SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " sabet " 32 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Sign in to save shuffle history.
Huff-Lonergan, Hansen, Keating selected for endowed positions in animal science
Elisabeth Huff Lonergan, University Professor of animal science, was named the Morrison Chair in Meat Science. Stephanie Hansen, professor of animal science, and Aileen Keating, professor of animal science, will hold the title of Tyrone D. Artz, M.D., Chair for Faculty Excellence in Animal Science.
Dr. Elisabeth Rosenthal on health care
Dr. Elisabeth Rosenthal sits down with Lester Holt to discuss the challenge of reforming the American health care system.
Rosie O’Donnell returning to “The View” for season 30: ‘I will go’ with ‘all’ past cohosts
O’Donnell also recalled a “tense time” with Whoopi Goldberg the last time she was at the Hot Topics table, while she publicly sparred with Elisabeth Hasselbeck in 2025.
Josh Allen and Bills come up short again, and they couldn't hide their emotions after latest loss
Weekend reads: What paper mills charge for author slots; UK Biobank data breached; what researchers think of the future of science
If your week flew by — we know ours did — catch up here with what you might have missed. The week at Retraction Watch featured: 10 years ago, Elisabeth Bik published a preprint heard around the wor…
Sister Group Strikes Partnership With Branded Entertainment Company Common Interest, Makes Minority Investment
Sister Group, Jane Featherstone and Elisabeth Murdoch‘s ever-growing transatlantic powerhouse, has entered the branded entertainment business by forging a strategic partnership with London-based compa...
Nicholas Sparks Helped Vote a Serial-Killer Drama Into the 100 Best TV Shows of the Century; the...
Jeff Probst, June Squibb and Elisabeth Moss turned in ballots too.
‘Handmaid’s Tale’ Star Shares The Text Elisabeth Moss Sent After Trump Won — And Fans Will Recognize It
The actor recalled texting Moss, “What are we going to do? This can’t be.”
'The View' returning star Elisabeth Hasselbeck gets 'armor of God' for protection from show
Elisabeth Hasselbeck's friend gave her real 'armor of God' for protection ahead of her return to 'The View' that includes a 'helmet of salvation' and 'breastplate of righteousness.'
Rosie O’Donnell reveals if she’d return to 'The View,' takes shot at Elisabeth Hasselbeck
Rosie O'Donnell reveals whether she would ever return to 'The View.' The comedian also threw shade at former cohost Elisabeth Hasselbeck.
Full Court Press (2/20/26)
NORTHEAST KANSAS (KSNT) – The postseason is almost here. A thrilling Friday night across Northeast Kansas as many area teams prepare for Sub-State. Girls Topeka 58, Emporia 40 Silver Lake 68, St. Marys 31 Washburn Rural 40, Hayden 38 Highland Park 62, Sumner 11 Shawnee Heights 65, Turner 14 Holton 47, Sabetha 33 Perry-Lecompton 46, […]
Ex-'View' cohost Elisabeth Hasselbeck slams college frat hazing as producing 'terrorists'
Former 'View' cohost and 'Survivor' alum Elisabeth Hasselbeck has spoken out against college fraternities for 'torturing our youth' into 'terrorists' with hazing practices.
Elisabeth Hasselbeck jumps from 'The View' to rival daytime talk show
Elisabeth Hasselbeck has landed a new daytime TV hosting gig after returning to 'The View' earlier this year, as she heads to 'CBS Mornings' under the controversial leadership of Bari Weiss.
Building Trust in Health Science by Leading with Communities
Amy Gyau-Moyer and Elisabeth Solomon discuss how a NAM action collaborative is co-developing community-driven approaches to improve trust in health science.
Medical marijuana should not be recommended for PTSD, anxiety, or depression
“Rigorously derived evidence for the medical efficacy of marijuana is thin,” writes Kevin Sabet.
Ann Dowd reveals what 'Handmaid's Tale' costar Elisabeth Moss texted her after Donald Trump's election
Ann Dowd was in a panic the morning she woke up to find that Donald Trump had been elected. But then she got a text from her 'Handmaid's Tale' costar Elisabeth Moss with a message of resilience.
