SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY

Search headlines

Find the stories shaping the conversation.

Search mode
Refine results
Active filters Keyword All time

Results for " invention " 84 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle

Tyra Banks To Produce Feature About The Invention Of The Sports Bra

Tyra Banks will bring the stories of Lisa Lindahl, Polly Smith, and Hinda Miller, the inventors of the sports bra, to the big screen.

deadline.com logo
Oct 21 • 5:31 PM EDT • Entertainment • deadline.com
France’s 100-year sealed science letters: secrets held by the Académie des Sciences

Letters held at the Académie des Sciences contain inventions, theories and historic discoveries

connexionfrance.com logo
Oct 18 • 1:00 AM EDT • Science • connexionfrance.com
John Ternus talks iPhone Duo, ‘cheap and crappy’ foldables in new interview

TIME just published its list of best inventions of 2026, and iPhone Duo made the list with John Ternus interviewed for the cover story.

9to5mac.com logo
Oct 15 • 10:11 AM EDT • Technology • 9to5mac.com
TIME Best Inventions of 2026

NASA’s new Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope was among the year’s top innovations recognized Thursday on TIME’s Best Inventions of 2026 list.

science.nasa.gov logo
Oct 15 • 9:00 AM EDT • Science • science.nasa.gov
Xbox CEO reportedly warns firm will "not survive" if it only relies on existing franchises

Platform needs to "find new ways, and courage, to have invention on new IP that reach new sets of audiences"

gamesindustry.biz logo
Oct 14 • 3:44 AM EDT • Technology • gamesindustry.biz
Asha Sharma reportedly tells rattled Xbox employees: "We have to find new ways, and courage, to have invention on new IP"

There's still apparently an appetite at Xbox to create new gaming franchises. But where, in this bruised company, does it come from?

eurogamer.net logo
Oct 13 • 6:37 AM EDT • Technology • eurogamer.net
David Oyelowo brings revamped ‘Treasure Island’ to a new generation

“Treasure Island,” perhaps Robert Louis Stevenson’s most celebrated tale, premieres tonight, on MGM+ with the first of its 6-episode reinvention of the classic.

bostonherald.com logo
Oct 11 • 3:44 AM EDT • Entertainment • bostonherald.com
Quad-Cities comedy scene grows with a welcoming crowd of comics

Quad-Cities comedians foster a welcoming, growing scene where newcomers thrive, audiences grow and age cannot prevent reinvention.

qconline.com logo
Oct 4 • 7:00 AM EDT • Entertainment • qconline.com
Quad-Cities comedy scene grows with a welcoming crowd of comics

Quad-Cities comedians foster a welcoming, growing scene where newcomers thrive, audiences grow and age cannot prevent reinvention.

qctimes.com logo
Oct 4 • 7:00 AM EDT • Entertainment • qctimes.com
Studying Science in an Anti-Scientific Time

