like a Trump family business, artificial intelligence is all that matters, profit is everything, and expertise is for chumps. Or at least that’s the vision emerging from a new 123-page “Report to the President” from Michael Kratsios, the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In a normal administration, you could probably skip over learning about a science policy document — but this is no normal administration, and this is no normal science policy document. Instead, it’s Trump’s attempt to end the actual golden age of science that was kicked off in 1945 with the publication of '“The Endless Frontier” by Vannevar Bush. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) [ Harmeet Dhillon demonstrates danger of posting through it ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) Liz Dye · Jul 29 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) Bush, at President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s request, laid out a vision of federal support for science that centered on funding universities to do basic research, saying that as long as those institutions were “vigorous and healthy and their scientists are free to pursue the truth wherever it may lead, there will be a flow of new scientific knowledge to those who can apply it to practical problems in Government, in industry, or elsewhere.” Kratsios’s report is supposed to be the successor to Bush’s, and even apes the format, but this isn’t really a document about science policy. It’s one about ending science research as we know it in favor of shoveling cash at big tech companies. While it might be temping to wave this away as an aspirational policy document, Trump has already begun to shift billions in research funds to AI projects and has taken a hatchet to science funding across the board. He’s teed up the shift Kratsios proposes here, and since neither Congress nor the Supreme Court seem inclined to stop him from doing whatever he wants with taxpayer money, it isn’t doomering or hyperbole to say we are staring down the barrel of a world where the only “science” the government intends to support is for-profit tech and defense advancements. Science for dummies Part of how you can tell this isn’t a document about science is that you are immediately faced with an absolute wall of business-speak of the worst sort. Did you know we must “tightly couple our science and technology enterprises to ensure that groundbreaking ideas invented in the United States are rapidly prototyped, tested, manufactured, and scaled domestically”? You do now! That tone isn’t surprising, because Kratsios has no background in science or research. He has a bachelor’s in political science and spent most of his career working for Peter Thiel at Thiel Capital. After a stint in the first Trump administration as Chief Technology Officer, where he also did not do any science, Kratsios was tasked in 2020 with overseeing the Pentagon’s research budget for a brief time, a position that, as the Wall Street Journal put it, “carries a great deal of power in terms of dictating investment allocations.” He spent the Biden years at Scale AI as “head of strategy,” which you will also note is neither a science nor a research job. But Scale AI has contracts with the Department of Defense and, as the Washington Post wrote in 2023, “has been aggressively pitching itself as the company that will help the US military in its existential battle with China.” And now you have the necessary background for our new golden age, which is going to be a golden age of taking money away from scientists and universities and giving it to companies like Scale AI. A note from Aaron: Working with brilliant contributors like Lisa takes resources. If you aren’t already a paid subscriber, please become one to support our work. 👇 Subscribe In a genuinely galling move, Katsios spends a lot of time slamming universities because of “administrative burdens on researchers” and the “well-documented inefficiencies” in academia, the message being that those damn universities waste the time of amazing researchers with paperwork. Except it’s the administration that is attempting to impose inefficient, unnecessary burdens on those researchers with a proposed Office of Management and Budget rule that would require senior political appointees to approve every science grant and ensure it aligns with Trump’s personal priorities. Researchers would also have to seek prior government approval to attend conferences or publicize their research. And political appointees could terminate any grant at any time if they feel like it. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) [ The murder of expertise ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) Lisa Needham · Jun 11 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) But when it comes to AI, we’re going to “restore permissionless innovation.” The report proposes to give lucky ducky innovators a pile of cash up front for grants lasting five years or longer, saying “awards should be fully-funded in year one, with all resources earmarked upfront, to minimize administrative burdens and reduce pressure for researchers to generate intermediate results to secure continued funding.” Yeah, wouldn’t want to have to make the Very Special Tech Bros show results or get money parceled out year by year like the plebes at universities. The report also proposes that we should have “fast grants” with “simplified applications requiring just a few pages of writing” because that is definitely how science works, just writing a bit off the dome and getting some cash. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) [ Tech elites are turning AI into ChatGPTrump ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) Paul Waldman · July 29, 2025 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) Oh, and we should have prizes and challenges, where multiple teams compete. The proposed prizes include incentives like “advance procurement commitments,” which means the federal government agrees to buy whatever is being developed. There’s also “regulatory fast-tracking,” making sure all those great AI thingies don’t have to wait too long to be unleashed on a market. These aren’t incentives to do science. These are incentives to develop things with tax dollars that you can then sell to the government for more tax dollars. In the suggestion that might be the most unhinged, the most very opposite of how both government and research work, our new age will include “golden tickets.” That’s where an individual reviewer in an agency — yes, just one person — can “recommend unconventional proposals that may not pass consensus-driven review panels” because somehow this will “surface valuable ideas too divisive for committees and attract higher quality reviewers by empowering them to exercise independent scientific judgment.” Yes, that’s saying that a random person in an agency should be able to shovel money at some idea even if it can’t pass a review panel, and that the opportunity to do so will attract better employees because apparently all the best minds in science are chomping at the bit to be allowed to unilaterally fund AI research based on their personal vibes. But that isn’t at all how actual science works, and actual scientists aren’t unhappy about review panels. They work collaboratively, not siloed in some secret race to create the next AI chatbot. A 2020 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research examined whether peer review panels succeed in helping agencies predict which research ideas will best advance science. Peer review was better at finding “diamond in the rough” applicants than a single government program official. How about that. Trump always wants a taste It’s painfully clear that what Katsios is trying to do here is turn the whole of government science research and funding into the sort of “move fast and break things” paradigm that is the hallmark of big tech. That method works to line the pockets of tech executives, but it isn’t science. There’s a reason the government funds different kinds of research than private tech companies do. What Katsios either fails to understand or deliberately ignores is that the federal government is the main funder of basic research precisely because it can take a long time for it to bear fruit and is not intended to be profitable as such. “Basic” here does not mean rudimentary or simple, but rather research that is designed to advance scientific knowledge instead of achieving a specific outcome or product. Big tech companies don’t widely fund that sort of research, because it doesn’t make them money. Industry dollars account for only about 20 percent of basic research funding, while the government contributes around 60 percent. Big tech companies and startups do, however, rely on and benefit from that basic research. A 2019 study found that 35 percent of all patents obtained by venture-backed startups from 1976 to 2016 cited federally supported research. Basic research funded by the NIH contributed to every single drug the FDA approved from 2010 to 2016. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) [ The Saudi nuclear farce and governance by whim and meme ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) Noah Berlatsky · Jul 27 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) Unlike inventing the next ChatGPT, actual science is slow and iterative. Government funding of research that, on its face, would not appear to lead to any big new invention is actually what underpins those big new inventions. If the government hadn’t funded research into desert lizard venom, we wouldn’t know about semaglutide, and we wouldn’t have Ozempic. If research scientists hadn’t studied how bees optimize nectar foraging within a colony, we wouldn’t have the algorithm that assigns internet traffic across computer servers. The report assiduously ignores that a symbiotic, profitable relationship between the federal government, universities, and private companies already exists. Each federal research dollar generates about $1.50 to $3.00 in long-term economic benefits. The $36 billion the government awarded in NIH research funding in fiscal year 2025 generated $94 billion in new economic activity. Trump’s proposed new golden age is intended to strip those billions from universities, resulting in the dismantling of departments and the shuttering of labs. But Katsios has a plan for that: Universities should just become trade schools to churn out no-show STEM degrees! “Require universities and community colleges to embed practical technical training and externships into STEM curricula. Let hands-on experience and industry credentials count toward degrees.” It’s quite the feat to, on the one hand, strip schools of funding for scientific research while simultaneously demanding to control what is taught and, oh, also, colleges need to give degrees to employees at big tech companies just for being employees at big tech companies. The new golden age would also exacerbate the brain drain Trump’s policies have already caused. Nature found that in the first quarter of 2025, US scientists submitted 32 percent more job applications abroad than in 2024. A March 2025 poll by Nature of roughly 1,600 scientists found that over 1,200 said they were considering leaving the country. Europe is investing $565 million to make it a “magnet for researchers” and provide funding for scientists who relocate. The new golden age is also about embedding Trump’s xenophobia into the fabric of American science. The report complains of an “over-reliance on foreign students” that “creates a security challenge our institutions are ill-equipped to address” and that a “reliance on foreign talent sidelines American students.” This is, to put it mildly, nonsense. International students pay far higher tuition and often receive no financial aid. Their tuition dollars are what make it possible for American students to get financial aid. In the 2023-2024 school year alone, international students contributed $43.8 billion to the US economy and supported over 378,000 jobs. Those 1.1 million international students accounted for only six percent of the total number of students in higher education that year, but were such an economic engine that for every three international students, one job was created or supported. It’s impossible not to wonder whether part of Trump’s loathing for universities and their leading role in scientific research is that there is no way for him to corrupt the process and make money off it in the same way he can by giving millions and billions to Silicon Valley types who, in turn, give him millions in cash. There’s no way for his children to invest in universities that the government then gives no-bid contracts to, fattening the family’s bottom line, which is pretty much the Trump sons’ current venture capital practice. Trump and Katsios’s view of science is narrow, cramped, and wrong. We’re not in a crisis, we’re not a failed state. We’ve been a science superpower for decades, and the only thing that threatens that is Donald Trump. Tech bros are already living high off the hog in this administration. They don’t need any more of our tax dollars. Hopefully this new golden age never comes to pass. Thanks for reading Public Notice. This post is public so feel free to share it. Share We’ll be back with more tomorrow. If you appreciate today’s PN, please do your part to keep us free by signing up for a paid subscription. 🚀 Subscribe to PN 🚀 Thanks for reading, and for your support.
UN Decade of Healthy Ageing midpoint report finds progress, calls for greater investment
New evidence in the Secretary-General's report to the 81st UN General Assembly, prepared by the World Health Organization (WHO) in coordination with the UN system, finds more countries acting on healthy ageing than ever before – but longer lives will not become healthy, dignified ones without faster, more sustained investment at country level.(NEW YORK, 28 September 2026) The Secretary-General transmitted to the 81st session of the UN General Assembly the mid-term progress report on the UN Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021–2030), marking the midpoint of the ten-year global effort to improve the lives of older people. The report was prepared by the World Health Organization (WHO) in coordination with the UN Inter-Agency Group on Ageing and with inputs from thirteen UN entities, the World Bank Group and civil society partners. It finds real progress in countries – and persistent gaps that must close before 2030.The number of people aged 60 and over passed 1 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach 2.1 billion by 2050, with the fastest growth in low- and middle-income countries. Longer lives are not automatically healthy ones: globally, the gap between life expectancy and healthy life expectancy at age 60 widened between 2000 and 2023, and an estimated 71% of excess deaths from COVID-19 between 2020 and 2023 were among people aged 60 and over. “Longer lives are one of humanity’s great achievements, but we cannot congratulate ourselves while leaving millions without health and support,” said Dr Pascale Allotey, Director, Department of Sexual, Reproductive, Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health and Ageing, WHO. “The first half of the Decade has shown what is possible. The second half must be about scaling and financing the progress to meet the needs and rights of older persons.”Real progress, unevenly sharedThe report finds that more countries than ever now have legislation against age-based discrimination – up from 44.5% in 2018 to 57.7% today – and over half now have national long-term care policies, up from 49% in 2023 to 56.7%, dedicated programmes to build age-friendly environments (54.6%), and comprehensive health and social assessments of older people (54.6%). New WHO guidance on services for long-term care and for Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) delivered in communities is enabling systemic change as an increasing number of countries incorporate these services within national universal health care benefit packages. A host of UN agencies and other partners support training, increasing health workforce competencies and use of digital health tools.“This report shows the Decade of Healthy Ageing is working,” said Dr Ritu Sadana, Head of the WHO Secretariat for the UN Decade of Healthy Ageing. “More countries are legislating against ageism, providing integrated care, strengthening long-term care systems, and creating age-friendly environments than ever before, in all regions and income levels. But progress is uneven and in one area, regressive: fewer countries report active multi-stakeholder forums on ageing, down from 53.1% in 2020 to 43.3% today. The second half of this Decade must turn commitments into results, in every country.”The financing gap: this Decade's binding constraintFinancing remains the binding constraint: more than a third of reporting countries (33.8%) have very little or no dedicated resources to develop long-term care, with similar shortfalls across the Decade’s other priority areas. Less than half of countries (45.4%) have legislation providing access to assistive devices (including hearing aids, spectacles or rollators), which are key to enabling older people to maintain productive, independent and dignified lives. Only 22.7% of countries can track older people’s health over time – the largest gap across the Decade’s core progress indicators. Nationally representative information is needed in each country, as policies and interventions cannot be designed as if all older adults of a given age share similar needs and capacities. The report calls for sustained investment through national budgets, country-owned plans, development cooperation and innovative financing mechanisms to fully close these gaps by 2030.“The Decade was designed as a whole-of-UN effort, and this report shows it in action,” said Amal Abou Rafeh, Chief of the Programme on Ageing Section at the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), and Permanent Co-Chair of the UN Inter-Agency Group on Ageing. “Thirteen UN entities, the World Bank group and civil society organizations contributed to this report, with WHO as the lead technical and implementing agency. That is the model of coordination the second half of the Decade will need to scale, with countries leading legislation, funding and implementation, engaging older people.”“Investing in healthy ageing is not simply a cost; it is one of the highest-return investments a government can make,” said Fiona Stewart, Global Lead for Ageing and Pensions at the World Bank Group. “Countries that invest early in integrated and long-term care see savings that outweigh the upfront cost many times over. The evidence in this report makes the economic case; what is now needed is predictable financing at country level to act on it, along with efforts to support older entrepreneurs and the silver economy.”Older people's own voicesThe report also draws on the direct experience of older people themselves, including a multilingual global survey conducted by the International Federation on Ageing that reached more than 1000 older people across 58 countries. WHO and UN partners called on Member States to use the second half of the Decade to accelerate implementation, strengthen data systems, and secure the financing needed so that the gains of longer lives reach older people everywhere. About the UN Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021–2030)Proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in December 2020, the Decade is a global collaboration bringing together governments, UN agencies, civil society, the private sector, academia and older people themselves to improve the lives of older people, their families and communities. It is coordinated by the World Health Organization together with the UN Inter-Agency Group on Ageing. The Decade's mid-term progress report was transmitted to the General Assembly by the Secretary-General, prepared by WHO, and is available in 6 languages.Full Report available: A/81/366 Implementation of the United Nations Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021–2030): Note by Secretary-General [ العربية | 中文 | English | Français | Pусский | Español
Patent before publication without limiting open science
Patent before publication when research has broader potential. See how technology transfer in academia can extend a discovery without limiting open science.