New OMB rule could break science in the United States
The drug that saved your mother. The treatment your doctor recommended. The clinical trial that bought someone you love more time. None of it was inevitable. It required a system built to operate outside politics and sustained over decades, because science doesn’t operate on the timeline of a politician. That system is now under direct threat. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a new rule to regulate all federal grants, not just science, but housing, education, defense, NASA and everything in between, that would fundamentally change how research is conducted in the United States. There have been a lot of fires in the past 16 months, and if everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency. But this is a very big deal. These rules would strip away the independence that has kept science from becoming a political tool. The good news is there’s still something we can all do. How the grant system was designed to work When I was a new faculty member, I was full of millions of ideas, so I sat down and wrote an NIH proposal. I worked on it for months and thought it was so good. Then I sent it to my mentor. It came back covered in comments. Places where my reasoning wasn’t as airtight as I’d thought, methods that could be stronger, gaps in my thinking that I had been too close to the work to see. It stung, as honest feedback always does, but peer review almost always makes the work better. In fact, it’s the backbone of how American science has functioned for generations. At NIH, submitted proposals go to a panel of scientists who have experience in the field. These are the people who can read research methods and spot their weaknesses, who understand when an experiment is designed well and when it isn’t. Applications are scored rigorously, and often only the top 3-20% of proposals receive funding. The people making funding decisions are required to justify them based on these reviews. To be clear: this is not a perfect system, and good science still goes unfunded more often than any of us would like due to limited resources. There is also criticism that peer review may undervalue bold ideas that are risky but could have high payoffs. But the peer review system is nonetheless a meaningful part of the grant selection process. While thoughtful and careful changes could improve the system, the changes being proposed by OMB will not make things better. The rule that could change everything Through this OMB proposal, the system that helps decide what gets funded is being dismantled. There are many troubling elements buried in this proposal, but three provisions stand out in particular. Each would be damaging alone. Together, they would change what kind of science gets done in America, and who it serves. 1. Political appointees would decide which science gets funded, and peer review would be explicitly sidelined or ignored. The guidelines your doctor follows, the standards that determine what’s in your air and water, the drugs that get approved for your family: all of it starts with a funding decision. Right now, that decision is made by scientists who can evaluate whether the work is actually sound and whether it could move the needle forward. Under this proposal, funding decisions could be made by political appointees. The careful, expertise-driven review process that shapes grant funding would be effectively sidelined. That means that a poorly designed study could get funded simply because someone in a political office liked the sound of it, while rigorous, important work doesn’t get funded because it no longer aligns with the administration’s priorities. In other words, critical work that benefits all of us could now be missed just because it has become politically inconvenient. 2. Grants could be canceled at any point, without warning, in the middle of ongoing work. Say your tax dollars have been paying for a cancer study for two years. The grant was awarded for five years, so the team is mid-experiment. There are three additional years’ worth of answers that could change how the disease is treated for hundreds of thousands of people. With this new rule, the federal government could cancel the remaining funding tomorrow, walk away from the commitment it made with your money, and have no legal obligation to finish what it started. This is a huge waste of money. There are rarely other sources of funding for this work, which means the team, the graduate students, postdocs, and research staff who have dedicated years of their careers to this project could lose their jobs. Patients who have contributed their time to studies may not see it turn into useful learnings for others. Every hour of work already completed could result in nothing useful. Science can take decades to get to tangible outcomes. It needs a stable funding system to flourish. 3. Researchers would have a harder time communicating their findings without pre-approval from the federal government. There is a saying from Sir Mark Walport: “Science isn’t finished until it’s communicated.” Science is no use to anyone if it is kept locked away in the labs that produced the data. The proposed rule could make communicating research findings harder in a number of ways: Make it harder for scientists to widely share their findings in scientific journals. Publication costs, including journal fees that allow for broad public access, could not be paid for by federal funds which is often how scientists pay these costs. Restrict researchers from engaging publicly about how their findings should inform policy or public health guidelines. This would restrict scientists from doing the work that transforms years of lab work into decisions that actually affect people’s lives. Make it harder for scientists to attend