This Chronicle Review Deep Cut was first published in 2025. By Julianne Werlin Thanks for reading The Chronicle Review! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe The last two decades have not been kind to science studies. Already bruised and battered by the “science wars” of the 1990s, by the 2000s sociologists of science — who had long argued that science had to be understood in its human context — were encountering the funhouse-mirror version of their own views in right-wing critiques of climate scientists. It was enough to give some prominent scholars pause. “Was I wrong to participate in the invention of this field known as science studies?” asked Bruno Latour, the most famous sociologist of science in the world, in 2003. “Should we apologize for having been wrong all along? Or should we rather bring the sword of criticism to criticism itself and do a bit of soul-searching here: What were we really after when we were so intent on showing the social construction of scientific facts?” In response, Latour proposed a change of method and attitude. Science studies, now chastened and contrite, would no longer seek to strip facts of their authority, but to enrich and enhance them. What this meant in practice was never fully clear. But his diagnosis of problems resonated, even if his solutions did not. Latour’s exercise in public hand-wringing signaled a shift in mood. By 2016, with the first election of Donald Trump, the idea that skepticism of science was a right-wing position, not a left-wing one, had become a commonplace, discussed eagerly in The New York Times. For liberals, vaccine denial during the Covid era and Trump’s second-term attacks on the funding of scientific research, covered extensively in these pages, added a new urgency to the defense of science on both practical and principled grounds. There was little appetite for a sociology or philosophy of science that emphasized the messiness and missteps of the scientific process rather than its integrity and triumphs. The distinguished historian of science Peter Dear’s new book, The World as We Know It: From Natural Philosophy to Modern Science (Princeton University Press, 2025), which seeks to tell the story of 18th- and 19th-century science for a general public, may seem comfortably remote from these bitter contests. In its 16 short chapters, Dear draws swift, sure sketches of major discoveries from Newton to Einstein, ably guiding the reader through debates on stellar nebulae, animal taxonomy, atomic chemistry, evolution, and other flashpoints in the history of science. But though a work of history, Dear’s book must still negotiate our polarized present. In a blurb on its back cover, the historian of biology Lynn K. Nyhart alludes to the “present moment, when scientific knowledge is being swamped by misinformation and its institutions are under siege.” Dear himself, in his conclusion, refers to the “yard signs” and “bumper stickers” that proclaim “Science Is Real.” One antidote to both anti-science propaganda and to reductive slogans in science’s defense is a robust history and philosophy of science: exactly what Dear’s scholarship has long offered. But his new book illustrates how difficult such work has become. Dear, an emeritus professor of history at Cornell University, is best known as a creative and philosophically minded historian of the Scientific Revolution. His edited volume The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument (1991) analyzed the rhetoric of Galileo’s thought experiments to brilliant effect. Discipline and Experience: The Mathematical Way in the Scientific Revolution (1995) was a major contribution to the analysis of scientific experiments in early modern Europe and beyond, while Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge in Transition, 1500-1700 (2001), now in its third edition, remains one of the best overviews of the profound epistemological upheavals of 16th- and 17th-century science. But Dear has also ventured into later periods. Nearly two decades ago, in The Intelligibility of Nature: How Science Makes Sense of the World (2006), he turned to the 18th and 19th centuries to sketch a history and theory of scientific knowledge. Aimed at a generalist audience, Dear’s simple prose belied serious philosophical ambitions. Science, Dear argued, has two aspects: “natural philosophy,” the quest to understand the true nature of the universe, and “instrumentality,” the applied skills and technologies that allow us to manipulate the world for human advantage. Both strands are ancient, but the innovation of the phenomenon we call “science” was to yoke them together. As Francis Bacon wrote, “Human knowledge and human power meet in one; for where the cause is not known, the effect cannot be produced,” an insight typically abridged to “knowledge is power.” Or, in Bertrand Russell’s characteristically blunt phrase, science has two functions, “1. to enable us to know things, and 2., to enable us to do things.” So far, so conventional. But Dear took issue with this familiar story in one respect. Bacon’s formula implied that theory and practice could be fused in a single method. In fact, Dear argued, the quest to understand nature and the desire to manipulate it were coupled only loosely. They could come together, but they could also pull apart. Focusing on natural philosophy, the “knowing” half of the scientific circle, he used a series of case studies from cosmology, taxonomy, chemistry, electromagnetism, and quantum theory to show how theories changed over time, in dialogue with practice, but never reducible to it. Take the case of matter, the basic substrate of the physical world. In the 18th and 19th centuries, scientists not only disagreed about what it was, but also about how well it could be known. In 1789, the chemist Antoine Lavoisier dismissed speculation about the atomic composition of chemicals as “discussions entirely of a metaphysical nature,” as he sought to orient chemistry away from philosophical abstraction and toward laboratory results. But in the 19th century, atoms returned with a vengeance in the atomic chemistry of John Dalton, who wanted to explain the underlying structure of nature. It was not just that Dalton and Lavoisier had a different set of experimental results, or even a different theory, Dear showed. What counted as an explanation had changed. In arguing that scientific theories depended on their intelligibility to human beings with complex arrays of beliefs and commitments, Dear was in sympathy with science studies. Key figures such as the sociologist Steven Shapin emphasized the importance of psychological mechanisms like trust in the formation and acceptance of scientific ideas. But in focusing on the scientific pursuit of knowledge, not its politics or economics, Dear resisted the more cynical perspective of some of his colleagues. The Intelligibility of Nature strikes a very different note than Shapin’s collection of a few years later, Never Pure: Historical Studies of Science as If It Was Produced by People With Bodies, Situated in Time, Space, Culture, and Society, and Struggling for Credibility and Authority (2010), to name just one example. Walking a very fine line, Dear depicted science as driven at once by complex social dynamics and by the intellectual power of real discoveries. It was a testament not only to his own acumen but also to the vitality of the field that he was able to do so. Nearly two decades later, The World as We Know It returns to the questions broached in The Intelligibility of Nature. Like Dear’s earlier study, it begins with the Newtonian cosmos and ends with debates between Einstein and Bohr on quantum physics. Beyond its terminal figures, many of the same characters appear in both studies, including the naturalists John Ray and the Comte de Buffon; the chemists Étienne François Geoffroy, Antoine Lavoisier, and John Dalton; as well as Charles Darwin and Michael Faraday, among others. Its subject is nearly identical: As in The Intelligibility of Nature, The World as We Know It considers natural philosophy as opposed to instrumentality, here defined as the “desire to create a picture of what the world is really like — the world as God knows it — rather than simply having instrumental or operational control over it.” The two books also overlap in insights — and sometimes even in language. The reader who has learned in The Intelligibility of Nature that Buffon’s method of classifying animals “reflected his belief in the importance of the senses and empiricism in learning about nature (a doctrine associated with Newton and the philosopher John Locke)” will experience a sense of déjà vu on reading, in The World as We Know It, that the classification “reflects Buffon’s commitment to the epistemological stance of Newton and his philosophical underlaborer John Locke, who stressed the role of the senses in creating natural knowledge.” Later in the passage, we read that, “because of its stress on understanding the ways of life of animals in their environments, Buffon’s approach could almost be labeled (anachronistically) as ‘ecological.’” And again, “an anachronistic way of putting it would be to say that Buffon recommends an ecological mode of understanding.” Likewise, in The Intelligibility of Nature we read of Dalton that he was initially drawn to meteorology, and that: He did a bit of experimental work on these things, especially having to do with the water-holding capacity of gases, but his real interest lay in understanding what, at an underlying natural-philosophical level, was really going on physically.” Whereas, in The World as We Know It: He did experimental work on these things, especially concerning the water-holding capacity of gases — although not at a very refined level quantitatively — but he was continually trying to develop a theoretical conception of what was happening physically. The final full chapter of each book closes on the same resigned note. Intelligibility: These days, most serious work on the natural philosophical underpinnings and implications of quantum mechanics is performed not by physicists but by philosophers of science. Among scientific practitioners themselves, Bohr’s attempt to use instrumentality as sufficient grounds for a respectable science has met with a high degree of success. And again, in The World as We Know It: Bohr’s and Einstein’s concerns are now questions that are mostly discussed by philosophers of science rather than by physicists themselves. The marginalization of these sorts of questions amounts to the demise of natural philosophy, at least in physics, in the 20th century. Quantum mechanics “works,” and that’s good enough for most scientists who encounter it. Examples could be multiplied. When handling the same subject matter, some echoes are inevitable. Scholars should not feel that because they have written “Isaac Newton died in 1727” in one book, in the next they must describe him as perishing, expiring, or meeting his maker. But the repetitions of language and arguments (not to mention six reproduced images) threaded throughout The World as We Know It are more extensive than that. They should have been caught by Princeton University Press or its reviewers, and revised. Because the two books have so much in common, it is easy to see where they diverge. The World as We Know It is a less theoretical work than its predecessor. The sociology of knowledge that organized The Intelligibility of Nature has been reduced in scale and folded into readings and examples. The taut interplay between history and theory, which gave the earlier study so much interest, is there, but it is subtle. In the earlier book, the case studies demonstrated theoretical claims about the character and development of science. In the later work, each narrative of discovery is an end in itself. Insights emerge from the history, but they do not control the organization of the study. With the theory muted, it can be hard to understand the logic uniting Dear’s sprawling history of more than two centuries of scientific knowledge. The 16 brisk chapters cover an enormous amount of material. But the closer the volume edges to comprehensiveness, the more obvious the missing elements become. A chapter on “Institutions and Pedagogy,” describing the birth of the research university, illustrates the problem. Inserted roughly halfway through the book, the unnumbered chapter is designed as an “entr’acte,” in acknowledgement that it does not fit the study’s organization around scientific discoveries. Yet as Dear is well aware, no general history of the development of modern science can bracket its 19th-century institutionalization and professionalization. It was the 19th-century university, after all, that gave us the “scientist,” a term coined by the Cambridge philosopher William Whewell. Dear’s history of scientific discoveries implies a wider social and institutional history, but it remains largely subterranean, only occasionally extruded under the pressure of the narrative. It must be said that the balance is not all on the side of the earlier study. There are some advantages to the more historical, less theoretical organization of The World as We Know It. Dear’s accounts of paradigm shifts are remarkably lucid, no small accomplishment given that they span fields and centuries. He makes excellent use of the wealth of new scholarship on Darwin and his influences, to which he has himself contributed. It is satisfying to see puzzle pieces from Buffon’s natural history, Georges Cuvier’s animal taxonomy, Thomas Robert Malthus’s demography, and Charles Lyell’s geology recombined seamlessly in the Darwinian jigsaw. Likewise, Dear’s discussion of stellar nebulae, divided between chapters two and 15, shows vividly how Newton, Kant, Herschel, and Hubble reimagined insights and observations as they sought to discover whether the diffuse light that filtered through early telescopes was a glowing, gaseous substance or discrete but distant stars. Yet despite such pleasures, the book remains a more modest work than The Intelligibility of Nature. Dear has clearly not changed his views about the history of science. But in the two decades that have elapsed, the discipline and the world around it have changed, making it harder to write a sociologically and philosophically ambitious history of science for the general reader. That is a shame, because in the age of Silicon Valley and biotechnology, both the reciprocity and the tensions Dear identified between the epistemological and instrumental ambitions of science are more evident than ever. In recent years, some of the most exciting new books on the history of science in early modernity have focused precisely on this pressure point. Important studies such as Pamela H. Smith’s From Lived Experience to the Written Word (2022), James Poskett’s Horizons: The Global Origins of Modern Science (2022), and Vera Keller’s The Interlopers: Early Stuart Projects and the Undisciplining of Knowledge (2023) all shed new light on how early modern science negotiated the relationship between its instrumental and epistemological ambitions, or in Russell’s phrase, knowing and doing. There is every opportunity for a philosophically informed approach to draw new insights from this wealth of material. Dear, unfortunately, has not done so in The World as We Know It. But for future scholars of the history of science, his body of work over nearly four decades may provide just the model. Julianne Werlin is an associate professor of English at Duke University. Thanks for reading The Chronicle Review! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Subscribe