‘Inside the Situation Room’ Bridges the Gap Between Politics and Academia
Columbia SIPA Dean Keren Yarhi-Milo and Secretary Hillary Clinton co-edited a book that brings readers into the room where leaders make decisions in times of crisis.
When AI meets global health: Who governs, who benefits and what works?
As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly embedded in health systems worldwide, questions about how these technologies should be governed, evaluated, and implemented have become as consequential as the technologies themselves. Across a four-part virtual discussion series convened by the Harvard Global Health Institute (HGHI) in partnership with the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School this spring, experts from academia, multilateral organizations, government, philanthropy, and civil society examined the opportunities, challenges, and key questions shaping AI’s role in global health.
Frameshift: How Caitlin Vander Weele made science communication her business
Her favorite part of research was talking about it. So she left academia and turned that passion into a successful company.
Strengthening One Health Field Epidemiology Capacity in the WHO South-East Asia Region
Recent public health emergencies—including the COVID-19 pandemic, recurrent zoonotic disease outbreaks, and the high level of antimicrobial resistance—have underscored the urgent need for strong, multisectoral field epidemiology capacities. This reinforces the importance of a workforce equipped with One Health field epidemiology competencies. To address this need, WHO works with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), as part of Quadripartite Alliance for One Health, to strengthen field epidemiology training programmes using a One Health approach.These efforts are aligned with WHO SEARO’s Strategic Framework for Action for Strengthening Surveillance, Risk Assessment and Field Epidemiology and the Regional Roadmap to Advance Field Epidemiology Capacities 2025–2029 emphasize workforce development, multisectoral collaboration, and enhanced preparedness for health emergencies. With funding from the Pandemic Fund, The Competency for One Health Field Epidemiology (COHFE) integration within Field Epidemiology Training Programmes (FETPs) or similar initiatives has been initiated in Bangladesh and India and is planned in Sri Lanka.BangladeshIn Bangladesh, COHFE is being adapted to strengthen the Field Epidemiology Training Programme, Bangladesh (FETP-B) Advanced programme. Initiated in July 2025 and led by the Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research (IEDCR), the process brought together stakeholders from human, animal, and environmental health sectors, academia, and laboratories.A Multisectoral Working Group (MWG) was established to guide implementation, conduct readiness assessments, and identify opportunities to institutionalize One Health collaboration. Through national multisectoral consultations and a competency prioritization workshop held in Dhaka in November 2025, stakeholders identified priority technical competencies for surveillance, outbreak investigation, data analysis, and risk assessment, alongside functional competencies related to leadership, coordination, and the laboratory–epidemiology interface. The process also surfaced systemic barriers—such as challenges in data sharing and limited joint investigations—enabling targeted recommendations. These outcomes are guiding curriculum revision, the introduction of One Health simulations and joint field exercises, and the development of a national multisectoral mentorship pool, with updated training materials expected to be implemented in the upcoming cohort.Figure 1. Competency prioritization involving multisectoral stakeholders“COHFE represents a significant step forward in operationalizing the One Health approach. The collaboration between national institutions and the Quadripartite partners is critical for building resilient systems to address complex health challenges in the region.”, Prof. (Dr) Tahmina Sirin, Director, Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research (IEDCR), Bangladesh.Aligning India’s One Health Training with COHFEIn India, the National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) has strengthened One Health workforce development through its SectorConnect initiative. WHO supported a comprehensive competency mapping and curriculum review to align the Field Epidemiology Programme in One Health (FEP-OH) with all 14 COHFE domains. The review identified strong foundations while generating actionable recommendations to strengthen One Health learning outcomes, expand joint field-based learning, and enhance competency-based assessment. These improvements are informing programme refinement and phased scale-up across additional states.Figure 2. Strengthening learning outcomes for the SectorConnect FEP OH CurriculumThrough these efforts, WHO SEARO will continue to support countries to move from separate sector-based training toward an integrated, impact-driven One Health field epidemiology workforce capable of addressing complex health threats at human-animal-environment interface.ReferencesFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health Organization, & World Organisation for Animal Health. (2024). Competencies for One Health field epidemiology (COHFE) framework. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240080058World Health Organization. (2023). Strategic framework for action for strengthening surveillance, risk assessment and field epidemiology for health security threats in the WHO South-East Asia Region. WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789290210030World Health Organization. (2024). Regional roadmap to advance field epidemiology capacities in the WHO South-East Asia Region 2025–2029. WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789290229544
NSF testing new Ph.D. model giving trainees academic and industry experience
Young life scientists have been increasingly abandoning academia, a seismic shift that has fueled calls for rethinking graduate education. On Wednesday,
In Cambridge and beyond, scientific community is shaken by MIT professor killing
News of Nuno Loureiro's shocking death has rippled through the ranks of academia, where colleagues say he made strides to advance the field of plasma physics.
Why Retrofitting Research Impact Does Not Work
AACSB and the Academy of Management are convening their first-ever Research Impact Conference in Dublin this week, unveiling a long-awaited framework that takes a significant step toward making business school research serve not just academia but also corporate practice, policy, and society–with the potential to go even further.
Protecting Health Before, During, and After Wildfires
Recognizing wildfires as an increasingly complex public health and health care challenge, the National Academies’ Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Disasters and Emergencies convened a webinar series this summer on wildfire preparedness, response, and recovery. The series brought together experts from health care, emergency management, environmental science, engineering, academia, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and affected communities.
The US ‘golden age’ science strategy: what Europeans need to know
The US has unveiled what officials claim is the most radical overhaul of the public R&D system in a generation, which if implemented could have significant implications for transatlantic research collaboration. Science: A New Golden Age derides universities as “legacy institutions” and instead wants to prioritise funding on technological challenges, new research labs and funding that follows individual scientists, rather than being linked to their institutions. “Too much of our research enterprise has come to serve itself rather than the scientists within it,” writes Michael Kratsios, director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the only named author of the report. “Federal funding agencies should support a broader range of performers.” But some critics argue that the strategy is a smokescreen, using genuine problems in academia as an excuse to further weaken US universities, which US vice-president JD Vance has labelled “the enemy..”Even as it talks of a “golden age” for science, the White House has proposed halving the 2027 budget of the US National Science Foundation (NSF), and has put forward double-digit cuts for other funding bodies, such as the National Institutes for Health. It asked for similarly steep savings in 2026, but Congress stopped them going through. Science: A New Golden Age says success will be measured by the extent to which scientists are “free” to pursue the most “vital questions,,” painting academia as currently hidebound by bureaucracy, sluggishness and consensual conservatism. And yet the Trump administration is simultaneously planning new rules that will hand political appointees unprecedented powers to screen and cancel grants. The report has pretentions to be the successor to Science: The Endless Frontier, the seminal 1945 document in which presidential science advisor Vannevar Bush set out the case for post-war government funding of basic research, helping to spur the creation of funders such as the NSF. Even the title page font is the same. But it remains unclear if the latest report will leave anything like as lasting a legacy.Here, Science|Business explains some of the biggest proposed changes in Science: A New Golden Age, and how Europeans think it might change the landscape of their biggest science partner.Universities under fireA key target of the report are US universities, which it repeatedly suggests are outmoded as research institutions. It criticises the NSF for channelling resources “overwhelmingly to a single type of performer, the university-based, principal investigator-led research group..” Universities “extract” money from researchers’ grants to support “growing administrative bloat,” alongside legitimate uses. The Trump administration has been trying to cut the overhead costs in federal research grants that flow to universities. Instead, new institutions are being built. In May, the NSF announced it would spend $1.5 billion on two new so-called X-Labs, focused on scientific instrumentation and quantum systems. The idea is that they fill a niche in the landscape, tackling problems that are too big for a university lab, but too early stage for private start-up funding. Parallel with Europe?This shift to new research organisations parallels moves in Europe to set up new innovation agencies, such as Germany’s Sprind, the UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency, and the EU’s European Innovation Council. The Dutch and French governments are looking to set up their own entities too. There’s now an emerging consensus, evident in a number of new strategies, that public R&D needs to be shaken up, Charles McIvor, an economist at the OECD, has written in response to Kratsios’s plans. “What stands out for me across these strategies [in the US, Germany, South Korea and Japan] is that governments are realising that the old ways of delivering STI [science, technology and innovation] programming no longer works,” he said in a LinkedIn post. Metascience wins?The document is, at least on the face of it, also a big win for some policy thinkers in the US who want far more experimentation with new forms of research grant and institution.It name-checks a litany of new public R&D ideas, from focused research organisations and advance market commitments to “golden tickets,” which allow grant reviewers the power to hand applicants money without requiring the consensus of other review panellists.Related articlesEuropean researchers sound the alarm that Trump rule changes will hit cooperationFocused research organisations: what are they, and how do you set them up? NIH turmoil risks reciprocal EU-US access to health research funding In addition, every federal research funding agency should set up a metascience unit, the strategy says, “with authority to run controlled experiments on review and funding mechanisms.” The UK has already set one up, the strategy points out. This mirrors recommendations to the European Commission. In 2024, a report led by former Portuguese science minister Manuel Heitor also advised the EU to set up an “experimental unit” to test out new methods of funding research. So far, however, Brussels hasn’t put forward any plans to do so. Bypass universitiesBut there’s a worry that the Trump administration is using the metascience movement to justify an overhaul of public R&D that punishes universities, which it sees as centres of political resistance. Last year, it threatened to cut Harvard University’s federal funding unless it hired and admitted a “critical mass” of new faculty and students to create “viewpoint diversity” across campus. It’s also attempted to strip academics of funding for working on politically forbidden areas, like LGBTIQ people’s health.The new strategy appears to be a “move to bypass the power of universities full stop and allow funders and political bureaucracies to handpick the projects and people who will execute them,” said Jean-Claude Burgelman, a former senior official in the Commission’s research directorate, on LinkedIn.The EU’s science counsellor in Washington, Florent Bernard, wrote that the plans risk diverting public research funding so that it “solely serves private interests.” “Who, if not independent universities, will do research that demonstrates the impact of tobacco on lung cancer or the role of human activities in our current climate crisis?” he wrote.Should we take it seriously?“I would view the overall document as a bad faith argument,” said Cole Donovan, director of science policy at the campaigning group Stand Up for Science, and a former OSTP official. “I don’t see the project itself as something that can be isolated from the broader attack on the system.” He thinks the argument that academia has become dysfunctional and in need of radical reform is being deployed as part of a “PR argument” to legitimate moves against US scientists. The strategy presents ideas like metascience units as new, whereas there were moves to set them up at the NSF during the previous administration of Joe Biden, Donovan said. The other caveat here is that the OSTP has limited power to carry out any of these recommendations. While Kratsios has issued a memo to research agencies telling them to implement the recommendations in the report, he doesn’t have direct budgetary control. “As a former OSTPer myself, this does not seem like a document that is realistic,” said Donovan.
Matthew Yglesias on Abundance and the Politics of Energy - Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA
Hear in-depth conversations with the world’s top energy and climate leaders from government, business, academia, and civil society.