conferences. Conferences would now need to be approved by the federal agency at the time of grant award. This disadvantages conferences or publications that are not politically aligned. Conferences are a key way in which scientists learn about work happening in their field so they can collaborate and build on each other’s findings. What good is science with a muzzle? The long-term impact These changes could (and hopefully would) be reversed under the next administration. But by then, damage has been done. Once projects are halted or denied funding by political appointees, people leave their science careers for other paths or even leave the country to do their amazing science elsewhere. You cannot pause a scientific study the way you pause a subscription you decided isn’t useful anymore. You cannot freeze a research team that depends on salaries to feed their families, causing a scramble for replacement funding that, in most cases, simply does not exist. When the money stops, everything stops, and all the work in progress and its potential are lost. Despite all of the language about reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, this new proposed rule increases the administrative burden tremendously. Every researcher watching this unfold will make a rational decision: don’t start anything that will take a decade to finish. This includes not building a team around funding that could vanish, or asking the big questions that need patience and stability to answer. The most consequential science, the kind that produces the treatments and the breakthroughs that reach your doctor’s office twenty years from now, is exactly the science that would be abandoned first. This is still a proposal, so we can all do something Some worry this rule is already a done deal. But by law, OMB is required to open a public comment period. Those comments matter because they inform members of Congress, they can be used in litigation, and they create a public record. So here’s what you can do: Submit a public comment. The public comment period on this proposed change is open until July 13. Anyone can submit a comment, and OMB is required to respond to substantial ones. Each comment must be different to count as distinct; identical comments will be counted only once. Comment as an individual, not on behalf of your organization. Here’s a full resource to help you, with useful examples, but in general: Share a story about how science or federal funding has benefitted you or is involved in your work. Are you or someone you loved a cancer survivor? Do you know someone with Alzheimer’s? Have you received NIH/NSF or other federal funding? All of these can be stories you use to highlight why you care. Explain why you’re worried about these proposed changes. You can use the wording found here or in other resources to help you. Ask them to withdraw this proposed rule. Contact your elected representatives. Congress allocates money to federal agencies to spend, and it has oversight of how that process works. You can let your representatives know this proposed change concerns you and ask them to intervene. There are levers they can push that can help at this moment. Let others know why federal funding matters. This isn’t just about science, but ALL federal grants, including for education systems, defense projects, and more. The process, including the importance of federal funding, is invisible to many. We can all make it more visible by sharing how science benefits us and why we value it. You can also share this article, or any of the resources linked here, to help spread awareness! Bottom line We are quickly losing ground in scientific research in the U.S. More changes, like the proposed rule by OMB, would decimate our ability to conduct research here, leaving us all worse off: fewer treatments for pancreatic cancer, less research on pollution impacts, fewer answers for patients with rare disease, and more unaddressed health needs. The impact will be very real for all of us, regardless of where we stand politically. Using our voices for science is more important than ever. Love, LM Big thanks to Dr. Megan Ranney for reading this over and providing brilliant insights, as always. Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective at YLE and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health. You can find her on Substack, LinkedIn, Instagram and Threads. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “Translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Subscribe
High School Roundup: Kearney, Secor lead Londonderry softball team
Elisabeth Kearney pitched a one-hitter and Paige Secor cracked two homers for all three RBIs in Londonderry's 3-1 victory over Portsmouth in Division I softball on Friday.
Hartford HealthCare committed to advancing health equity in Connecticut
HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) — In honor of Black History Month, Hartford HealthCare is highlighting its ongoing commitment to advancing health equity across Connecticut. Elisabeth Michel, director …
When science meets compassion
For Leader in Action Elisabeth Starosta, UND ‘empowered me to explore all my interests — science, global studies, mentoring — and to find meaning in each one’
Sister Partners With Branded Entertainment Company Common Interest
ane Featherstone and Elisabeth Murdoch's Sister Group has entered the branded entertainment market by buying a stake in Common Interest
The Market Forces Quietly Adding Thousands To Patient Bills
By Elisabeth Rosenthal and KFF Health News HealthDay ReportersWEDNESDAY, Sept. 9, 2026 (HealthDay News) — After a failed round of in vitro fertilization this year, Anne Hug’s fertility doctor said she had a single polyp in her uterus that should be removed to improve the chance of pregnancy. Hug, a ...