chronicleofhighereducation.substack.com logo
Oct 2 • 2:52 PM EDT • Science • chronicleofhighereducation.substack.com
Tom Cruise's latest risky business

Tom Cruise doesn't play things safe. Yes, obviously, I'm referring to him hanging off assorted aircraft and other insane things he does in his cinematic stunt-o-ramas. But in his 45-year history in Hollywood, Cruise has done a lot of different roles and navigated through various reinventions.

sanluisobispo.com logo
Oct 2 • 9:58 AM EDT • Business • sanluisobispo.com
What’s Different About Jürgen Klopp’s Successor Roger Schmidt?

Returning to his tactical roots, the Salzburg veteran brings a hands-on approach to Red Bull’s global network, prioritizing continuity and aggressive pressing over flashy corporate reinvention.

sports.yahoo.com logo
Sep 30 • 2:03 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com
Explore the highlights of Milan Fashion Week in photos

MILAN (AP) — Milan Fashion Week balanced legacy and reinvention as Italy’s leading fashion houses used expressive silhouettes, refined craftsmanship and evolving creative leadership to chart a path forward toward

gazettextra.com logo
Sep 27 • 2:11 PM EDT • Entertainment • gazettextra.com
😐 Neutral (0%)
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.

sciencebusiness.net logo
Sep 24 • 8:00 AM EDT • Science • sciencebusiness.net
Taylor Tomlinson turns off the mic to tell all in 'Actually, Nevermind'

Comedian Taylor Tomlinson turns a forced pause from nonstop touring and late-night TV into "Actually, Nevermind," an essay collection about grief, reinvention and changing your mind in adulthood.

latimes.com logo
Sep 22 • 2:50 PM EDT • Entertainment • latimes.com
UCF Students Enhance Football Game Day Experience

It started with a T-shirt launcher. Now, inventions coming out of the College of Engineering and Computer Science are making the game day atmosphere uniquely UCF.

ucf.edu logo
Sep 21 • 10:50 AM EDT • Science • ucf.edu
'To Invention & Adventure Together' - Xbox Boss Visits Kojima Productions To Mark New Era

Discussing future plans

purexbox.com logo
Sep 14 • 7:00 AM EDT • Technology • purexbox.com
Midi Health Unveils Its Third Reinvention and a Bigger Mission

Midi Health’s third rebrand refreshes its identity to reflect its evolution from menopause care to a broader women’s health platform.

inc.com logo
Sep 13 • 12:00 PM EDT • Health • inc.com
What Is Dub Music? Reggae's Studio Science Explained