EU membership bid gives boost to Moldova’s fledgling R&D landscape
Moldova’s push to join the EU is having the spillover effect of helping to improve the country’s R&D landscape, which in recent years has suffered from fragmentation, decreasing personnel and a lack of research infrastructure.The country became an EU candidate country in 2022, alongside Ukraine, and officially began accession negotiations in 2024. With a pro-EU government, Moldova has been actively carrying out reforms to align with EU standards. This has helped accelerate the development of R&D, said Igor Chiosa, acting head of the Research and Innovation Policy Directorate at Moldova’s Ministry of Education and Research. “Our R&D landscape is moving up, and we are more and more involved in the European Research Area,” he said. “The support we receive from the EU is very important, not only financially, but also because of incentives, consultation and capacity building.”The R&D landscape in the former Soviet republic is still relatively underdeveloped, despite attempts at improvement going back to a 2004 law on science and innovation and later reforms in 2017 and 2018. But the system remains in a “precarious situation” and “in the process of contraction,” according to an assessment carried out by the government for the current National Programme for Research and Innovation, which runs from 2024 to 2027. The analysis highlights in particular the declining number of researchers and PhDs, which has been continuously falling, as well as limited research funding. This is around 10 times lower than the EU average and “insufficient to maintain a level of research activity that supports higher education and meets the needs of the economy.” The mechanisms for allocating research funds are also described as inefficient, as well as the general fragmentation of the landscape, with research and innovation activities being carried out in 67 different places. The lack of strategic vision for research infrastructure is also noted. The strategy sets out to address these issues and is being fuelled by reforms linked to EU accession. Moldova now has a regulation on open science and gender equality. There is also a new support mechanism for technology transfer offices and a business-academia roadmap. In 2025, the country also became the first Eastern Partnership country to approve a Smart Specialisation strategy, which will coordinate its R&D efforts to focus on strengths, within a European context. “We’ve done a lot in terms of normative acts,” Chiosa said. Horizon Europe successMoldova is also seeing more success in the EU’s flagship R&D programme, Horizon Europe. The country has now won nearly €15 million in funding, already double the amount won under the previous programme, Horizon 2020, and more than the €10 million target set by the government. Chiosa said the priority has shifted now to winning more research-centred projects, rather than those related to support and capacity. Moldova is also targeting further involvement in large European projects. Last year, it joined the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking giving Moldovans access to Europe's supercomputing network. The country is also a member of Danubius-RI, a European research infrastructure focused on river and sea research. Despite these efforts, Moldova’s research capacity is still shackled by its limited R&D budget, which equates to 0.23% of its GDP. This is around half of what its neighbour Romania spends, which is the lowest in the EU. According to Chiosa, the research budget is increasing year-on-year, jumping by €6.34 million between 2024 and 2025. But this doesn’t show up when looking at it as a proportion of GDP. “Of course, it’s difficult,” he said. “That is why we are putting more emphasis on collaboration between business and academia, as well as participation in Horizon Europe, to try to diversify our sources of funding.”A World Bank loan of €30 million, plus a grant of €7.8 million, was agreed in 2025 to support the modernisation of Moldova’s universities. As part of this, a call was launched this year to provide universities grants of up to €900,000 to develop their research infrastructure. Moldova is also collaborating closely with Romania, with which it shares a common language, funding 100 joint projects in 2023 and 2024. This support has been instrumental. “They are helping with sharing their expertise, inviting us into consortia, and lots more,” Chiosa said. Looking forward, Moldova is eagerly anticipating joining the EU. “We are looking closely at what the EU is doing and will shape our future national programme in research innovation accordingly.”EU accession “blocked at a technical level”Moldova is aiming to join the EU by 2028, but despite its swift and eager efforts to meet the accession criteria, there remain obstacles outside of the country’s control. For a country to join the EU, it must have certain legislation in place and meet specific standards in various areas. This is categorised into six thematic clusters containing 33 chapters. Moldova and the EU have so far opened two of the clusters, numbers one and six. The first covers fundamental laws, such as the judiciary, security and financial legislation. The sixth covers external relations. The remaining four clusters are still unopened. This includes the third cluster, on competitiveness and growth, which contains the chapter on science and research.Related articlesQ&A: Albania’s ambition to become a ‘moderate innovator’Data corner: Horizon success rates are droppingThe European Commission has confirmed that these clusters are ready to be opened, with an official saying that the Commission is encouraging EU governments, who have the final say, to move forward on the matter. However, both clusters two and three remain blocked by the EU Council’s working party on enlargement and countries negotiating accession to the EU, a different official, representing the Council, confirmed.This working party is set to meet several times in the coming weeks, with a Council meeting scheduled for mid-October in which enlargement, and Moldova’s bid, will be discussed. But there is no certainty that these talks will lead to progress. According to the Council source, it is “completely impossible to foresee if and when the file will be unblocked,” citing the sensitivity of the matter. Moldova’s situation is particularly complicated. One factor is that it borders Ukraine and is increasingly embroiled in Russia’s war, with drone incursions occurring more often on its territory. Another is Transnistria, a Russian-backed breakaway state that lies within the territory of Moldova. It is unclear how the EU would be able to accept Moldova into the bloc while this situation remains unchanged. While there is no direct reason to delay opening cluster three with Moldova, as it covers matters unrelated to security, it could be that the EU is reluctant to speed through accession negotiations without first resolving broader, geopolitical issues.Chiosa is confident that, if and when the chapter on science and research is opened, Moldova will be able to finalise it quickly. It doesn’t require any legislative changes and is only a matter of proving certain standards, which Chiosa believes Moldova is well prepared to do. “We hope that chapter 25 on science and research will be one of the first chapters opened and closed,” he said.
National Science Foundation cuts mean researchers like me are losing grants – but impacts extend far beyond academia
As the National Science Foundation starts giving out fewer grants, people worldwide will potentially lose out from potential research findings that could help improve their lives.
KATALIN KARIKÓ
She was met with resistance, got demoted and eventually forced to leave academia – but Katalin Karikó never lost focus, doubling-down on her work to harness mRNA for new vaccines and therapies. Karikó’s Nobel Prize-awarded discovery enabled the development of effective vaccines against COVID-19, offering protection to millions of people.
Trump Slashed Funding for Science. Now the U.S. Faces a Costly Brain Drain.
The White House’s attacks on academia and budget cuts for research have provided an opening for other countries to poach leading scientists.
WHO recognizes healthy, innovative cities across the Western Pacific Region
Nine Healthy City champions from across the World Health Organization (WHO) Western Pacific Region received special recognition at an awarding ceremony during the 11th Global Conference of the Alliance for Healthy Cities in Sydney, Australia.The WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific has presented the Healthy Cities Recognition Awards every two years since 2004 to celebrate innovative and impactful city-led initiatives that improve the health and well-being of urban populations.Eight cities received awards for their best practices, and one National Forum received the WHO Regional Director’s Special Award in recognition of its long-standing leadership in advancing the Healthy Cities movement.Awardees were selected through a rigorous evaluation process and recognized for demonstrating measurable, innovative and sustainable approaches to health challenges faced by cities.Remarking on the significance of the awards, Dr Huong Tran, Director of the Division of Health Promotion, Disease Prevention and Control at the Regional Office, said that, “There is no single blueprint for a healthy city. What works in one context may need to be adapted to another. But by sharing our experiences, including what worked, what was challenging, and what we learnt along the way, we can help one another move faster and further.”Award-winning cities and initiativesThis year's awards recognize outstanding city-led initiatives that have demonstrated measurable impact, innovation and sustainability in advancing health initiatives for urban populations.Baguio City (Philippines) – Data for equity: informing action, improving healthDr Donnabel Tubera-Panes, City Epidemiologist – Medical Officer IV of the Health Services Office accepted the award on behalf of Baguio City. Photo credit: Maria BoyadgisBaguio City was recognized for developing a pioneering Livability Index that provides village-level data across all 128 barangays (villages), enabling evidence-based planning and more equitable allocation of resources. By integrating community participation and institutionalizing the index within city planning and budgeting processes, the city has demonstrated how data can drive action to reduce health and social inequities.Eunpyeong-gu (Seoul, Republic of Korea) – Communities living in vulnerable situations: advancing health equity through community engagementVice Mayor Honourable Ahn Hyoung Jun accepted the award on behalf of Eunpyeong-gu. Photo credit: Maria BoyadgisEunpyeong-gu was recognized for its inclusive health equity programme supporting vulnerable populations, including isolated older adults and LGBTQI+ communities. Through peer-led community networks, social cooperatives and inclusive service design, the district has strengthened access to care, promoted social inclusion and advanced community ownership of health initiatives.Madiun City (Indonesia) – Adapting and mitigating climate-related crises: building heat resilience and preventing flood-related health risksMs Yuni Dwi Purwani, Secretary General of the National Forum for Indonesian Healthy Cities/Regencies, accepted the award on behalf of Madiun City. Photo credit: Maria BoyadgisMadiun City was recognized for its SUPERMIE (Sustainable Public Environmental Management Initiative) – a community-based environmental governance model that addresses urban flooding, climate resilience and environmental sustainability. The initiative contributed to reductions in flood-prone areas, greenhouse gas emissions, diarrhoeal disease and dengue fever, while at the same time improving food security through neighbourhood food gardens. The programme has already been replicated in 15 cities and regencies across Indonesia.Macao Special Administrative Region (China) – Protecting communities from tobacco and alcohol-related harms: tackling commercial drivers of riskDr LO Iek Long, Director of the Health Bureau, Macao SAR, China accepted the award on behalf of Macao. Photo credit: Maria BoyadgisMacao SAR was recognized for implementing a comprehensive and integrated approach to tobacco and alcohol control. Through legislation, monitoring systems, enforcement, public awareness campaigns and multisectoral partnerships, the programme has strengthened protection against major risk factors for noncommunicable diseases and established a model that is highly transferable to other urban settings.Phnom Penh Capital City (Cambodia) – Safe, active and health-enabling transport: advancing health and reducing inequities in urban mobilityH.E. Khoung Sreng, Governor of Phnom Penh Capital City accepted the award on behalf of Phnom Penh Capital City. Photo credit: Maria BoyadgisPhnom Penh received the award for its Safe School Zone Project, which combines infrastructure improvements, speed management, enforcement, education and stakeholder engagement to protect children and communities. The initiative has demonstrated measurable reductions in crashes and vehicle speeds while providing a scalable model for safer urban mobility across the country.Quezon City (Philippines) – Transforming food environments: addressing policy, market and urban design drivers of health and nutritionMs Jirah Asa M. Sideco, Chief of the Nutrition Section of the Quezon City Health Department accepted the award on behalf of Quezon City. Photo credit: Maria BoyadgisQuezon City was recognized for its public food procurement policy that promotes healthier diets through government-run institutions and feeding programmes. Supported by strong policy frameworks and monitoring systems, the initiative improves access to nutritious food for vulnerable populations while serving as a benchmark for other local governments.Samarinda City (Indonesia) – Preventing violence and promoting gender equality: transforming urban systems, norms and spaces Mrs Rinda Wahyuni, Chairperson of Samarinda Healthy City Forum accepted the award on behalf of Samarinda City. Photo credit: Maria BoyadgisSamarinda City was recognized for its multisectoral approach to preventing violence and advancing gender equality. Responding to local evidence on violence against women and children, the city has positioned violence prevention as a public health priority, bringing together health services, schools, social welfare institutions, law enforcement, civil society and community leaders to strengthen prevention, reporting, survivor-centred support and legal protection. Through inclusive policies, community engagement and sustainable city financing, Samarinda has developed a locally owned and scalable model for creating safer, more equitable and inclusive urban communities.Singapore – Age-friendly cities: transforming systems to bridge generations for a healthier tomorrowDr Tan Weng Mooi, Director, Integrated Health Promotion, accepted the award on behalf of Singapore. Photo credit: Maria BoyadgisSingapore received recognition for its Healthy Precinct Framework, which translates national healthy ageing priorities into neighbourhood-level action. The initiative integrates preventive care, social support, service coordination and age-friendly environments while actively engaging older persons, caregivers and community organizations. Its expansion across multiple precincts demonstrates its scalability and long-term sustainability.WHO Regional Director’s Special AwardNational Forum for Indonesian Healthy Cities/Regencies (Indonesia)Ms Yuni Dwi Purwani, Secretary General of the National Forum for Indonesian Healthy Cities/Regencies, accepted the award on behalf of the National Forum. Photo credit: Maria BoyadgisThe WHO Regional Director's Special Award was presented to the National Forum for Indonesian Healthy Cities/Regencies (FKKSI) in recognition of its long-standing leadership in advancing the Healthy Cities movement across Indonesia. As a national platform bringing together local governments, communities, academia and civil society, FKKSI has played a critical role in promoting collaboration, capacity-building, knowledge exchange and advocacy. Its efforts have strengthened and institutionalized healthy urban development nationwide and established a model for multisectoral engagement in the Region. Healthy Cities for allThe 2026 Healthy Cities Recognition Awards highlight how cities can lead transformative action on health by addressing climate change, inequity, ageing, nutrition, mobility, social inclusion, violence prevention and the commercial determinants of health. The recognized initiatives demonstrate that local governments, communities and partners can work together to create healthier, safer and more resilient urban environments for everyone. As urban populations continue to grow across the Western Pacific Region, WHO remains committed to supporting cities in advancing health, equity and sustainable development through the Healthy Cities approach and the Alliance for Healthy Cities. ###Note to editorsSince 2004, the WHO Healthy Cities Recognition Awards have provided a platform for cities to share innovative and effective approaches to improving health and well-being. The awards recognize achievements in areas including climate resilience, healthy ageing, health equity, gender equality, tobacco and alcohol control, urban mobility, nutrition and data-driven governance. In 2026, more than 150 submissions were received from cities and local governments across the Western Pacific Region. The titles and affiliations of awardees are presented as they were at the time the photo was taken.______________For more information, or to arrange media interviews, contact: WHO Regional Office for the Western Pacific: wprocom@who.int