Natalie Palamides Signs With Brillstein Entertainment Partners
Natalie Palamides, the actress, comedian, writer and director, has signed with Brillstein for management in all areas.
Using AI for medical advice; pelvic floor exercises; the hidden dangers of burning incense; plus other stories with Vanderbilt Health sources
Colin Walsh, MD,Associate Professor of Biomedical Informatics, was on WTVF News Channel 5‘s “Morningline” show in an interview about whether or not it is safe to use AI for medical advice. Time magazine reporter Stacey Colino interviewed Elisabeth Sebesta, MD, Assistant Professor of Urology, for a story about pelvic floor exercises for issues including menopause, erectile dysfunction and urinary incontinence in men. “Each Breath,” published by the American Lung Association, quoted Brian Christman, MD, Adjunct Professor of Medicine, for a story about the hidden dangers of burning incense. William Schaffner, MD, Professor of Preventive Medicine, was quoted by several news outlets about public health issues, including: Healthline (low vaccination rates lead to more cases of measles, whooping cough and other preventable diseases); ABC News (U.S. measles cases surpass 2,000 for second year in a row); and CIDRAP News (high-dose flu shots cut rates of hospitalization in older adults). Sarah Rohde, MD, Associate Professor of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, was quoted in a People magazine story on patient Makalii Andrade, a surfer from Kauai Island who suffered a serious neck injury in 2022 and recently underwent surgery at Vanderbilt Health to begin the final phase of his recovery. James Crowe, MD, Director of the Vanderbilt Center for Antibody Therapeutics, for a piece in Nature about antibodies against a strain of Ebola. SFGATE reporter Gillian Mohney interviewed Xue Zhong, PhD, Research Assistant Professor, Division of Genetic Medicine and Clinical Pharmacology, for a story about a study of a blood test looking at Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers. Matthew Franklin Mart, MD, Assistant Professor of Medicine, was quoted in a Healio story about how inflammation and illness severity is linked to less cognitive resilience after a person has been an ICU patient. The “How We Really Feel” podcast host Sula Windgassen, PhD, interviewed Lindsey C. McKernan, PhD, MPH, Associate Professor of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation and Urology, for an episode focusing on pelvic and bladder health. The podcast is also available on YouTube and the podcast website. In addition, podcaster Monica Sanford interviewed cardiologist Mark Glazer, MD, for her podcast “The Monica Sanford Show”; the two-part interview is here and here.
OC health agency official placed on leave after criticizing oversight of COVID vendor
Chief compliance officer Kelly Sabet, who accused COVID testing vendor 360 Clinic of double billing the county, is sent home from job.
Dr. Elisabeth Ploran named inaugural dean of SFA’s College of Health Professions
Following a nationwide search, Stephen F. Austin State University has appointed Dr. Elisabeth Ploran as the inaugural dean of the College of Health Professions. Ploran will begin her tenure in July, coinciding with the launch of the new college.
Nevada law bans political signs within state highway rights of way, officials warn
NDOTis reminding candidates and supporters that it is illegal to place political signs within the right of way of state highways.
Nicholas Sparks Helped Vote a Serial-Killer Drama Into the 100 Best TV Shows of the Century; the...
Jeff Probst, June Squibb and Elisabeth Moss turned in ballots too.
Elisabeth Hasselbeck returning to 'The View' after slamming Joy Behar, 'sinking' show
Elisabeth Hasselbeck will return to 'The View' after publicly slamming current cohost Joy Behar's coverage of Donald Trump's inauguration performer, Carrie Underwood.
Is Elisabeth Moss in ‘The Testaments’?
'The Handmaid's Tale' spinoff is all about June and Luke's daughter, Hannah.
Does public health *need* MAHA?