What Is Dub Music? Reggae's Studio Science Explained - DancehallMag. Dub music is one of recorded music's most consequential inventions, and yet it remains one of the least understood. At its simplest, dub music is a. DancehallMag is an independent news outlet that covers all things Dancehall and Reggae music, the artists, and culture.

dancehallmag.com logo
Sep 13 • 8:00 AM EDT • Science • dancehallmag.com
Kylie Minogue: Reinvention, Resilience and Pop Stardom
yahoo.com logo
Sep 11 • 6:55 AM EDT • Entertainment • yahoo.com
Sir Cato T. Laurencin of UConn to Accept the 2027 American Chemical Society Award for Creative Invention

Laurencin will be honored at the ACS 2027 National Awards Banquet and Ceremony March 23 in New Orleans.

today.uconn.edu logo
Sep 9 • 3:37 PM EDT • Science • today.uconn.edu
Hong Kong Science Park: Asia’s tech powerhouse celebrates 25 years

As Hong Kong’s premier science and technology ecosystem marks its silver jubilee, PostMag revisits the legacy of connection and invention that sustained 25 years of innovation, and meets the leaders driving the vision for the institution’s next chapter.

scmp.com logo
Aug 30 • 8:00 PM EDT • Science • scmp.com
The job market is forcing career pivots, upskilling, reinvention

People are embracing changing careers, upskilling, and becoming their own bosses in the sluggish job market.

businessinsider.com logo
Aug 9 • 4:30 AM EDT • Business • businessinsider.com
Science|Business summer reads of 2026

As most people in the European research and innovation policy bubble are going on a well-deserved summer break, we have come up with a list of our favourite books, podcasts and essays from the past year that ask deeper questions about science, technology and politics.BooksPasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation, by Donald StokesIf you haven’t read Pasteur’s Quadrant yet, now is the time. In the EU and elsewhere, we’re living through a period of dwindling faith that curiosity-driven research automatically leads to economic growth and technological progress. Pasteur’s Quadrant, published in 1997 by the Princeton academic Donald Stokes, is the most influential critique of the standard “linear model” of R&D: the idea that new discoveries made in ivory-tower labs get neatly passed on for commercialisation by start-ups. In reality, Stokes argues, practical applications often inspire more theorical lines of inquiry. Of course, we have long known that things are more complex than the linear model, but even today, it’s still often assumed in Brussels discourse. The book is a useful corrective, and is being used now to argue for new types of scientific institutions. David MatthewsThe Weaponization of Expertise: How Elites Fuel Populism, by Jacob Hale Russel and Dennis PattersonAre society’s problems solvable by technical expertise alone? “If only the benighted would listen,” say Jacob Hale Russel and Dennis Patterson, two professors at Rutgers Law School who got frustrated with how scientists and politicians handled public health communication during the Covid-19 pandemic. In the book, they argue that clichéd mantras about scientific evidence and expertise perpetrated by academics, journalists and politicians have harmed public trust in the very institutions they were trying to defend. Paradoxically, slogans such as “we believe in science,” “follow the science” and “defer to the experts” can fuel mistrust in science, experts and democratic institutions. The authors criticise “condescension” and “technocratic paternalism” in the public discourse and make the case for a more nuanced approach to scientific and expert policy advice that rests on humility, doubt, scepticism and open dialogue. “Most complex social questions in fact revolve around values, not the recitation of unambiguous facts,” they say. Florin ZubascuBreakneck: China's Quest to Engineer the Future, by Dan WangIn this book, Dan Wang compares the structural differences between the US and Chinese industrial policies, but raises a very timely question for innovation policy wonks: how can advanced manufacturing know-how contribute to technology-intensive economic growth? Wang says technology has three components: the tools, the blueprints and patents, and the process knowledge. The third component represents the “proficiency gained from practical experience, which isn’t easily communicated and requires years of implementation.” According to Wang, rather than seeing tools and blueprints as the ultimate ends of technological progress, policymakers should see them as milestones in the training of better scientists and manufacturers. Over the past decades, China has amassed “process knowledge” because capital flowed to complex fabrication facilities, while investors in the West have parked their money in capital-light businesses such as digital platforms or chip companies that focus on design. As it turns out, thanks to its oversized focus on manufacturing, China has gained remarkable advantages in the global technology race. Florin ZubascuBaltic: The Future of Europe, by Oliver MoodyWhat can Europe learn from the nine countries surrounding the Baltic Sea? Alongside the familiar stories about Estonia's digital transformation, the book examines how the region has used technology, resilience, education, governance and long-term thinking to respond to geopolitical, economic and security challenges. Innovation policy wonks might find fresh perspectives on how innovation can strengthen defence, societal resilience and Europe's capacity to adapt in an uncertain world. Whether or not you agree with all of Oliver Moody's conclusions, the book is a useful guide to a region that is increasingly shaping European debates on security, competitiveness and technology. Goda NaujokaityteThe Invention of Nature, by Andrea Wulf This book chronicles the wild and adventurous life of natural science pioneer Alexander von Humboldt who at some point in the 19th century seems to have been just about the most famous person in the world. Through scientific expeditions to the Andes Mountains and to the depths of Siberia, von Humboldt contributed a host of discoveries and concepts. During his life he met and formed relationships with historical figures as different as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Simon Bolivar, Thomas Jefferson, Napoleon Bonaparte and Charles Darwin. He is also claimed to be the person in the world with most things named after him, a list that includes an ocean current, a penguin and a region of the Moon. Still venerated in Germany, with numerous scientific institutions named after him, von Humboldt has slipped out of public consciousness in most of the rest of the world. For anyone not familiar with him, this book does a good job of describing his fascinating life. Ole EllekrogCareless People, by Sarah Wynn-WilliamsYou may have heard this referred to as the book Meta doesn’t want you to read. The 2025 memoir from Sarah Wynn-Williams, former director of global public policy at Meta, then just called Facebook, includes explosive claims about everything from a toxic workplace culture to how the company worked with advertisers to target vulnerable teens, and the lengths it was prepared to go to in order to break into China. It’s a fascinating insight into how and why the tech company gradually shifted its approach to policy, whether in the US, Europe or Asia. Meta has denied the allegations in the book, and last year won an emergency ruling to prevent Wynn-Williams from promoting it. In response, the author is now suing her former employer. If that doesn’t make you want to read it. Martin GreenacrePodcastsThe Europeans: Europe’s anti-ElonThis podcast is a great choice for a light-hearted dose of European policy and culture news. Most of it has little to do with research, innovation and technology, but this particular podcast features an interview with Mastadon’s founder Eugen Rochko. He talks about his experience running an open-source, federated, European-made social media platform, and leaving it all behind. The conversation, which starts 14 minutes in, gently encourages us to reflect on what kind of technology we, as Europeans, want to make. Goda NaujokaityteSolarpunk and how we escape dystopiaNew technologies are very often taken from science fiction. Alberto Santos-Dumont, inventor the airship, was inspired as a child by the adventure stories of Jules Verne. OpenAI’s attempt to build a personal assistant with the voice of Scarlett Johansson was lifted from the 2013 film Her, completely ignoring the movie’s cautionary message. So if we want better tech, we need to imagine it first. Unfortunately, the state of current sci-fi is relentlessly dystopian, giving inventors precious few ideas or hope. However, a new genre, Solarpunk, which envisages a technologically advanced but ecologically harmonious future, is now taking off. The actual tech the genre imagines, such as permaculture, renewable energy or community repair workshops, while nice, isn’t all that inspiring or ambitious. But it’s a first step towards rescuing sci-fi from its pessimistic Blade Runner rut. David MatthewsEveryday AbundanceLaunched in June, Everyday Abundance is a podcast that tells the stories of the inventions we now take so for granted that we barely given them a second thought. For example, the washing machine, which liberated women from a lifetime “bent over washtubs and washboards.” Or modern dentistry, which ended the reality that “tooth pain was simply part of human life.” Historians of technology, Virginia Postrel and Charles C Mann are very much on the optimistic end of the spectrum when it comes to the capacity of invention to improve human life. Here, they set out their case: if it wasn’t for progress, you might be hunched over a washtub with toothache rather than reading these words. David Matthews‘We will not know what we lost’: Conservation fallout a year after USAID shutdownSince his return to the White House, Donald Trump has been on a mission to undermine science. He slashed jobs at federal agencies, terminated grants in some research areas, took unprecedented control over university affairs and, within hours of his inauguration, suspended the US Agency for International Development. While its initial focus was to administer health and food aid around the world, it had since expanded to conservation projects. The result? Some of these projects were stopped abruptly. In this Mongabay podcast, environmental reporter Michelle Nijhuis tells the story of the EcoGuard conservation programme in Liberia, whose local patrols had helped protect rainforests, monitor endangered wildlife and track illegal threats. From one day to the next, these were left without salaries. Luckily, she notes, the initiative was able to get emergency funding from international NGOs, but its future remains “incredibly uncertain.” Juliette PortalaEssaysThe Mars Delusion, by Henry WismayerWhy is humankind so fixated on establishing a colony on Mars? asks London-based writer Henry Wismayer. From space evangelists promoting Martian settlement as an insurance policy, to billionaire Jeff Bezos, who said humans should settle on Mars “because it’s cool,” the mission is not running short of advocates. However, in this essay, Wismayer reminds us that some critics expect any future Mars pioneer to end up “irradiated, sick, mad and dead.” Scientists have already looked into the possible effects of prolonged exposure to Martian gravity, and it’s not pretty: muscle shrinking, bones weakening, changes to the central nervous system and other biological modifications to make us all reconsider the journey. “Some researchers have forecast that the future settler, after generations of evolutionary conditioning, will look less like an Übermensch and more like ET,” Wismayer writes. Juliette Portala