PPRI to host Space Policy, Science + Technology Symposium @ Purdue from March 23-25
The Purdue Policy Research Institute (PPRI) will convene leaders from government, industry, the military and academia for the second annual Space Policy, Science + Technology Symposium @
WHO urges targeted action to strengthen emergency workforce capacities for shared health risks across the Asia-Pacific region
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11 June 2026 – At a time when the world is more interconnected than ever, the World Health Organization (WHO) is disseminating a comprehensive regional analysis of shared health risks across Asia and the Pacific, urging Member States to invest in enhancing workforce capacities regionwide to mitigate these risks and ensure health systems are better prepared to anticipate, tackle and withstand a range of crises and shocks. Over 100 delegates from 49 countries and areas in the Asia-Pacific region reviewed results from the regional risk analysis during the WHO-led Asia Pacific Health Security Action Framework (APSHAF) Stakeholders Meeting in Malaysia. Synthesizing insights from 21 strategic risk assessments and more than 800 multisectoral experts, the regional analysis highlighted an urgent imperative: countries must proactively invest in emergency workforce preparedness to navigate a landscape where climate hazards, disease outbreaks and geophysical events increasingly overlap. These complex converging crises create devastating, compounding impacts on health systems and communities - reiterating the need for investing in a fit-for-purpose regional health workforce and multisectoral action. Key findings: an evolving risk landscape More than half of the participating countries ranked flooding, cyclones, dengue and pandemic-potential respiratory pathogens as being of high or very high risk, while antimicrobial resistance, landslides and gastroenteritis remain widespread concerns as well. “Given that 51% - over half - of these assessed hazards are deeply interconnected, isolated health interventions are no longer sufficient,” said Dr Saia Ma’u Piukala, WHO Regional Director for the Western Pacific. “Extreme weather events like cyclones and floods directly trigger subsequent disease outbreaks, while environmental degradation - driven by sea-level rise, coastal erosion and saltwater intrusion - fuels health risks across the Pacific. Mitigating these cascading risks requires unified, cross-sectoral action linking environmental, agricultural and public health policies to build true regional resilience.” Priority recommendations for action To address critical vulnerabilities, WHO calls on Member States in the Asia-Pacific region to urgently prioritize the following strategic actions: Bridge workforce capacity gaps. Embed and standardize emergency preparedness within academia to promote regional workforce interoperability. Foster multisectoral coordination. Address ad-hoc taskforce responses and fragmented surge support through formalized contingency plans and standard operating procedures that are frequently updated and tested. Secure sustainable financing for emergencies. Overcome systemic barriers to access dedicated funding for both immediate anticipatory actions and long-term emergency preparedness initiatives. Enable emergency-ready primary health care. Embed emergency management into public health workforce readiness planning. Ensure that emergency planning is inclusive. Establish clear pathways for inclusive emergency planning that actively involves communities most at risk and other vulnerable groups. Optimize communication. Update risk communication and community engagement strategies, aligning them with seasonal risk calendars. Elevating workforce readiness to meet regional health risks While the gaps identified are significant, the Asia-Pacific region possesses solid foundational pillars, including dedicated clinicians, laboratory staff, rapid response teams, emergency medical teams and extensive community networks. However, to adequately address the compounding nature of modern crises, the various components of the emergency workforce must collaborate cohesively. True resilience depends entirely on transforming this currently fragmented workforce into a highly trained, interconnected and rapidly deployable asset. To achieve this, WHO is actively advancing regional workforce capacities through the Global Health Emergency Corps initiative. This initiative - supported by the Gates Foundation and Institute of Philanthropy - seeks to build a seamless network of emergency workforce across borders and sectors, ensuring that when a crisis strikes, a standardized, well-coordinated and trained workforce is immediately ready to respond. “Scaling up emergency workforce readiness is no longer optional,” said Dr Gina Samaan, Regional Emergency Director for WHO in the Western Pacific. “It is the definitive factor that will determine how effectively the Asia-Pacific region safeguards health and protects lives in an increasingly unpredictable future.” For more information, or to arrange media interviews, contact: Ara Johannes, WHO Western Pacific Health Emergencies Division: johannesa@who.int WHO Western Pacific Communications: wprocom@who.int
Why Treehub Is Investing In Science-First Founders Leading Healthcare Innovation
Treehub, the Stanford-adjacent residency program backed by the AI Health Fund, is focused on building the next generation of great healthcare founders born in labs, hospitals and academia instead of traditional startup circles.
Visiting Voices: Spencer Cox and Jake Auchincloss, Cherelle Parker, Ken Burns, and more
Throughout the academic year, dozens of public figures from the worlds of politics, civil society, and academia speak at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum, part of Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics. Read what some of them had to say.
How Innovation Could Reshape Chemistry by 2050
Chemistry and chemical engineering are fundamental to technologies that could revolutionize energy production, quantum computing, and materials and manufacturing over the coming decades. At a recent workshop, participants from academia, industry, and government considered the future of the chemical sciences, exploring scientific challenges that researchers should prioritize, where strategic investments could enable breakthroughs, and how the chemical sciences community can prepare for emerging capabilities.
[World Class] Sookmyung bets Hallyu’s next stage is academia, not just entertainment
Behind each university’s global ambitions are choices about what to preserve, what to develop and where to go next. In “World Class,” The Korea Herald interview
Building Web of Science Research Intelligence with the global research community
Through Clarivate’s Early Adopter and Development Partner programs, universities and research organizations are helping shape Web of Science Research Intelligence through ongoing feedback, collaboration, and real-world use cases.
Vietnamese Horror ‘Arithmadtic’ Leads Bee Entertainment’s Busan Slate
Vietnam’s Bee Entertainment brings Dark Academia horror ‘Arithmadtic,’ three more 2027 features and three long-form dramas to Busan market.
I quit teaching math to sell plants worth $16,000
Harry Luu explains how he left academia to build a business selling rare plants, supporting a family of eight through data-driven decisions.
Factbox-Jeffrey Epstein's Ties to Politicians, Business Titans and Other Figures
Feb 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department's release of millions of internal documents related to Jeffrey Epstein has revealed the late financier and sex offender's ties to many prominent people in politics, finance, academia and business - both before and after he pleaded guilty in 2008 to ...
Concerned Scientists Air Their Concerns to Rep Clark
Researchers at a Massachusetts science town hall said funding instability is pushing scientists out of academia and threatening the pipeline that feeds the state’s research and technological economy
Donald Trump’s attacks on American academia hurt Europe’s scientists, says official
‘Science in the US being curtailed has an effect on all of us,’ says EU research funding chief Maria Leptin
Trump fires independent board overseeing the National Science Foundation
The fired scientists hail from academia and industry and specialize in areas including astronomy, math, chemistry, and aerospace engineering.
A different kind of leader: Scaling impact in geospatial science
David Page, head of the Geographic Data Science Section at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, leads with a focus on judgment, collaboration and empowering teams. Drawing on experience in academia, entrepreneurship and national security science, he has helped advance faster, scalable geospatial analysis while building resilient, forward-looking research teams.
Democracy scholar David Campbell elected to American Academy of Arts and Sciences
David Campbell, the Packey J. Dee Professor of American Democracy at the University of Notre Dame, has been elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, one of the nation’s oldest learned societies and independent policy research centers. Campbell was one of the 252 leaders in academia, the arts, journalism, policy, and science announced today as members of the newest Academy class. Other notable names among the group include actor and director Jodie Foster, writer Barbara Kingsolver, stage and screen legend Rita Moreno and novelist Colson Whitehead.
How AI is transforming research discovery in Web of Science
Web of Science is evolving to help researchers search, explore, and work with trusted literature in more flexible, transparent, and AI-supported ways.
Women in Science: Dr Sabina Auhunas - TIB-Blog
The blog series “Women in Science” introduces women from the TIB who give insights into their careers and personal experiences in science. Dr Sabina Auhunas studied Pharmacy at Bogomolets National Medical University, and obtained her PhD in Pharmaceutical Sciences at Shupyk National Healthcare University of Ukraine in Kyiv and is now working at TIB (Open Science Lab). In this interview, she talks about diversity, shifting directions and persistence in academia.
Daniel R. Brooks Achieves Recognition for Expertise and Contributions to the Field of Biological Sciences and Academia
September 14, 2026 -- Daniel R. Brooks is recognized for his expertise in evolutionary biology, emerging diseases and climate change
Celebrating Science, Visionaries, and Impact
The Academy's 2026 Spring Soirée brought together leaders across academia, industry, and beyond.
Research institutions tout the value of scholarship that crosses disciplines – but academia pushes interdisciplinary researchers out
Researchers who focus on one specialty are more likely to rise through the academic ranks, even though wicked societal problems require crosscutting work to solve.
Research institutions tout the value of scholarship that crosses disciplines – but academia pushes interdisciplinary researchers out
Researchers who focus on one specialty are more likely to rise through the academic ranks, even though wicked societal problems require crosscutting work to solve.
Concern after Europeans endorse US science agenda
Germany’s biggest research funder has said it is “concerned” after Berlin, plus several other European countries, endorsed a controversial US-led science policy statement. On October 4, the White House announced that 16 countries, including Germany, the UK, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Poland, Japan and South Korea had backed the Kyoto Vision for a Golden Age of Science.The document, agreed on the margins of the annual Science and Technology in Society forum in Kyoto, which gathers science ministers from across the world, appears uncontroversial at first sight. It’s a one-page statement, without any concrete measures, that touches on reducing administrative burden on scientists, experimenting with new funding models and the use of “super intelligence” in science, the Trump administration’s preferred term for artificial intelligence. However, what’s controversial is that much of the language in the Kyoto Vision reflects Science: A New Golden Age, a major policy document released by the White House in July.That document attracted criticism for deriding universities as “legacy institutions” and suggesting money be diverted to new research labs. In a speech in Kyoto on October 4, Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office for Science and Technology Policy and the report’s author, said that the US was seeking to “diversify the ways that we support research to meet our best scientists where and when they do their best work.” The worry is that the Trump administration may be using genuine dysfunctions in academia as a pretext to defund and disempower universities, which US vice president JD Vance has labelled “the enemy.” Many in Europe also want more experimentation and reform of how science is organised and funded, and agree with criticisms of academia made by Science: A New Golden Age. But some also fear that if the US pushes for reform partially in bad faith, it could politicise and undermine the whole agenda. Washington is currently trying to change federal funding rules so that political appointees can block and cancel scientific grants. It has cut grants mid-project on topics related to diversity and other politically forbidden areas. And last year, it threatened to cut Harvard University’s federal funding unless it admitted a “critical mass” of new faculty and students to create campus “viewpoint diversity.” “Particularly concerned”Because of this wider US political context, the Kyoto Vision’s otherwise innocuous sounding statement that “we encourage experimentation with new institutional models for science that provide varying levels of autonomy, resources and direction” has caused consternation in Europe, particularly from some of Germany’s biggest science organisations. A spokesperson for the German Research Foundation (DFG), the country’s biggest funder, said that it would “closely monitor whether the current US administration uses the Kyoto Vision to restructure research funding to the detriment of research institutions such as universities and their autonomy.” The DFG was “particularly concerned” with the statement’s references to Science: A New Golden Age, they continued. A spokesperson for the German Rectors’ Conference, which represents the country’s universities, said that the reference to “new institutional models” raises “questions on the underlying understanding of academic freedom and autonomy.” Research funding must “guided first and foremost by scientific not political principles,” they went on. Dampen criticismEuropean endorsement of the Kyoto Vision might dampen domestic criticism of the Trump administration’s science policy, some in the US fear, by suggesting international support. “What we saw from Germany, Japan, the UK and other countries, is an impulse that the administration has exploited with our own science reform movement, a belief they can use dialogue to make things better,” said Cole Donovan, director of science policy at the campaigning group Stand Up for Science. “In practice, the administration has done the opposite.” Not a binding statementThere’s been so much concern in Germany that the country’s federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space put out a statement defending its endorsement of the Kyoto Vision, which it has posted on its website. Related articlesIs metascience being co-opted?European researchers sound the alarm that Trump rule changes will hit cooperationThe US ‘golden age’ science strategy: what Europeans need to know The ministry said that it “should be regarded as a basis for discussion and does not constitute a binding statement.” Backing the statement gives Germany the chance to raise “issues and concerns” with the US during upcoming talks on science and technology scheduled for November. “Although these intentions appear, in principle, to be worthy of support, they will be scrutinised and examined more closely as the process continues,” the statement continues. Super intelligence?A ministry spokesperson confirmed to Science|Business that Germany had broadly endorsed the Kyoto Vision.However, they said Berlin had not agreed to final changes in the statement to refer to AI as super intelligence. In September, facing protests against data centres and polling that suggests US citizens are far more concerned than excited by the technology, Trump issued an executive order that attempts to rebrand AI as super intelligence, following polling on social media.The name change is to “reflect the transformative capabilities of these technologies and the limitless opportunities they create for the American people,” the order says. EU askedThe UK and Italian science ministries did not respond to a request for comment on their endorsement of the Kyoto Vision. Although most EU countries did not endorse the statement, it’s not clear which states the US asked. The White House Office for Science and Technology Policy did not return a request for comment. A European Commission official, speaking under condition of anonymity, said that the US had approached the EU, but too late for the EU to quiz all its member states on whether Brussels should endorse the statement.