Last week, our friend Dr. Craig Spencer sparked an ongoing volatile discussion with his Atlantic article “Public Health Needs MAHA.” Some have come out in strong dissent, others are cheering, and others are simply lamenting that we find ourselves in such a divided world to begin with. We will dare to dip our toes in these controversial waters, too. Does public health need MAHA? We think in some ways yes, and in other ways, no. MAHA leaders versus the everyday MAHA supporter The vitriol in this debate mostly comes from one collapsed distinction: the leadership of MAHA is not necessarily the same as the people who support it. Say “MAHA” and most people picture RFK Jr. Fair enough, as he coined the term and holds most of the power. And, yes, some MAHA followers treat Kennedy as something close to a saint. But talk to the grassroots, and it’s not a monolith. They’re Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. People who distrust vaccines and vaccine supporters. It’s a wide, eclectic coalition. The data backs this too: 4 in 10 Americans support the movement—that’s a lot of people! But according to polls, vaccines and medical choice (the issues most tied to Kennedy personally) are cited by only 4% as their reason for supporting the movement. For many, the motivations are much broader. Many MAHA supporters are signing up for the idea that “something needs to change” with health in this country. They’re asking good-faith questions about corporate influence on our health systems, health care costs, nutrition, chemicals, and clean air and water. These are all questions that plenty of public health professionals recognize as legitimate and also care about very deeply. Blurring the lines between the leadership and grassroots does real damage in two important ways: It hands the 4 in 10 exactly the narrative already fed—that the health ecosystem doesn’t listen, doesn’t care, and paints every critic with the same brush. It gives the actual bad actor more power. RFK Jr. has done irreparable damage and can’t be trusted. What the MAHA movement gets right A healthy population is something the public health field was literally built on, and many of these topics are things we have dedicated our lives to. Yet the MAHA movement has captivated nearly half the country in a way the public health establishment has failed to achieve. So that means MAHA is doing something right. Some of it may be timing (after a Covid-19 pandemic and deep frustration and mistrust with institutions). The movement also does three other things really well: 1. It gives a new, louder voice to system failures. While MAHA is not a monolith, one theme stays consistent across their stories: the system failed them. For some, it was the system that flooded their communities with opioids and then walked away. For others, it was the system that let their business collapse during Covid with no safety net in sight. For others still, it was the system that failed to help them manage a complex chronic illness, bouncing them from physician to physician without any real answers. And in many ways, our health ecosystems are failing Americans. Why are medical bills so incomprehensible? Why do some kids get a healthy school lunch and others don’t? Why do an epidemiologist and a MD/PhD student have to start newsletters in the middle of the biggest public health emergency in a century, just so people can get straight information? Because the systems failed. This deep-seated frustration driving many Americans to search for solutions elsewhere needs to be recognized. 2. MAHA has brilliant comms central to their efforts. MAHA figured out something most health institutions still have not: the information landscape changed. It’s participatory now, not top-down; influence runs through many nodes in a community, not one institution; and storytelling and telling audiences “what you really think” moves people more than data dumps do. MAHA goes where audiences are listening, using podcasts, social media, and memes in ways most health institutions would scoff at—but it works. 3. They are very good at organizing. A MAHA meeting feels like a rally: energy, speakers, music, and most importantly, an action for everyone. Someone’s writing the next policy brief, someone’s seeding a narrative, someone knows the next legislative deadline, someone’s sending the text messages for a campaign. None of this is new (ask the civil rights movement), but MAHA knows it works and has capitalized on it. What MAHA gets wrong This list could be much longer, and this newsletter has spent a lot of time covering it, but here are a few things: Poor use of scientific evidence. This is the fundamental problem with many MAHA policies: the hype outpaces the science, and experts are often villainized for pointing this out. MAHA leadership has traded real solutions for cheap wins. For example, instead of taking on the powerful food industry and passing real reforms, it has celebrated french fries made of beef tallow and taken out artificial dyes from still very sugary children’s cereal. These changes won’t move the needle on America’s diet. MAHA leadership has tried to dismantle vaccine access in the U.S. While many MAHA supporters emphasize other issues, the effort to change vaccine policy has become MAHA’s signature effort. This is not surprising given RFK Jr.’s extensive track record campaigning against vaccines. It has rallied behind the wrong leader. RFK Jr. has a decades-long track record of villifying doctors, scientists, and public health workers, well before he