sciencebusiness.net logo
Aug 5 • 8:00 PM EDT • Science • sciencebusiness.net
‘One of Our Biggest Reinventions in Recent History’ – All of the Biggest Details on FC 27’s Open World The Grounds Mode

‘One of our biggest reinventions in recent history’ – all of the biggest details on FC 27’s open world The Grounds mode.

ign.com logo
Aug 4 • 12:00 PM EDT • Technology • ign.com
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.

publicnotice.co logo
Jul 30 • 8:12 AM EDT • Science • publicnotice.co
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.

sciencebusiness.net logo
Jul 30 • 8:00 AM EDT • Science • sciencebusiness.net
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

derspiegel.substack.com logo
Jul 29 • 4:23 AM EDT • Science • derspiegel.substack.com
Deep dive
😐 Neutral (8%)
ahah
51%
wow
49%
End of the search bar: Why Utah businesses are racing to solve the 'GEO' puzzle

If you own a business in Utah, the way customers find you is about to undergo its biggest shift since the invention of the smartphone.

ksl.com logo
Jul 26 • 5:30 PM EDT • Business • ksl.com
Deep dive
😐 Neutral (11%)
wow
52%
ahah
48%
‘Cats: The Jellicle Ball’ to close amid industry concern over Broadway economics

“Cats: The Jellicle Ball,” the ballroom-inspired reinvention of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s megamusical, will end its Broadway run at the Broadhurst Theatre on Aug.

amny.com logo
Jul 21 • 1:15 PM EDT • Entertainment • amny.com
Deep dive
😐 Neutral (9%)
wow
100%
A first look at Mike Flanagan's ‘Carrie,’ a Stephen King adaptation coming to Prime Video this fall

Showrunner Mike Flanagan's bold reinvention of Stephen King's classic novel arrives on Prime Video this fall.

aboutamazon.com logo
Jul 13 • 11:30 AM EDT • Entertainment • aboutamazon.com
The Highest Grossing Movies Across 9 Sports