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.”
SAIC appoints 14 experts to new science panel
The Sustainable Aquaculture Innovation Cluster (SAIC) has appointed 14 experts from academia and industry to a new science panel that will assess research…
Frameshift: How Caitlin Vander Weele made science communication her business
Her favorite part of research was talking about it. So she left academia and turned that passion into a successful company.
Stakeholder Theory Community Honors Professor Ed Freeman’s Impact on Business and Academia
A diverse group of collaborators and well-wishers descended on UVA to honor Professor Ed Freeman and the way his ideas have changed the world for the better.
Meet the School of Biological Sciences Class of 2026 | Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) School of Biological Sciences (SBS) takes an innovative approach to advanced science education. Graduates of the doctoral program go on to pursue a wide range of careers across academia and industry. On May 3, the SBS awarded six graduates Ph.D. degrees. Here, the class of 2026 reflects on their...
From Academia to Industry: Hongbian Li on Wearable Electronics, AI, and the Changing Landscape of Materials Science
Hongbian Li shares her experience as a reviewer, shifting to industry, and on translating materials research into real-world applications.
Bringing evidence into focus with Web of Science DeepR
Web of Science DeepR brings together Web of Science discovery and full text from ProQuest and other sources to create a more connected experience and unlock new possibilities for AI-assisted research.
Plan to Increase Role of Spanish in AI and Science
The University of Panama and the Panamanian Academy of Language have been invited to sign the Granada Declaration on the Development, Communication, and Dissemination of Science in Spanish. As part of its Spanish Strategy (2025–2031), the University of Granada (UGR) is collaborating with Hispano-American institutions to create standardized scientific corpora, consolidate language policies to boost the global reach of Spanish, and develop technological resources to foster the use of Spanish in academia and specialized digital environments. While in Panama, UGR’s president Pedro Mercado discussed the role of Spanish as an academic and scientific language in the new ecosystem shaped by
My Hero Academia: All’s Justice coming to Switch 2 on September 3 in Japan, September 4 worldwide
Publisher Bandai Namco and developer Byking will release My Hero Academia: All’s Justice for Switch 2 on September 3 in Japan and September 4 worldwide, the companies announced. The physical …
Sen. Gary Peters, headed for academia, says he’s confident El-Sayed will win seat
The Michigan Democrat, who is retiring after this term, has accepted an offer at the University of Southern California.
Why Treehub Is Investing In Science-First Founders Leading Healthcare Innovation
Treehub, the Stanford-adjacent residency program backed by the AI Health Fund, is focused on building the next generation of great healthcare founders born in labs, hospitals and academia instead of traditional startup circles.
Industry’s pushback on AI during game development
Artificial intelligence (AI) has become one of the great issues of the modern day. In every field, from academia to athletics, AI is a hot topic. One such area is
The New Golden Age of Science: The Trump Administration's Over $6 Billion Investment in Science
The Trump administration has announced a more than $6 billion investment across the Federal Government, industry, academia, and philanthropy as part of “the most ambitious set of science initiatives in decades.” “Under President Trump’s leadership, we are ushering in a New Golden Age of Science powered by super intelligence, a return to merit, and bold […]
From evidence to action: WHO consultation advances public health and social measures for public health emergencies
For its third global technical consultation on Public Health and Social Measures (PHSM) during health emergencies, held on 24–26 March, WHO brought together over 120 experts from 44 Member States representing ministries of health, national institutes of public health and academia as well as civil society and international organizations.
A more transparent, connected experience in Web of Science Research Assistant
The latest Web of Science Research Assistant update introduces a unified entry point, greater AI transparency, and new author and visualization tools that enhance the user experience.
Is metascience being co-opted?
In July, the White House released a report that argued academia is deeply dysfunctional and in need of radical reform.Science: A New Golden Age sets out a litany of problems many academics will recognise: interminable waits for grants; short-term funding rather than support for longer, more ambitious projects; ballooning administrative requirements; pressure to publish, and many more. “The scientific machine is getting bogged down,” it says. At least on the face of it, Science: A New Golden Age is a triumph for the metascience movement, a loose-knit, global group of academics, philanthropists and think tankers that want far more testing and experimentation in how we fund public research and innovation. The report tells US research funders to set up internal metascience units to do just this. But it has also set alarm bells ringing that metascience is being conveniently deployed to help justify the defunding of US universities, which US vice president JD Vance has openly labelled “the enemy.” “Just because you have an issue with your plumbing in your house doesn't mean you light the entire house on fire and burn it to the ground,” said Colette Delawalla, chief executive of Stand Up for Science, a group campaigning against what it says are attacks on scientists by the Trump administration. No one is arguing that academia doesn’t need reform, but there’s debate over how far and how fast the system should be shaken up. Does public R&D need slow and steady evidence-based adjustment, or radical new experiments?One of the key arguments in Science: A New Golden Age is that there’s not enough funding for what it calls “mid-level” science: engineering-heavy projects that require tens of millions of dollars, involve ten to a hundred people, and last around five years. Such a project might develop a brain-computer interface for people with Alzheimer's disease, for example. As such, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) has already announced $1.5 billion to set up so-called X-Labs, effectively new research organisations to pursue breakthroughs in areas such as quantum sensing and new scientific instruments. Funding divertedBut there’s a catch: this money has squeezed NSF budgets for more traditional, fundamental research grants, Science reported in June, likely meaning less cash for university-based scientists. Science: A New Golden Age also makes various swipes at universities, accusing them of extracting overheads from scientists to fund administrative bloat. “We have become dependent on a narrow set of legacy institutions,” it says. The report doesn’t mention it, but the US government is simultaneously seeking greater powers over federal funding, which would allow political appointees at funding agencies to screen or cancel research grants mid-project. The White House is also seeking to slash the NSF’s budget by more than half in 2027, although similar cuts proposed for 2026 were blocked by Congress. Convenient hookThis has worried some that the metascience agenda could be misused as a kind of smokescreen to further weaken universities. James Wilsdon, executive director of the Research on Research Institute at University College London, said that the report contains lots of “interesting ideas” and agrees that in places, academia is a “pretty broken system.” But the risk is that metascience is being deployed as a “convenient hook” to support cuts and a “political land grab” to transfer grant power from scientists to political appointees in US funding agencies.So far, the metascience agenda hasn’t been seized on by radical right parties in Europe. But Wilsdon worries it will cross the Atlantic, politicising research reform efforts and making them more difficult to carry out. The report is already making some in Europe sceptical of the entire idea. “The system is not without flaws, but the metascience discussion is not likely to improve the system but rather to generate munition to undermine it,” said Claes de Vreese, a professor of AI and society at the University of Amsterdam. Peter Thiel protégéOfficially, Science: A New Golden Age has just one named author: Michael Kratsios, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and a former chief of staff to Silicon Valley mogul Peter Thiel. He also served as chief financial officer of Thiel’s Clarium Capital Management. Since the 1990s, Thiel has criticised US universities for moving away from teaching what he views as the classic works of western civilisation, and drifting towards “anti-Western zealotry.” And since 2011, he has offered two-year fellowships of $250,000 to young people to skip or drop out of university, and instead start companies or pursue scientific research. “College can be good for learning about what’s been done before, but it can also discourage you from doing something new,” according to the Thiel Fellowships website. In other areas, the Trump administration has promoted academics with a longstanding interest in metascience. For example, the head of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya, in 2020 co-authored a study arguing the funder backs overly conservative proposals, although he achieved wider prominence as a critic of pandemic lockdowns. Careless talk costs fundingEven before the Trump administration embraced the metascience agenda, some metascientists privately wondered whether they should be careful not to overstate dysfunctions in academia, in case this gets used as ammunition against universities. But others think being cautious with criticism is pointless. After all, last year, the Trump administration sought to cut funding from US universities on an entirely different premise: supposed antisemitism on campus. “I don't think these governments need a technical metascientific excuse to attack the universities, they will want to do so anyway,” said Will Stone, a researcher at Science Works, a new think tank advocating for a “metascience revolution” in the UK. “I think researchers should report what they find, even when the findings may be used to advance policies they disagree with,” echoed Russell Funk, a researcher at the University of Minnesota, who in 2023 co-authored a highly influential paper that argued scientific papers were becoming less disruptive over time. No justificationThat said, Funk thinks that metascientific research certainly doesn’t justify a weakening of universities. Instead, scientists need “time, resources and stability to pursue unfamiliar ideas,” he said. “Taking away those conditions works against the very goal the reforms are supposed to achieve.”The Institute for Progress, a Washington DC-based innovation policy think tank that has championed X-Labs and metascience units, also says that reforms should complement, not supplant, universities. “Unpredictable, unreliable, and reduced federal funding to researchers is destabilising to the very foundations of research and development and is bad,” said Jenn Gustetic, the institute’s director of metascience and R&D policy.Evolution or revolution?This points to a much bigger divide in the metascience community: how far and how fast should public R&D be shaken up? Does it need evolution or revolution? For example, Science: A New Golden Age says the science system relies too heavily on traditional “workhorse” project grants, the type that pay out around $250,000 a year to fund “hypothesis-driven science by small teams on tractable questions.” However, in criticising project grants, the report “decisively picks one side of a debate that is far from settled,” David Hilmer Rex, a metascientist based in Denmark, has written. In June, Pierre Azoulay, a metascientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, defended project grants, saying that the alternative of X-Labs “merits scepticism.”A-B testingOne challenge in metascience is that it’s easier to generate evidence for some types of change than others. Most straightforwardly, research funders can run A-B tests on different ways of awarding money. For example, Germany’s Volkswagen Foundation recently trialled distributed peer review, where applicants rate each other’s proposals, and measured its results against traditional review panels. Distributed peer review made quicker decisions, although awarded money to largely different ideas. However, much of the focus of the metascience movement has been on founding fast-moving and free-acting new research organisations and funders, in contrast to the alleged stodginess of mainstream academia or public innovation grants. A culture of speed and freedom are the animating principles behind Germany’s Sprind or the UK’s Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria).Related articlesViewpoint: it's time to experiment with how Europe funds science European researchers sound the alarm that Trump rule changes will hit cooperationHowever, while it’s possible to closely study previously successful bodies, such as the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), for historical clues to their secret sauce, it’s impossible to guarantee in advance that the likes of Sprind or Aria will actually work as hoped. But advocates of new organisations say this inherent uncertainly shouldn’t stop us trying. “If we wait for definitive proof that something will work before we try it, I don't know where your proof is coming from,” said Stone. Trade-offsUp until now, experiments in metascience haven’t generally come with hard trade-offs over money. In the US, new ideas such as focused research organisations have often been funded by billionaire philanthropists. In Europe, new innovation agencies such as Sprind and Aria, or the Netherland’s new National Agency for Disruptive Innovation, haven’t needed explicit cuts elsewhere in the research system. But with the $1.5 billion establishment of X-Labs by the NSF, the trade-offs are becoming clearer. Some metascientists privately wonder whether a smaller pilot would have been more appropriate, given that the idea is untested. The Institute for Progress counters that the $1.5 billion X-Labs budget is spread out over a decade, so will account for less than 2% of the NSF’s annual budget. “It’s important to remember that [Darpa] was once an institutional experiment as well. Now it’s one of the most cited innovative funding models in the world,” said Gustetic.As for Europe?The US isn’t the only country placing metascience at the heart of its research strategy. Science: A New Golden Age looks admiringly at the UK, which in 2024 set up a Metascience Unit to scrutinise how it funds research. In Brussels, it’s more of a mixed picture. In 2018, the EU set up the European Innovation Council to funnel grants and equity to start-ups, although it’s sometimes criticised for awarding money too slowly. Recently, the council has started experimenting with challenges, where teams of inventors compete to overcome a technological challenge. The European Commission also wants to experiment with partially randomising grant winners, to cut down on bureaucracy. However, the Commission’s own advisers have said the EU’s own research schemes are too conventional. They want the Commission to establish a new dedicated unit to scrutinise and experiment with funding. But there’s no sign of a such unit emerging in Brussels’ plans for the next Horizon Europe programme, which from 2028 is set to distribute more than €160 billion over seven years. Sam Bogerd, director of breakthrough innovation at the Brussels-based Arq Foundation, an AI-focused think tank that also looks at metascience, says that Europe might have the opposite problem to the US: universities and basic research funding are still reasonably well supported, but there’s not enough experimentation. “We're not taking a close enough look at where this money can achieve the most, and I am worried that the good ideas around metascience will be tainted politically by their association with the Trump administration,” he said. He’s still lobbying for the Commission to set up an experimental unit. But in the meantime, the Arq Foundation plans to do its own research, and is currently hiring two metascience researchers to run the rule over how Brussels spends research funding.