became HHS secretary. He is known for his decades-long work sowing distrust in vaccines as well as life-saving treatments like antiretroviral therapy for HIV. This is not a serious person who can move the needle on health in the U.S, and he has already done serious damage. Public health needs more than defense Defending the evidence is absolutely necessary so health in the U.S. doesn’t move further backward. The public health establishment is very good at defense. The problem is this defense often sounds like defending the status quo, which has failed many people. Public health needs to offer an alternative to RFK Jr.’s MAHA—one that is rooted in evidence, truly listens to and addresses people’s frustrations, and has innovative solutions and the courage to change the systems. How do we get there? Find common ground. Do you know what most people care most about? The abysmal cost of healthcare. Start there. Fight for the human loudly. Too often, communications and engagement center on science with a capital S, funding mechanisms, or the CDC/FDA/NIH. Not the person. So the public doesn’t see themselves in it. Instead, they see people fighting for the very powerful systems that they feel negatively impact their health and well-being. Let the public feel and hear that you see their frustrations, you get it, and you’re fighting for them within the system. Recognize when pro-science messages are alienating people. Facts absolutely matter, but angrily venting only alienates people further. Our friend Elisabeth Marnik recently wrote a New York Times article about her experience growing up unvaccinated and how listening and empathetic conversation are the only ways to reach people that really work (a position backed by communication science). Her comments section was full of hateful comments from pro-vaccine individuals attacking her for daring to suggest we approach vaccine-hesitant individuals with empathy. It is possible to both stand firm behind scientific evidence and empathize with people who don’t trust it. Lean into politics smartly. Often, public health has shied away from politics: Don’t touch it, lest you get burned. But this fails to recognize that the third rail is what fuels the train: who is elected determines our budgets, our priorities, and our authority. Being political means being very savvy in strategy on both sides of the aisle, knowing your audience, and recognizing that political capital is as scarce as financial resources and needs to be allocated accordingly. Bottom line So does public health need MAHA? That’s not really the right question. Public health has a responsibility not to dismiss 40% of the country who feel heard by this movement and are frustrated that the system has failed them. And it has a responsibility to stick to the evidence and recognize MAHA leadership for what it is: a danger to our nation’s health. Both can, and should, be done. Love, YLE and KP A big thanks to Craig Spencer, who had the courage to put his neck out there to start a much-needed discussion at such a critical moment—one that is determining the identity of an entire field. Kristen Panthagani, MD, PhD is completing an emergency medicine residency and research fellowship focusing on health literacy and communication. In her free time, she writes the newsletters You Can Know Things debunking health myths and rumors and The Public Health Roundup. Views expressed belong to KP, not her employer. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Subscribe
Five Berkeley Lab Scientists Receive DOE Early Career Research Awards
Five scientists from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have received Early Career Research Program (ECRP) awards from the Department of Energy. The ECRP program, now in its 16th year, was established to bolster the nation’s scientific workforce by supporting exceptional researchers at the outset of their careers, when many scientists do their most formative work. Recipients use the funding to pursue projects that have the potential to solve scientific challenges and advance the country’s STEM capabilities. To be eligible for the program, a researcher must be an untenured, tenure-track assistant or associate professor at a U.S. academic institution, or a full-time employee at a DOE national laboratory or Office of Science user facility, who is within 10 years of having earned their doctorate. Awards to an institution of higher education will be approximately $875,000 over five years, and awards to a DOE national laboratory or Office of Science user facility will be approximately $2,750,000 over five years. This year’s Berkeley Lab awardees and their projects are listed below: Timon Heim: Better detectors for more powerful particle colliders Timon Heim is a staff scientist in the Physics Division. His ECRP project will develop a new type of detector that can track the particles generated by collisions in particle colliders with high spatial and temporal resolution. Current detectors in use at high-energy colliders, like the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, can track the trajectory and measure momentum of particles, but they can’t track a particle’s time of arrival with sufficient precision to discern from which of the many particle interactions they originate. Heim’s proposed technology — called a 4D tracking detector, because it captures data about particles’ positions in space and time — aims to solve this challenge, allowing researchers to glean more precise data from collision experiments to uncover new insights into