It began in 1894 with a boxing match filmed with Thomas Edison’s new invention. Here are some subsequent blockbusters.

wsj.com logo
Jul 11 • 3:00 PM EDT • Sports • wsj.com
Students get hands-on science education during Camp Invention

COLUMBIANA – Students of Heartland Christian School in Columbiana recently spent a week experiencing what it is like to create a product, develop a proposal and market the product. The students in grades two through six participated in Camp Invention, a nationally recognized summer STEM camp designed to make innovation fun. Camp Invention is one […]

salemnews.net logo
Jul 7 • 8:00 PM EDT • Science • salemnews.net
Students get hands-on science education during Camp Invention

COLUMBIANA – Students of Heartland Christian School in Columbiana recently spent a week experiencing what it is like to create a product, develop a proposal and market the product. The students in grades two through six participated in Camp Invention, a nationally recognized summer STEM camp designed to make innovation fun. Camp Invention is one […]

morningjournalnews.com logo
Jul 7 • 8:00 PM EDT • Science • morningjournalnews.com
Historian reflects on 250 years of American democracy, political crisis and reinvention

Historian Heather Cox Richardson sees a current, unparalleled "attempt to dismantle our democracy."

kgou.org logo
Jul 6 • 11:58 AM EDT • Politics • kgou.org
Things older than America: Inventions, food, institutions

The United States turns 250 this year — but in the grand scheme of things, that's still quite young.

businessinsider.com logo
Jul 4 • 10:12 AM EDT • Business • businessinsider.com
10 More Amazing Indie Games To Wishlist This Indie-Penance Day

An exquisite array of games of every type, packed with invention and originality

kotaku.com logo
Jul 3 • 11:30 AM EDT • Technology • kotaku.com
From bamboo sticks to modern chemistry: A history of fireworks on display at the Science History Institute in Old City

“Flash! Bang! Boom! A History of Fireworks” tells the story of fireworks from the earliest Chinese inventions to today’s choreographed pyrotechnic displays.

whyy.org logo
Jul 3 • 5:00 AM EDT • Science • whyy.org
From invention to impact: Hong Kong Science Fair gives young innovators a wider stage

Organised by the Hong Kong Innovation Foundation, with Sino Group as Principal Patron and the Innovation, Technology and Industry Bureau as Supporting Bureau, the Fifth Hong Kong Science Fair has drawn to a close. Students are already looking beyond their prototypes, with international exchanges and future applications now firmly in sight.

scmp.com logo
Jun 29 • 5:27 AM EDT • Science • scmp.com
Deep dive
😐 Neutral (17%)
wow
39%
ahah
38%
love
23%
Calls for Radical Reinvention of the Tour de France amid Concerns for Rider Health

New Tour race times and new dates are being argued for over fears of heat-related risks.

velo.outsideonline.com logo
Jun 27 • 7:21 PM EDT • Health • velo.outsideonline.com
First Look: Breguet Releases 3 new Tourbillon Watches for the 225th Anniversary of its Invention

New takes on the Breguet Classique Tourbillon Sidéral, the Tradition Tourbillon and the Marine Tourbillon Équation Marchante.

monochrome-watches.com logo
Jun 26 • 6:00 AM EDT • Technology • monochrome-watches.com
Hong Kong Science Fair marks five years of youth innovation

As the city’s flagship I&T education event returns, it continues to connect classroom learning with real-world invention and open doors to the international stage

scmp.com logo
Jun 24 • 8:30 PM EDT • Science • scmp.com
Science informs creativity at Camp Invention

LEAVITTSBURG — Children learning to use science and other skills to solve mysteries had the assistance of movable capybaras that they ...

tribtoday.com logo
Jun 16 • 8:00 PM EDT • Science • tribtoday.com
Jeff Bezos Just Raised $12 Billion. He’s Betting His Newest Business Will Create the Next Elon Musk or Henry Ford

Jeff Bezos is back in an operating seat for the first time since stepping down from Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN), pointing a $12 billion war chest at what he calls the engine of civilizational wealth: invention itself. In a CNBC interview on June 11, 2026, Bezos and co-CEO Vik Bajaj outlined Prometheus, a Series B round raising ... Jeff Bezos Just Raised $12 Billion. He’s Betting His Newest Business Will Create the Next Elon Musk or Henry Ford

finance.yahoo.com logo
Jun 16 • 12:20 PM EDT • Business • finance.yahoo.com
The Rabbit Hole of Everyday Questions with Emily Zhang

Emily Zhang has created dozens of YouTube videos, receiving over 300 million views on subjects from the physics of bowling to the invention of blue LED. This year she started Rabbit Hole, a channel that offers “extraordinary answers to everyday questions.” We spoke with Zhang — a 2025 winner of the National Academies’ Eric and Wendy Schmidt Awards for Excellence in Science Communications — about Rabbit Hole and her experiences with YouTube as a medium for science communication.

nationalacademies.org logo
Jun 3 • 8:00 AM EDT • Science • nationalacademies.org
Arm, IBM and Hewlett Packard soar as Nvidia chip 'reinvention' extends software rally

Shares in software compares surged ahead of Monday's opening bell.

cnbc.com logo
Jun 1 • 5:58 AM EDT • Technology • cnbc.com
Primary care as public utility: Imagine that, researchers urge

A team of healthcare scholars is making U.S. states an offer they hope the border-defined polities won’t refuse: If you’ll pay for the reinvention of primary care, we’ll help sell the public on the rightness of measured, state-level efforts to preserve the profession.

healthexec.com logo
May 28 • 10:21 PM EDT • Health • healthexec.com
I became the first woman to train a Kentucky Derby winner

Cherie DeVaux says winning the Kentucky Derby was the culmination of years of risk, reinvention, and relentless work.