Navigating the social media minefield
Scientists and researchers seeking to announce promising findings, exchange ideas or contribute to policy discussions outside of academic circles may find social media an expedient tool.But increasingly, scientists and other professionals are discovering that online platforms can be a double-edged sword: while sharing their work and expertise is crucial for visibility and meeting funder expectations, it also exposes them to baseless criticism and even accusations of spreading false information."It is getting harder and harder for scientists, and researchers in general, to convey their findings without facing attacks on their legitimacy and accuracy of their research," says Valère Ndior, a professor of public law at the University of Western Brittany in Brest, France, who has spent more than a decade studying misinformation on social media. Researchers attempting to challenge deceptive online information may themselves be accused of political bias or not being objective in their research, he explains, adding that some scientists disengage because they feel overwhelmed and unable to sustain meaningful dialogue. "It is quite sad to see in some instances that researchers end up leaving social media altogether because they feel like the pressure is getting too intense or feel threatened," he says.Ndior, a past president of the Francophone Network of International Law, is also involved in European efforts to make science and research findings more accessible to the public. As an ambassador for the Science Comes to Town (SCTT) project, he has participated in recent discussions on public perceptions of science and online misinformation. The European Commission-funded initiative connects Brest and two other cities — Kiel in Germany and Split in Croatia — and aims to strengthen ties between communities, universities and research institutions to promote science awareness and cooperation across Europe.Coordinated campaigns around contentious topicsNdior draws a clear distinction between critical thinking and thoughtless criticism. Yet he sees online discussions being increasingly shaped by suspicious behaviour and coordinated information campaigns — including "raids" aimed at dominating discussions and "astroturfing," where small groups act as larger movements to sway debates. Tracking these patterns has become harder because some platforms have restricted data or charge for it, despite provisions of the European Union's Digital Securities Act aimed at ensuring researchers can have access to such data. According to Ndior, "platforms became more reluctant from the moment access to data became a legal requirement rather than a voluntary initiative."Unfounded claims and scepticism about science existed long before Internet chat groups. But the noticeable rise in online hostility has intensified around contentious topics, such as the coronavirus pandemic and climate change, alongside the weakening of gatekeepers to moderate content.For Ndior, dubious claims about pandemic countermeasures and vaccine safety highlighted the struggle between "balancing freedom of expression and the protection of public health and order." Efforts to remove social media content deemed false or risky for public health triggered accusations of censorship and the silencing of legitimate discussion, and in some cases, legal challenges.Concerns about attacks on the credibility of scientists and researchers have generated a flurry of academic papers in recent years and prompted professional communities to address ways to counter online attacks. Such unease extends to the generation that has grown up with digital media. Ndior points out that his students, some of whom research artificial intelligence regulation, hate speech, online surveillance and other controversial topics, hesitate to share their work or viewpoints online. "Many of them don't want to expose themselves too much because they don't feel ready to be faced with the backlash of other people criticising their research," he explains.Safer harbours for engagementLegal challenges against false or defamatory posts are not necessarily a solution — especially given the trans-jurisdictional nature of the Internet. Lawsuits also take time and money, and if they fail, can be counterproductive. Instead, Ndior advises scientists and researchers to be selective in how and where they communicate. Professional online platforms and moderated discussion spaces offer a better environment for engagement. He also highlights the value of more traditional formats, such as radio interviews and in-person discussions at schools, libraries and science fairs, which encourage dialogue with the public. "Personal contact makes a big difference," he says, while acknowledging that these approaches lack the global reach of social media.Ndior’s interest in digital law and online misinformation stems from his time as a doctoral student in international law in the early days of social media. He began analysing posts from governments and heads of state to determine if they could be considered official and thus used as evidence in litigation. His work attracted media attention and led to conference and speaking invitations. "This was not part of my plan," he says, "but this is what happens as a researcher — your interest is sparked by a certain event or phenomenon, and it suddenly becomes your focus."Ndior believes SCTT provides "a double benefit" for researchers, enabling them to connect with peers and interact with the public. "There is a wide community of people who are not in academia who are critical thinkers looking for opportunities to ask questions, to get information and contribute their ideas,” he says. "I really value that kind of feedback."Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
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.
Triggering the 'symphonic biology' of exercise for better health
Physician-scientist R. Sanders Williams of Duke University has worked across academia and industry exploring key questions in exercise medicine. The National Academy of Medicine member will deliver the season’s final Maury Strauss Distinguished Public Lecture at the Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at VTC on Thursday, June 4.
Future Energy, Renewable Energy, Technology, InCites use case, web of science use case, research analytics
Perovskite solar cells are emerging as a transformative next-generation energy technology driven by rapid efficiency gains and global research competition. Based on a collaborative analysis between Sungkyunkwan University and Clarivate using Web of Science and InCites, this blog explores key research trends, leading countries and scholars, and the future trajectory of perovskite solar cells toward sustainable energy innovation.
Pacific Recognized As Leader In Mental Health Awareness, Well-Being
Insight Into Academia magazine's Excellence In Mental Health and Well-Being Award honors Pacific's commitment to developing programming and awareness on mental health topics for its entire community.
Olympic Studies Centre wins international sports management award
The Olympic Studies Centre (OSC) has received the 2026 European Association for Sport Management (EASM) Sports Organisation Award for its contribution to academic research and for strengthening ties between academia and the Olympic Movement.
Trump’s Research Policies Are Rattling The Career Plans Of Young Scientists
A recent survey of early-career scientists reveals that Donald Trump’s campaign to upend science policies is causing many to doubt whether they will stay in academia.
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.”
Inside the anti-climate campaign against researchers
A POLITICO investigation reveals more than 100 open records requests demanding documents from climate scientists nationwide.
Academic Scientists’ Career Confidence Fell Amidst US Policy Changes
A new NBER working paper surveying 916 biomedical PhD students and postdocs found academia-retention intentions fell 22 percentage points in six months.
Women in Science: Alice Schlichtiger on Leadership, Mass Spectrometry, and Impact
In this interview, Dr. Alice Schlichtiger discusses her journey from academia to industry and shares her advice on building a successful career in science.
Trump administration to shift R&D funding from academia to individual scientists
The Trump administration announced it plans to shift some of the $200 billion in annual funding for research and development away from academic institutions to focus on individual scientists. In a …
Democracy scholar David Campbell elected to American Academy of Arts and Sciences
David Campbell, the Packey J. Dee Professor of American Democracy at the University of Notre Dame, has been elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, one of the nation’s oldest learned societies and independent policy research centers. Campbell was one of the 252 leaders in academia, the arts, journalism, policy, and science announced today as members of the newest Academy class. Other notable names among the group include actor and director Jodie Foster, writer Barbara Kingsolver, stage and screen legend Rita Moreno and novelist Colson Whitehead.
Blinded by science: The Thomas Dolby interview
“To get out and play a show like this, in the summer, is really an antidote to academia.”…
Berkeley Talks: Why kind leaders finish first (according to science)
Leaders from academia and the private sector discuss how kindness is a strategic asset rather than a professional weakness, and why the traditional “jerk” model of leadership is scientifically flawed.
Why journals are put on hold in the Web of Science Core Collection – and how research integrity guides the process
Acceptance into Web of Science Core Collection does not guarantee permanent indexing. This blog explains why journals are placed on hold, how journal re‑evaluation and delisting decisions are made, and the role publishers can play in safeguarding research integrity.
How I Got My Career in Foreign Policy: Matthias Matthijs | Council on Foreign Relations
Matthias Matthijs’s career has spanned academia and think tanks. He sat down with CFR to discuss the benefits of observing European politics from afar, the importance of remaining open-minded in your career, and conducting dissertation research in London’s House of Lords tea room.
Local scientists air concerns about federal funding losses in Arlington town hall
Researchers at a Massachusetts science town hall said funding instability is pushing scientists out of academia and threatening the pipeline that feeds the state’s research and technological economy
Building connections across molecular life science
ASBMB President Ed Eisenstein reflects on how the society shaped his scientific career and outlines his vision for expanding connections across academia, industry and government to accelerate discovery, translation and community-building.
Jeffrey Epstein's ties to politicians, business titans and other figures
The U.S. Justice Department's release of millions of internal documents related to Jeffrey Epstein has revealed the late financier and sex offender's ties to many prominent people in politics, finance, academia and business - both before and after he pleaded guilty in 2008 to prostitution charges, including soliciting an underage girl. Evidence in multiple legal and criminal cases has also shed light on these connections.
CIO says academia has some lessons to teach health IT pros
"A significant portion of any leadership role is explaining the 'why' and 'how' of a change to diverse audiences," says Bruce Barnes of Brooke Army Medical Center, ahead of his HIMSS26 presentation on the value of higher education.
Global library trends report on AI, open science, future of libraries
The Pulse of the Library 2026 report surveyed 1,800+ academic, national and public libraries globally on future of the library and trends including the pace of AI adoption
Quantum Innovation Meets Future of Environmental Science
Researchers from across academia, government and industry gathered at Stony Brook University for the Quantum Information Science for the Geosciences Workshop.
WHO urges targeted action to strengthen emergency workforce capacities for shared health risks across the Asia-Pacific region
At a time when the world is more interconnected than ever, the World Health Organization (WHO) is disseminating a comprehensive regional analysis of shared health risks across Asia and the Pacific, urging Member States to invest in enhancing workforce capacities regionwide to mitigate these risks and ensure health systems are better prepared to anticipate, tackle and withstand a range of crises and shocks. Over 100 delegates from 49 countries and areas in the Asia-Pacific region reviewed results from the regional risk analysis during the WHO-led Asia Pacific Health Security Action Framework (APHSAF) Stakeholders Meeting in Malaysia. Synthesizing insights from 21 strategic risk assessments and more than 800 multisectoral experts, the regional analysis highlighted an urgent imperative: countries must proactively invest in emergency workforce preparedness to navigate a landscape where climate hazards, disease outbreaks and geophysical events increasingly overlap. These complex converging crises create devastating, compounding impacts on health systems and communities – reiterating the need for investing in a fit-for-purpose regional health workforce and multisectoral action.Key findings: an evolving risk landscape More than half of the participating countries ranked flooding, cyclones, dengue and pandemic-potential respiratory pathogens as being of high or very high risk, while antimicrobial resistance, landslides and gastroenteritis remain widespread concerns as well. “Given that 51% – over half – of these assessed hazards are deeply interconnected, isolated health interventions are no longer sufficient,” said Dr Saia Ma’u Piukala, WHO Regional Director for the Western Pacific. “Extreme weather events like cyclones and floods directly trigger subsequent disease outbreaks, while environmental degradation – driven by sea-level rise, coastal erosion and saltwater intrusion – fuels health risks across the Pacific. Mitigating these cascading risks requires unified, cross-sectoral action linking environmental, agricultural and public health policies to build true regional resilience.” Priority recommendations for action To address critical vulnerabilities, WHO calls on Member States in the Asia-Pacific region to urgently prioritize the following strategic actions: Bridge workforce capacity gaps. Embed and standardize emergency preparedness within academia to promote regional workforce interoperability. Foster multisectoral coordination. Address ad-hoc taskforce responses and fragmented surge support through formalized contingency plans and standard operating procedures that are frequently updated and tested. Secure sustainable financing for emergencies. Overcome systemic barriers to access dedicated funding for both immediate anticipatory actions and long-term emergency preparedness initiatives. Enable emergency-ready primary health care. Embed emergency management into public health workforce readiness planning. Ensure that emergency planning is inclusive. Establish clear pathways for inclusive emergency planning that actively involves communities most at risk and other vulnerable groups. Optimize communication. Update risk communication and community engagement strategies, aligning them with seasonal risk calendars. Elevating workforce readiness to meet regional health risks While the gaps identified are significant, the Asia-Pacific region possesses solid foundational pillars, including dedicated clinicians, laboratory staff, rapid response teams, emergency medical teams and extensive community networks. However, to adequately address the compounding nature of modern crises, the various components of the emergency workforce must collaborate cohesively. True resilience depends entirely on transforming this currently fragmented workforce into a highly trained, interconnected and rapidly deployable asset. To achieve this, WHO is actively advancing regional workforce capacities through the Global Health Emergency Corps initiative. This initiative – supported by the Gates Foundation and the Institute of Philanthropy – seeks to build a seamless network of emergency workforce across borders and sectors, ensuring that when a crisis strikes, a standardized, well-coordinated and trained workforce is immediately ready to respond. “Scaling up emergency workforce readiness is no longer optional,” said Dr Gina Samaan, Regional Emergency Director for WHO in the Western Pacific. “It is the definitive factor that will determine how effectively the Asia-Pacific region safeguards health and protects lives in an increasingly unpredictable future.” ____________________For more information, or to arrange media interviews, contact: Ara Johannes, WHO Western Pacific Health Emergencies Division: johannesa@who.int WHO Western Pacific Communications: wprocom@who.int
Job board ranks the top available radiologist positions
Marit Health compiled the rankings based on 5,000 job listings, separating its lists based on practice settings including academia, hospital systems, medical groups and remote reading.
A Career Powered by Curiosity: Jasna Jankovic’s Path from Industry to Academia
From industry scientist to award-winning educator and researcher, Jasna Jankovic has built a career at the intersection of materials science, clean energy, ...
MY HERO ULTRA RUMBLE
Season 15 is finally here! This update introduces a long-awaited member from Class 1-A of U.A. High School : Fumikage Tokoyami !