fundamental forces and potentially discover new particles. The enhanced capabilities of 4D detectors will be a necessity for experiments at future colliders, such as the Muon Collider or Future Circular Collider. The project will develop custom microelectronics that process the signal of a pixelated silicon sensor that can register charged particles passing through it in an extreme radiation environment that these colliders produce during operation. The goal is to measure individual particles’ position with 50-micro-meter spatial and 50 pico-second (one trillionth of a second) temporal precision, for an incoming flux of around 1 billion particles per second per square centimeter. Harrison Lisabeth: Studying underground processes to unleash abundant energy Harrison Lisabeth is a research scientist in the Energy Geoscience Division focused on combining real-world experiments and AI to guide development of geothermal energy systems. His project will explore how deep underground rock formations – where geothermal wells are dug – are stressed by chemical reactions of the minerals and mechanical strain from movements in the Earth. A better understanding of subsurface stresses is essential to engineer safe and reliable geothermal wells that access the heat of deep rocks to produce electricity. It is estimated that the U.S. could generate ten times the amount of energy needed to power the grid using geothermal sources. Lisabeth plans to simulate how minerals grow, dissolve, and influence the behavior of surrounding rock in geothermal reservoirs by tracking chemical changes in rock samples under pressure in the lab. The project will also develop machine learning models to predict geologic strain based on field measurements and refine existing models that describe how common rock types deform under stress. Combining these approaches, Lisabeth hopes to develop a framework to predict stress to improve stability and longevity of geothermal wells. Daniel Carney: Pushing the quantum boundaries of particle measurement Daniel Carney is a staff scientist in the Physics Division who uses quantum information science to study particle physics and gravity. At very small scales, “quantum noise” — random fluctuations from the act of measurement — can drown out faint signals from rare processes. Carney’s ECRP project, “Fundamental Physics at the Quantum Limits of Measurement,” aims to build a new mechanical quantum sensor that can measure extremely small particle interactions below the limits of that quantum noise. The approach uses lasers to hold a tiny bead containing radioactive atoms; when one decays, the system measures the bead’s motion and the energy of any particles emitted. The experiment’s initial goal is to search for heavy sterile neutrinos, hypothetical particles predicted by some extensions of the Standard Model. The system could also help measure the mass of the neutrino, study the way particles interact through the electromagnetic and weak forces, and hunt for low-mass dark matter — all unsolved mysteries in particle physics. Callum Wilkinson: Using machine learning to demystify neutrinos Callum Wilkinson is a staff scientist in the Physics Division and part of the international Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) hosted by Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. DUNE will create an intense beam of neutrinos that interact in detectors in Illinois and, after an 800-mile journey through the earth, in massive detectors in South Dakota. By precisely measuring neutrinos and how they change, researchers will get a better understanding of their fundamental properties and whether they are responsible for why there is so much more matter than antimatter in our universe. Wilkinson’s ECRP project will apply two machine learning techniques to improve the analysis of DUNE’s data and enhance the experiment’s precision. One approach will look for hidden patterns in how neutrinos interact and produce low-energy particles, while the other will help correct for distortions in what the detectors record. The methods will be tested on one of DUNE’s prototype detectors and could be used in other neutrino experiments, improving their measurements and helping scientists build better models. Aditi Krishnapriyan: Machine learning methods that scale as datasets grow Aditi Krishnapriyan is a faculty scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Applied Mathematics and Computational Research Division (AMCR) and assistant professor at UC Berkeley. Her project, awarded through UC Berkeley, will develop machine learning methods that scale with dataset size for modeling complex, multi-scale phenomena. The resulting tools can be applied in a wide range of research, including the study of new electrolytes for batteries or the examination of molecular interactions. ### Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) is committed to groundbreaking research focused on discovery science and solutions for abundant and reliable energy supplies. The lab’s expertise spans materials, chemistry, physics, biology, earth and environmental science, mathematics, and computing. Researchers from around the world rely on the lab’s world-class scientific facilities for their own pioneering research. Founded in 1931 on the belief that the biggest problems are best addressed by teams, Berkeley Lab and its scientists have been recognized with 17 Nobel Prizes. Berkeley Lab is a multiprogram national laboratory managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit energy.gov/science.