businessinsider.com logo
May 26 • 5:23 AM EDT • Business • businessinsider.com
🙂 Positive (50%)
From the Cotton Gin to ChatGPT: America’s Innovation Story Starts at the Founding - Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

National Inventors Month is a reminder that the principles established in the early republic helped transform invention into enterprise and opportunity. By Karen Kerrigan – National Inventors Month is a fitting time to reflect on the role innovation has played in the story of America. From the very beginning, the United States did not treat […]

sbecouncil.org logo
May 25 • 9:47 AM EDT • Business • sbecouncil.org
New Wings exhibit traces Paul McCartney’s reinvention as husband, father and bandleader

A new exhibit at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland features the largest public display ever assembled of Paul McCartney’s personal artifacts | Talk 1370

audacy.com logo
May 15 • 3:24 PM EDT • Entertainment • audacy.com
Teen builds ‘Bionic Underwater Robotic Turtle’ to detect ecological threats

High schooler Evan Budz's award-winning invention can identify coral bleaching, invasive species, and microplastics without disturbing marine ecosystems.

popsci.com logo
May 12 • 9:01 AM EDT • Science • popsci.com
Deep dive
😐 Neutral (17%)
ahah
42%
wow
30%
love
28%
The merits and pitfalls of metaphor use in science communication

Effective science communication is a powerful but underrated tool. Metaphors, a common literary device, draw connections between unlike things and are often conceptually, innately understood. In science and science communication, these figures of speech act as a means of structuring concepts to provide the basis for further exploration. The use of metaphors in science can be a catalyst for change, invention, and, unfortunately, misunderstanding. Metaphors should be used responsibly when attempting to make complex scientific concepts easily understandable, and should weigh the accuracy and accessibility of information in a favorable balance.

eurekalert.org logo
May 7 • 8:00 AM EDT • Science • eurekalert.org
Meredith Eicher’s clients come for strategy. They stay for the truth.

Executive coach Meredith Eicher draws on a remarkable journey of reinvention to help business leaders grow through honesty, accountability and empathy. From accounting practice to CEO peer coaching, her work centers on human transformation and second chances.

businessreport.com logo
May 3 • 7:09 AM EDT • Business • businessreport.com
Local Business Spotlight: The Fisherman's Daughter

Four years ago, Katie and Parker Slanga became stewards of The Fisherman’s Daughter, taking over a business long shaped by local ownership. It was less a reinvention than a continuation. “It’s an honor to own The Fisherman’s Daughter,” said Katie Slanga. “Some really amazing entrepreneurs have been in that business before us and have paved...

wtip.org logo
Apr 27 • 1:55 PM EDT • Business • wtip.org
WNY Invention Convention at Buffalo Science Museum

BUFFALO, N.Y. (WIVB) — Students had the chance to showcase their creativity at the Buffalo Museum of Science on Sunday at the Western New York Invention Convention. Around 350 students showed…

wivb.com logo
Apr 26 • 9:10 PM EDT • Science • wivb.com
WNY Invention Convention at Buffalo Science Museum

WNY Invention Convention at Buffalo Science Museum

wivb.com logo
Apr 26 • 9:00 PM EDT • Science • wivb.com
WNY Invention Convention returns to the Buffalo Museum of Science
wgrz.com logo
Apr 26 • 6:28 PM EDT • Science • wgrz.com
😐 Neutral (17%)
love
100%
Former Steeler Jerome Bettis, NFL Commissioner view CMU’s inventions to power sports

The intersection of sports, physical fitness and technology can be found in Pittsburgh’s Hazelwood Green. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, former Steelers running back Jerome Bettis and local officials toured Carnegie Mellon University’s Robotics Innovation Center for the university’s “Powering the Future of Sport” showcase. More than 16 CMU-related startups —

triblive.com logo
Apr 22 • 1:54 PM EDT • Sports • triblive.com
Invention Inspired by California Vacation Earned Him Millions

Roger Adams, creator of Heelys rolling footwear, dies at 71 of pancreatic cancer

newser.com logo
Apr 17 • 12:02 PM EDT • Technology • newser.com
The reinvention of Devin Vassell: Why less is more for the Spurs' overlooked key to title contention

The sixth-year wing isn't featured the way he used to be, but he's never meant more to a Spurs team with title aspirations

cbssports.com logo
Apr 17 • 10:44 AM EDT • Sports • cbssports.com
Cross-department collaboration brings art and science to The Bridge

A cross-department collaboration is bringing art and science together at The Bridge in ZSR Library through Botanical Bridges: Observation and Invention, a new exhibition showcasing work from Lydia Smith’s Spring 2026 Life Drawing class. An opening reception will be held on Friday, April 17, from [...]

inside.wfu.edu logo
Apr 16 • 12:27 PM EDT • Science • inside.wfu.edu
Missoula International School students win top honors at state science fair

An alert meant to help skiers trapped in tree wells call for help was one of several inventions by students that won big at the Montana Science Fair this year.

missoulian.com logo
Apr 8 • 5:54 PM EDT • Science • missoulian.com
Students from Nome showcase homegrown research at Alaska Science and Engineering Fair

The Alaska Science and Engineering Fair took place in Anchorage on March 28, where students from all over the state gathered to present their research and inventions, including several young scientists from Nome's Anvil City Science Academy (ACSA). Before the statewide competition, ACSA students presented at the school's annual science…

knom.org logo
Apr 2 • 12:05 PM EDT • Science • knom.org
Swope telescope: five decades of observing and reinvention

Astronomer Nidia Morrell looks back on more than 20 years of observing at the Las Campanas Observatory—an era marked by the transition from manual methods to digital systems—and reflects on the enduring relevance of a telescope that remains central to modern astronomy.

carnegiescience.edu logo
Mar 31 • 8:00 AM EDT • Science • carnegiescience.edu
Atlantic Trivia, March 27, 2026: Chinese Science

What ninth-century Chinese invention was at first employed primarily for fireworks rather than in the capacity that would change the world centuries later?