Experts agree at landmark event that simulation should be built into health system
On 15 June 2026, over 80 representatives from simulation societies, ministries of health, hospitals, universities, international organizations, professional associations and industry partners met at the WHO Academy in Lyon for a joint event of WHO and the Society for Simulation in Europe (SESAM). Together they tackled a pressing question: how can simulation move from isolated initiatives to systematic integration within health systems? The consensus was clear: simulation is no longer a niche educational tool. Beyond training, it strengthens health systems by improving quality of care, patient safety, workforce preparedness, team performance and organizational resilience.Participants agreed the evidence for simulation’s value no longer needs to be demonstrated, but that implementation remains fragmented and too often dependent on individual local champions. Bridging that gap, they said, means both generating further evidence and raising awareness among decision-makers.Discussions pointed to a shared path forward. To achieve scale and lasting impact, simulation must be embedded in national policies, workforce development plans, education systems and financing mechanisms. No institution can do this alone; stronger collaboration between governments, health institutions, academia, professional societies, international organizations and industry partners will be essential.“At the WHO Academy, we see simulation not simply as a training methodology but as a strategic tool for capacity-building, workforce readiness and stronger health systems,” said Dr Bart Janssens, Unit Head, Health Learning and Capacity Building. “This event is not only about discussion; it is about moving from ideas to action.”As health systems worldwide face workforce shortages, growing complexity of care and rapidly evolving competency needs, participants concluded that the question is no longer “Why simulation?” but rather how to scale it, how to sustain it, and how to ensure it becomes an integral part of stronger health systems.Looking aheadThe event marked the beginning of a collaborative effort rather than the end of a conversation. Over the coming weeks, WHO and SESAM will consolidate the discussions, recommendations and priorities that emerged, with a joint WHO–SESAM report to be published soon.
Announcing the global launch of Web of Science Research Intelligence: An AI-powered research intelligence platform for funding, strategy, and impact
Web of Science Research Intelligence unites trusted data and AI to help research offices, library teams, and researchers secure funding and demonstrate impact.
Navigating the social media minefield
Scientists and researchers seeking to announce promising findings, exchange ideas or contribute to policy discussions outside of academic circles may find social media an expedient tool.But increasingly, scientists and other professionals are discovering that online platforms can be a double-edged sword: while sharing their work and expertise is crucial for visibility and meeting funder expectations, it also exposes them to baseless criticism and even accusations of spreading false information."It is getting harder and harder for scientists, and researchers in general, to convey their findings without facing attacks on their legitimacy and accuracy of their research," says Valère Ndior, a professor of public law at the University of Western Brittany in Brest, France, who has spent more than a decade studying misinformation on social media. Researchers attempting to challenge deceptive online information may themselves be accused of political bias or not being objective in their research, he explains, adding that some scientists disengage because they feel overwhelmed and unable to sustain meaningful dialogue. "It is quite sad to see in some instances that researchers end up leaving social media altogether because they feel like the pressure is getting too intense or feel threatened," he says.Ndior, a past president of the Francophone Network of International Law, is also involved in European efforts to make science and research findings more accessible to the public. As an ambassador for the Science Comes to Town (SCTT) project, he has participated in recent discussions on public perceptions of science and online misinformation. The European Commission-funded initiative connects Brest and two other cities — Kiel in Germany and Split in Croatia — and aims to strengthen ties between communities, universities and research institutions to promote science awareness and cooperation across Europe.Coordinated campaigns around contentious topicsNdior draws a clear distinction between critical thinking and thoughtless criticism. Yet he sees online discussions being increasingly shaped by suspicious behaviour and coordinated information campaigns — including "raids" aimed at dominating discussions and "astroturfing," where small groups act as larger movements to sway debates. Tracking these patterns has become harder because some platforms have restricted data or charge for it, despite provisions of the European Union's Digital Securities Act aimed at ensuring researchers can have access to such data. According to Ndior, "platforms became more reluctant from the moment access to data became a legal requirement rather than a voluntary initiative."Unfounded claims and scepticism about science existed long before Internet chat groups. But the noticeable rise in online hostility has intensified around contentious topics, such as the coronavirus pandemic and climate change, alongside the weakening of gatekeepers to moderate content.For Ndior, dubious claims about pandemic countermeasures and vaccine safety highlighted the struggle between "balancing freedom of expression and the protection of public health and order." Efforts to remove social media content deemed false or risky for public health triggered accusations of censorship and the silencing of legitimate discussion, and in some cases, legal challenges.Concerns about attacks on the credibility of scientists and researchers have generated a flurry of academic papers in recent years and prompted professional communities to address ways to counter online attacks. Such unease extends to the generation that has grown up with digital media. Ndior points out that his students, some of whom research artificial intelligence regulation, hate speech, online surveillance and other controversial topics, hesitate to share their work or viewpoints online. "Many of them don't want to expose themselves too much because they don't feel ready to be faced with the backlash of other people criticising their research," he explains.Safer harbours for engagementLegal challenges against false or defamatory posts are not necessarily a solution — especially given the trans-jurisdictional nature of the Internet. Lawsuits also take time and money, and if they fail, can be counterproductive. Instead, Ndior advises scientists and researchers to be selective in how and where they communicate. Professional online platforms and moderated discussion spaces offer a better environment for engagement. He also highlights the value of more traditional formats, such as radio interviews and in-person discussions at schools, libraries and science fairs, which encourage dialogue with the public. "Personal contact makes a big difference," he says, while acknowledging that these approaches lack the global reach of social media.Ndior’s interest in digital law and online misinformation stems from his time as a doctoral student in international law in the early days of social media. He began analysing posts from governments and heads of state to determine if they could be considered official and thus used as evidence in litigation. His work attracted media attention and led to conference and speaking invitations. "This was not part of my plan," he says, "but this is what happens as a researcher — your interest is sparked by a certain event or phenomenon, and it suddenly becomes your focus."Ndior believes SCTT provides "a double benefit" for researchers, enabling them to connect with peers and interact with the public. "There is a wide community of people who are not in academia who are critical thinkers looking for opportunities to ask questions, to get information and contribute their ideas,” he says. "I really value that kind of feedback."Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
The NSF’s Ph.D.-to-Industry Pipeline Push
The majority of STEM Ph.D.s take jobs outside academia. While some universities help them prepare, the National Science Foundation is now investing millions to boost those efforts.
Academia's meltdown over Trump’s science plan is about the cover letter
Partisan bias, not genuine concern for research, drives academic outrage over necessary reforms to America's broken R&D system.
The science behind the beauty business
Some of Europe’s industrial champions may be in retreat, but its cosmetics sector remains a global leader, buoyed by healthy demand, recognised brands and a reputation for innovation."The fact is, the science in cosmetics is better here in Europe than anywhere else in the world,” says Pierre Morvan, CEO of Technature, a private label cosmetics manufacturer located near Brest in France’s northwestern Brittany region. “You have to have good science in order to make the difference, and that is why we invest so much in research and innovation.”Across Europe, the beauty and skincare products sector supports an estimated 3.6 million jobs, including 265,000 employed directly in the industry, according to the Cosmetics Europe trade group.. Cosmetics production contributes an estimated €11 billion to the EU economy, and generated €30 billion in export revenue last year, a €400 million rise from 2024.Technature itself has a global footprint, supplying products for 1,500 brands in 65 countries. Its range of skin gels, facial masks, nail treatments and other products include natural ingredients and extracts derived from plants, such as seaweed, that are developed and refined through science-based analysis and testing.While industry projections point to sustained growth for the foreseeable future, driven by emerging economies and wider availability of exclusive brands that were once chiefly sold by high street retailers, the sector is not immune to the impact of geopolitics and trade wars. The Trump Administration’s tariff threats have dented cosmetics exports to the EU industry's largest overseas market. After the European Parliament approved the EU-US Turnberry Agreement in June, setting a 15% levy on many EU goods, the French Federation of Beauty Companies warned that “exports are falling sharply” and urged the EU to negotiate an opt-out for cosmetics.Technature’s CEO flags South Korea as an emerging competitor, partly due to its assertive marketing efforts. “I would have to say I am a little bit scared,” Morvan says, regarding the growth potential of the South Korean cosmetics industry. “This is why science and innovation are so important if Europe is to remain the leader.”With a workforce of 200, including biologists, chemists and other scientists, around 15% of Technature’s staff work in three research and development (R&D) labs. A similar number work in four quality control and assurance facilities, where science plays a crucial in ensuring product safety in a sector that is subject to the European Cosmetics Regulation.Educational exchange between industry and academiaIn recognition of Technature’s research and innovation, Morvan was selected as one of Brest’s ambassadors to Science Comes to Town (SCTT), a European initiative to strengthen communications and understanding between science and society. Brest is one of three coastal cities in the EU-funded programme, alongside Split (in Croatia) and Kiel (in Germany). From 7-11 September, Brest will host the EU TalentOn contest featuring 100 early-career researchers from across Europe.Morvan appreciates the value of engagement with educational and scientific institutions as well as the home community. For instance, Technature collaborates closely with university partners to enhance its in-house R&D. In addition, it invites students to its labs and sends its own researchers to local institutions. "We absolutely want the students to know what the industry is all about,” Morvan says, noting that seeing science in action can help young people “understand that they can do something real with science, to create something with what they are learning.” He says another important benefit: encouraging new generations of young people to consider a career in cosmetics.Community involvement also raises awareness about Technature and the skincare industry as a whole. “The public gains recognition of the innovative company that we are, and this is important for getting new customers,” Morvan says. One of its recent innovations — tiny, colourful cosmetic pearls that release skin moisturisers on application — was showcased at this year’s VivaTech event in Paris.Morvan holds a master's degree from the Brest Business School and studied animal production and biology in Brest at the University of Western Brittany (UBO), an SCTT partner, and at the University of Tours. He got his start in business in 2002, initially working on using seaweed as a raw material in the food industry before transitioning to cosmetics. Morvan has always been interested in connecting science and business, reflecting one the goals of SCTT to enhance public-private collaboration.The invitation to participate in SCTT was unexpected. “It was a surprise to get a call from the city of Brest saying that they wanted me on this programme,” Morvan recalls, adding that officials were drawn by his company’s R&D. “It's not only theory and science fundamentals. Our science is something that is applicable to the global market — and important for the community.”Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
MARY BRUNKOW
A chance discovery made around 80 years ago paved the way for Mary Brunkow’s painstaking work, which contributed to redefining how the immune system functions. From investigating an obscure gene dismissed as ‘junk’ by other scientists, to choosing to opt out of academia and conduct her research at a biotech startup, Brunkow has embraced the unexpected throughout her career.
Cereals & Grains conference connects science, technology
The conference will unite cereal and grain experts from industry, academia and government to explore solutions.