theatlantic.com logo
Mar 27 • 2:04 PM EDT • Science • theatlantic.com
Galaxy S26 Ultra display causing eye strain and headache; Samsung is apparently investigating

Are Galaxy S26 Ultra eye strain and headache reports real or just noise? Privacy Display is the headline feature of the new Ultra phone; it’s a great invention, but hit with a slew of complaints that almost every Samsung flagship does. The new Privacy Display is supposed to be the hero feature on the S26 […]

sammyfans.com logo
Mar 13 • 12:02 PM EDT • Technology • sammyfans.com
Army Research Laboratory Wins 2025 Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory of the Year

DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory was named 2025 Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratory of the Year by the Army Acquisition Executive.

army.mil logo
Mar 9 • 5:44 PM EDT • Science • army.mil
Inventing with Intent: Where Engineering Rigor Meets Business Reality

Prolific inventor says invention must be engineered from the outset with business reality, market forces, and patent strategy embedded.

ipwatchdog.com logo
Mar 3 • 4:15 PM EST • Business • ipwatchdog.com
Would aliens do physics, or is science a human invention?

Shaped by a different biology or culture, other intelligent civilisations – if they’re out there – might understand the universe in a completely different way than we do. Physicist Daniel Whiteson explores what that could tell us about physics and ourselves

newscientist.com logo
Mar 3 • 4:00 AM EST • Science • newscientist.com
😐 Neutral (12%)
wow
59%
ahah
41%
Guala Closures buys Vinventions’ screwcap production business

The move enhances the company’s supply capabilities for the US wine and spirits’ sector.

finance.yahoo.com logo
Feb 24 • 5:01 AM EST • Business • finance.yahoo.com
Phonographs, Player Pianos and Betamax: The Inventions That Transformed Entertainment
wsj.com logo
Feb 14 • 12:00 PM EST • Entertainment • wsj.com
Inside Las Vegas's Electric Reinvention Into a Sports Capital

Long the world’s entertainment capital, this desert playground has now become the epicenter of sports tourism.

yahoo.com logo
Feb 10 • 5:00 AM EST • Sports • yahoo.com
‘It was chaos’: Inside the Highguard team's years-long reinvention of the FPS

Polygon spoke to Wildlight about the studio's accidental new subgenre

polygon.com logo
Jan 26 • 1:00 PM EST • Entertainment • polygon.com
“SaaS is dying as a business category”

As AI agents commoditize software, companies such as Wix, monday and Nice confront a forced reinvention of growth, pricing and value.

calcalistech.com logo
Jan 25 • 3:11 AM EST • Business • calcalistech.com
Scientists unveil crawling robot hand that can grasp multiple objects

Invention’s advantages in dexterity over human counterpart raise prospect of industrial uses

ft.com logo
Jan 20 • 11:00 AM EST • Technology • ft.com
Fluid gears rotate without teeth, offering new mechanical flexibility

A team of New York University scientists has created a gear mechanism that relies on fluids to generate rotation. The invention holds potential for a new generation of mechanical devices that offer greater ...

phys.org logo
Jan 13 • 1:05 PM EST • Technology • phys.org
Four ways to make your New Year's health goals sustainable

Whether it’s adopting a new diet, increasing exercise, or simply pursuing a healthier lifestyle, the new year is a catalyst for personal reinvention. As we jot down goals for the year ahead, it’s important to understand what a sustainable health goal looks like and recognize that change doesn’t happen overnight.

wral.com logo
Jan 6 • 2:45 PM EST • Health • wral.com
The Many-Sprites Interpretation Of Amiga Mechanics

The invention of sprites triggered a major shift in video game design, enabling games with independent moving objects and richer graphics despite the limitations of early video gaming hardware. As …

hackaday.com logo
Jan 1 • 1:00 AM EST • Technology • hackaday.com
The Rise Of Fake Casio Scientific Calculators

Scientific calculators are an amazing invention that take pocket calculators from being merely basic arithmetic machines to being pocket computers that can handle everything from statistics to alge…

hackaday.com logo
Dec 29, 2025 • 10:00 PM EST • Technology • hackaday.com
2025 Pinkbike Awards: Suspension Product of the Year Nominees

The best boingers of the year, and a clever suspension adjacent invention.

pinkbike.com logo
Dec 18, 2025 • 12:00 PM EST • Technology • pinkbike.com
NASA’s Webb, Curiosity Named in TIME’s Best Inventions Hall of Fame

Two icons of discovery, NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope and NASA’s Curiosity rover, have earned places in TIME’s “Best Inventions Hall of Fame,” which

science.nasa.gov logo
Dec 12, 2025 • 12:52 PM EST • Science • science.nasa.gov
Deep dive
😐 Neutral (18%)
ahah
67%
wow
33%
Kids Start Up Business Fair

Enjoy an exciting evening of creativity, innovation, and fun as young entrepreneurs showcase their products, inventions, and creative services!

arlingtontx.gov logo
Dec 12, 2025 • 7:17 AM EST • Business • arlingtontx.gov
Deep dive
😐 Neutral (13%)
love
73%
wow
27%
The imperative to lead: The future of athletics at the U

This bold and innovative approach reflects the university’s commitment to modernization, entrepreneurship and reinvention.

attheu.utah.edu logo
Dec 9, 2025 • 1:16 PM EST • Entertainment • attheu.utah.edu
Deep dive
😐 Neutral (20%)
wow
49%
love
28%
ahah
23%
Health Care Workforce: A System Under Pressure, Poised for Reinvention

AHA's 2026 Workforce Scan highlights six pressures that will define workforce strategy in the coming years: financial stress that limits flexibility; demographic shifts that increase demand; rapid technological transformation; changing worker expectations; the urgent need for new pipelines; and geographic disparities that threaten access.

aha.org logo
Dec 8, 2025 • 3:30 PM EST • Health • aha.org