The Science Behind the AI Panic Is Shakier Than You Think
A column by Sascha Lobo Is AI making us dumb? So asked DER SPIEGEL on its cover a while ago. After a few weeks of recovery and a therapeutic intervention with the help of my AI, I feel able to respond. That’s a bit unfair, of course; the article itself is more nuanced than the loud cover, the image of a schoolkid with dull prompt questions, or the subtitle: “AI is conquering the schools, and educators fear a disaster.” The short answer to “Is AI making us dumb?” is: no. The long answer is more interesting, and even carries a preliminary glimmer of the spectacular. Unfortunately, it requires a detour into the sphere of artificial intelligence, into the mogul-field terrain of technology assessment, the attention economy, and the destructive virus of cultural pessimism. Along with narrowing the scope to AI’s effects on education and work rather than on intelligence. Because the honest version of the question would be: Does AI help us learn and work, or not? Generative AI, which set off the still-ongoing hype with ChatGPT, has only existed in relevant distribution since late 2022, early 2023. For a technology-driven transformation of people and society, that is extremely short. For that reason alone, research is still in its infancy. And technology assessment is not a fast discipline anyway. Prominent voices from Elizabeth Eisenstein to RAND to Tom Wheeler say we still cannot conclusively judge the consequences of the printing press. Its invention is a mere 580 years back, and some scholars would rather not circulate assessments that might have to be retracted in two or three hundred years. We’re Going Through Growing Pains A phenomenon that already caused upheaval in social media research makes serious assessment of AI’s consequences even harder: the “moving target” problem of LLM-ology, as the linguist Sean Trott called it in 2025. AI develops so quickly and so unpredictably that researchers often end up studying snapshots of the past. There are concepts, from morphological analysis to anticipatory governance, for keeping research, planning, and regulation halfway meaningful anyway. But even with those, universally valid statements are rare. DER SPIEGEL - The German View is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe We should therefore treat findings about the interplay between humans and AI as far more procedural and situational. Unfortunately, this challenge comes at the worst possible time. We are going through growing pains: AI’s everyday impact has grown very large very fast, and with it the longing for guidance. Annoyingly, the body of solid knowledge has not exploded along with it. Experts cannot be moved to broad consensus on even banal statements about AI. Sascha Lobo, born in 1975, is an author and strategy consultant focusing on the internet and digital technologies. Together with Jule Lobo, he explores the debates of the day in the podcast “Feel the News – Was Deutschland bewegt” (”What Moves Germany”). Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says software developers are dying out. Bill Gates considers coders one of only three professions that will survive the AI tsunami. Top tech economists find virtually irrefutable arguments both for and against an AI bubble. The same naturally applies to the structurally youth-hostile debate over whether AI is good or bad for young people. The gap between the demand for insight and the supply of solid knowledge creates an orientation vacuum. This vacuum of AI cluelessness is filled, as the attention economy described by Georg Franck in 1998 would have it, with half-knowledge (funnily enough, often AI-generated), marketing, and self-marketing. After all, infinite money is at stake, along with academia’s best current shot at global fame. But this iridescent froth of interpretation operates more by the algorithmic principles of the digital public sphere than by seriously earned insight. That is why dramatized, fear-feeding claims about AI are so promising. It tempts parts of academia into distorted drivel, and parts of the media then sensationalize the published drivel once more. Was the Research Aimed at a Desired Result? How badly this can influence academia and public perception is demonstrated by one of the most-discussed studies on AI’s effects: “Your Brain on ChatGPT.” The MIT study by Nataliya Kosmyna also gets plenty of space in the SPIEGEL cover story. What was measured and interpreted: lower brain activity in people who write with AI assistance, compared to people who only google or write without any tools. As is common with preprints, the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, and it contains substantial weaknesses that experts have sharply criticized. The first round had 54 participants in three groups, the second only 18, who reportedly also came from MIT’s own orbit. There was no preregistration (committing in advance to what you want to find out with which data). In their analysis, Stanković et al. even discovered an opposite effect that the study does not further explain. Some measurement data has not (yet) been published. And the EEG analysis method used is considered too imprecise to support such far-reaching conclusions. The biggest criticism, though, is the suspicion of an activism-driven study. In an interview with Time, lead author Kosmyna said she published the study immediately, rather than after full peer review, because she feared politicians might otherwise decide to put ChatGPT in kindergartens. She considers that absolutely harmful. It is legitimate to hold such a view. It just seems unscientific to approach a study with it, and then to design the setup so that the chance of a fitting desired result remains as high as possible. Ideologies Collide It is not easy to separate genuine AI insights from studies that trivialize and weaken well-founded AI criticism. The same goes for the opposing, AI-enthusiastic narratives, because the pro-AI side works against it with billions in resources. Ideologies collide, fed by egos, PR strategies, moral posturing, and once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. Doomsday marketing makes the search even harder: AI companies can profit from warnings about the dangers of AI, whether through the notoriety of apocalypse narratives or because, in some target groups, danger translates into power. Some seemingly negative findings are therefore quite welcome in the AI industry. If you try to get at the findings presumably less influenced by interest groups, the picture in education seems relatively clear: AI can improve educational outcomes when the right AI is used the right way, namely pedagogically. Simply dumping an AI chatbot into a classroom, by contrast, accomplishes little. Huge surprise. But something else is also obvious: whether they are allowed to or not, kids use AI for school, which is why the controlled integration of AI tools into education is, in the medium term, entirely without alternative. In the world of work, the landscape of findings is more complex and requires more differentiation. A series of serious studies points to an AI effect that suits neither the alarmists, regulation fetishists, and AI opponents, nor the trillion-dollar corporations with their armada of paid scientists, PR professionals, and ecosystems: working with AI helps the inexperienced (at least for now) considerably more than it helps the pros, in certain fields of work, and provided they know how to use it correctly. Missing Domain Knowledge Among the experienced, the professionals, and the high flyers, by contrast, despite frequent time savings, partially negative effects and new problems are emerging. Take the jagged frontier problem: AI solves task A brilliantly and fails completely at task B, even though both look similar even to professionals. Or the verification-cost problem, in which AI’s greater productivity gets eaten up by the enormous effort of checking its output. Or the illusion of competence, because AI makes new domains seem easily penetrable, until you painfully discover that deep domain knowledge is missing. Taken as a whole, the effects of working with AI do lean positive. But the promise that AI works as a turbocharger for everyone and boosts practically everything simply refuses to materialize. The AI magic the world has been feeling since ChatGPT arrived in late 2022 has so far barely shown up in most companies’ numbers. The consulting firm McKinsey has coined a term for this, the “gen AI paradox,” and believes that work processes and corporate structures would have to be rebuilt quite fundamentally to realize AI’s benefits at scale. Reuters just reported that only 3.3 percent of Microsoft’s customers have subscribed to the AI package Copilot. That may be down to the product; in other areas we continue to see soaring successes and new AI triumphs. But after the first quarter of 2026, disillusionment is the word for all too many AI projects at traditional companies: because the promised revolution of AI agents has so far failed to arrive or been postponed, and because of the leveling effect that many of the studies cited here suggest. Against Inequality The societal effects, on the other hand, appear rather encouraging. Many previous technologies operated on the Matthew principle, named for the Gospel verse about giving to those who already have: they tended to reward the more competent and more privileged. AI, however, seems more often to have an equalizing effect once a threshold of access and education is crossed. Some anecdotal insights point in this direction, for example, how an unemployed man in Leipzig successfully defended himself in court in 2025 against fraud accusations from Germany’s federal employment agency — without a lawyer, armed only with ChatGPT. The AI made mistakes and cited invented court rulings, but in the end the man walked away unpunished. And a key capability of artificial intelligence is its capacity to learn: set up correctly and fed with data, it can keep getting better. It is a question of time, or more precisely of AI innovations and training data, until even free AI chatbots write better legal briefs than law graduates with perfect exam scores. Whether that will make anyone dumb is something the world’s press will surely inform us of in due time. Subscribe Leave a comment
The State of the Science 1 Year On: Academia and Research
The past year was a shock to the U.S. higher education system. The coming year may see even more jolts.
Bandai Namco Is Bringing My Hero Academia: All's Justice To Switch 2
Arriving this September
More Than 5,000 Leaders Across Entertainment, Academia and Public Life Unite to Reject “Genocide” Accusation Against Israel
Boris Johnson, Deborah Lipstadt, Sir Niall Ferguson, Shari Redstone, Steven Pinker, Sherry Lansing, Simon Sebag Montefiore, Chief Rabbi Warren Goldstein, Irwin Cotler, Debra Messing and thousands of others reject the genocide accusation against Israel and warn that it fuels antisemitism
How integrating tradition and self-care has strengthened public health in the Americas
On 13 May 2026, a regional dialogue for the Americas titled, Innovative Experiences to Strengthen Health and Self-Care through Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine, was hosted by EsSalud, the government agency responsible for social security and health care in Peru.The event brought together representatives from the World Health Organization (WHO), the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), WHO collaborating centres, the health sector and academia. It presented regional perspectives from BrBolivia, Brazil, Mexico and Peru to explore how self-care and traditional medicine can strengthen public health, empower communities and support more inclusive models of care. Across all four countries, a clear message emerged: traditional medicine is not being positioned as an alternative to formal systems, but as a way to strengthen them. In the Americas region, the challenge is to consolidate intercultural and holistic care, with the aim of strengthening the healthcare system – making care more preventive, culturally relevant and community-based.Peru: institutionalizing complementary care over 28 years Dr Martha Villar López from EsSalud Peru demonstrated how integration can be institutionalized over time. With nearly three decades of investment, including a research programme dating back to 1998, traditional medicine is now embedded within public health infrastructure. EsSalud’s flagship programme, Reforma de Vida, operating as Prevenir, takes multidisciplinary teams into workplaces to reduce and detect risk factors for chronic noncommunicable diseases. Education cycles are structured around three pillars: celestial nourishment, focused on life purpose and movement; terrestrial nourishment, centred on regional food and healthy diets; and human nourishment, addressing identity, relationships, stress and spirituality. Grounded in Andean cosmovision and the principle of the ayllu, the programme aligns with local cultural values. Since 2007, it has trained over 6600 health leaders, certified more than 3100 health-friendly organizations and built alliances with nearly 11 000 employers.Bolivia: legal recognition and medical pluralism Adelino Pau Carpacheco, an 82-year-old Callawaya healer, described working with more than 220 medicinal plants, supported by deep generational knowledge. Traditional healers and plant medicine are highly respected in the country. Bolivia’s contribution also highlighted the role of policy in enabling integration. Through Law 459, traditional medicine has been formally recognized within a legal framework and led the country to medical pluralism where traditional medicine coexists with biomedicine, and both are now offered free of charge through the public health system. Mexico: preserving Indigenous knowledge and reinventing food culture Mexico presented two complementary approaches focused on knowledge preservation and food systems. In Veracruz, communities partnered with a university to safeguard Totonac traditional medicine through a diploma programme launched in 2019. This collaboration has already produced practical outputs, including manuals and a dictionary, helping to sustain knowledge at risk due to migration and generational change. Alongside this, Dr Hernán García, Directorate of Traditional Medicine and Intercultural Development – Mexico, explained how the Dieta de la Milpa programme addresses Mexico’s dual burden of malnutrition and rising noncommunicable diseases. Rooted in traditional Mayan cultivation systems and ingredients, it promotes healthier diets through community-led, intercultural approaches involving local authorities, Indigenous leaders and cooks. By reconnecting food, culture and health, it offers a practical pathway to prevention. Brazil: community therapy as a public health tool Brazil’s experience centred on Integrative Community Therapy, a methodology developed over 40 years ago by Dr Adalberto Barreto and now used in more than 47 countries. Therapy circles create spaces where participants share experiences and coping strategies, building social support networks at very low cost. Within Brazil’s Unified Health System, the approach has expanded rapidly since its inclusion in national policy in 2017. By 2025, more than five million integrative practice procedures were delivered annually in primary care, with registrations for this therapy increasing by over 500% in eight years. The main challenge now is equity, with access still concentrated in urban areas such as São Paulo. A shared regional direction against a global backdrop Drawing these experiences together, Dr Natalia Aldana of the TCIM Network of the Americas highlighted the shared outcomes of the interventions discussed. Such approaches strengthen healthy behaviours, social networks and community resilience; they are low-cost, adaptable and enable active participation in care, while showing potential to reduce the burden of noncommunicable diseases.The regional momentum mirrors a broader global shift. Dr João Paulo Souz, Director of BIREME (Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information), the specialized center of PAHO/WHO, emphasized that the Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025–2034 promotes a vision centred on people, evidence and integrated use. He noted that health should be understood through the relationships between people, community, nature and spirituality. Self-care interventions as a critical pathway towards universal health coverage Dr Manjulaa Narasimhan, Unit Head for Sexual Health and Well-being across the Life-course at WHO, delivered a presentation titled Advancing Self-Care in Traditional Medicine: Aligning the WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025–2034 with the WHO Self-Care Framework, co-authored by Dr Geetha Krishnan Gopalakrishna Pillai, Unit Head for Research, Data and Innovation at the WHO Global Traditional Medicine Centre. WHO recommends self-care interventions for every country and economic setting as a critical path to reach universal health coverage – and traditional medicine acts as a bridge for self-care. Dr Narasimhan explained that traditional medicine contributes most effectively to self-care when embedded directly into primary health care, not operating in parallel, siloed systems. This, she stated, “is possibly the only sustainable way to deliver continuity of care that meets the needs, rights and priorities of communities and individuals”. The Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025–2034 is a move towards a more people-centred approach to health care that champions holistic approaches to health equity and patient autonomy.The integration of traditional medicine and self-care requires collaboration across disciplines, clear referral pathways, trained health and care workers, and strong leadership that supports integration. The WHO self-care competency framework defines 10 key competencies for health and care workers to support self-care in their clinical practice, supported by the WHO guideline on self-care interventions for health and well-being. These documents help health-care workers safeguard their own well-being and ensure that care is consistent, safe and grounded in shared standards and values.Together, the discussion through this dialogue points to a fundamental shift in how health systems are designed in the region, and globally, towards models that are more inclusive, culturally-grounded and responsive to the needs of the communities they serve. It is a move towards a system where traditional medicine is respected and responsibly integrated, where self-care provides empowerment and evidence-based care, and where health systems are supportive rather than being distant from these systems.Traditional medicine perspectives from Bolivia, Mexico and Peru - WHO's "Restoring Balance" seriesInnovative Experiences to Strengthen Health and Self-Care through Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine was streamed in Spanish, with Spanish and Portuguese subtitles. Recordings are available through the CABSIN YouTube channel with Portuguese subtitles and on the BVS MTCI Americas YouTube channel with Spanish subtitles. Dr Narasimhan’s session can be watched in English on both channels.
Congressional Leaders Laud NASA Moon Plans, But Fight Intensifies over Science Funding
“If we weaken academia, we don’t just weaken our research capacity, we lose our workforce and we lose the innovation that fuels our economy.” —Rep. Zoe Lofgren at ASCEND 2026 Congressional leaders…
Industry and academic leaders explore how engineering innovation is powering the next era of space science at the 46th COSPAR Scientific Assembly
Leading voices from across the aerospace industry and academia gathered in Florence, Italy for the panel titled "Engineering Innovation Enabling Scientific Research," examining how advances in engineering are unlocking new scientific missions and how ambitious science goals are, in turn, driving engineering breakthroughs. The panel, moderated by Alison Nordt, Director of Space Sciences & Instrumentation at Lockheed Martin Space's Advanced Technology Center, brought together six panellists to discuss the evolving relationship between space science and systems engineering: Marius Anger (Aalto University), Jon Arenberg (Northrop Grumman), Mayra Montrose (L3Harris), Giampiero Di Paolo (Thales Alenia Space Italia), Steve Squyres (Blue Origin) and Eric Stallmer (Voyager).
MY HERO ULTRA RUMBLE : Patch Notes 1.15.0
Through our maintenance update on March 25, 2026, we made the following changes. New features, System Adjustments, Adjustments to Area Control Battle, Battle Style Adjustments, Bug fixes... We hope you continue enjoying MY HERO ULTRA RUMBLE.