SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " society " 100 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Sign in to save shuffle history.
Sabyasachi Sen Honored for Outstanding Contributions to Glass Science and Technology
Sabyasachi Sen, professor and chair of materials science and engineering at UC Davis, is the 2026 recipient of the American Ceramic Society’s George W. Morey Award, which celebrates outstanding, original contributions to glass science and technology.
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
Researchers outline priorities for robust U.S. climate assessments
Five Cornellians join 175 global experts to outline research priorities that can inform future national and regional climate assessments in a new special collection of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.
Lyndon Historical Society’s ‘Pies On The Porch’ Oct. 17
LYNDON — The Lyndon Historical Society will wrap up its summer and fall activities with Pie on the Porch at the Shores Memorial Museum in Lyndon Center on Saturday, October
Driving Community Health: Bristol Myers Squibb, Emirates Thalassemia Society and Dubai Science Park Host the 6th 'Help Save a Life' Blood Donation Drive
For patients living with chronic blood disorders, access to safe and reliable blood supplies is fundamental to their care journey. Marking the sixth edition of an impactful partnership, Bristol Myers Squibb proudly collaborated with the Emirates Thalassemia Society and Dubai Science Park, the region's leading science focused hub and part of TECOM Group PJSC, hosted the 'Help Save a Life' blood donation drive, bringing together community members and healthcare professionals to provide vital suppo
Endorsement: No on Costa Mesa Measure C’s tax hike on businesses
Measure C is simply another liability dumped onto contributing members of society by a government that refuses to live within its means.
Concern after Europeans endorse US science agenda
Germany’s biggest research funder has said it is “concerned” after Berlin, plus several other European countries, endorsed a controversial US-led science policy statement. On October 4, the White House announced that 16 countries, including Germany, the UK, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Poland, Japan and South Korea had backed the Kyoto Vision for a Golden Age of Science.The document, agreed on the margins of the annual Science and Technology in Society forum in Kyoto, which gathers science ministers from across the world, appears uncontroversial at first sight. It’s a one-page statement, without any concrete measures, that touches on reducing administrative burden on scientists, experimenting with new funding models and the use of “super intelligence” in science, the Trump administration’s preferred term for artificial intelligence. However, what’s controversial is that much of the language in the Kyoto Vision reflects Science: A New Golden Age, a major policy document released by the White House in July.That document attracted criticism for deriding universities as “legacy institutions” and suggesting money be diverted to new research labs. In a speech in Kyoto on October 4, Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office for Science and Technology Policy and the report’s author, said that the US was seeking to “diversify the ways that we support research to meet our best scientists where and when they do their best work.” The worry is that the Trump administration may be using genuine dysfunctions in academia as a pretext to defund and disempower universities, which US vice president JD Vance has labelled “the enemy.” Many in Europe also want more experimentation and reform of how science is organised and funded, and agree with criticisms of academia made by Science: A New Golden Age. But some also fear that if the US pushes for reform partially in bad faith, it could politicise and undermine the whole agenda. Washington is currently trying to change federal funding rules so that political appointees can block and cancel scientific grants. It has cut grants mid-project on topics related to diversity and other politically forbidden areas. And last year, it threatened to cut Harvard University’s federal funding unless it admitted a “critical mass” of new faculty and students to create campus “viewpoint diversity.” “Particularly concerned”Because of this wider US political context, the Kyoto Vision’s otherwise innocuous sounding statement that “we encourage experimentation with new institutional models for science that provide varying levels of autonomy, resources and direction” has caused consternation in Europe, particularly from some of Germany’s biggest science organisations. A spokesperson for the German Research Foundation (DFG), the country’s biggest funder, said that it would “closely monitor whether the current US administration uses the Kyoto Vision to restructure research funding to the detriment of research institutions such as universities and their autonomy.” The DFG was “particularly concerned” with the statement’s references to Science: A New Golden Age, they continued. A spokesperson for the German Rectors’ Conference, which represents the country’s universities, said that the reference to “new institutional models” raises “questions on the underlying understanding of academic freedom and autonomy.” Research funding must “guided first and foremost by scientific not political principles,” they went on. Dampen criticismEuropean endorsement of the Kyoto Vision might dampen domestic criticism of the Trump administration’s science policy, some in the US fear, by suggesting international support. “What we saw from Germany, Japan, the UK and other countries, is an impulse that the administration has exploited with our own science reform movement, a belief they can use dialogue to make things better,” said Cole Donovan, director of science policy at the campaigning group Stand Up for Science. “In practice, the administration has done the opposite.” Not a binding statementThere’s been so much concern in Germany that the country’s federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space put out a statement defending its endorsement of the Kyoto Vision, which it has posted on its website. Related articlesIs metascience being co-opted?European researchers sound the alarm that Trump rule changes will hit cooperationThe US ‘golden age’ science strategy: what Europeans need to know The ministry said that it “should be regarded as a basis for discussion and does not constitute a binding statement.” Backing the statement gives Germany the chance to raise “issues and concerns” with the US during upcoming talks on science and technology scheduled for November. “Although these intentions appear, in principle, to be worthy of support, they will be scrutinised and examined more closely as the process continues,” the statement continues. Super intelligence?A ministry spokesperson confirmed to Science|Business that Germany had broadly endorsed the Kyoto Vision.However, they said Berlin had not agreed to final changes in the statement to refer to AI as super intelligence. In September, facing protests against data centres and polling that suggests US citizens are far more concerned than excited by the technology, Trump issued an executive order that attempts to rebrand AI as super intelligence, following polling on social media.The name change is to “reflect the transformative capabilities of these technologies and the limitless opportunities they create for the American people,” the order says. EU askedThe UK and Italian science ministries did not respond to a request for comment on their endorsement of the Kyoto Vision. Although most EU countries did not endorse the statement, it’s not clear which states the US asked. The White House Office for Science and Technology Policy did not return a request for comment. A European Commission official, speaking under condition of anonymity, said that the US had approached the EU, but too late for the EU to quiz all its member states on whether Brussels should endorse the statement.
Penn State students win award for connecting health and environment through play
A series of games developed by a team of interdisciplinary Penn State students to help children in Iquitos, Peru, learn about the connections between human, animal and environmental health was recognized with a national American Society of Landscape Architects award.
Mom-and-Pop Business Owners Grapple with Harsh Times
Report shows small business owners in NYS less optimistic about the economy. Taxes, inflation, labor costs and competition from larger businesses are major concerns right now, they say By Aaron Gifford [caption id=attachment_11067 align=alignright width=300] Ashley Ranslow is director for New York state at The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB).[/caption] Owners of mom-and-pop businesses in New York state have been less optimistic lately than their peers in other parts of the country, a recent report indicates. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), based on a survey of 11,000 of its members in the Empire State, reported that taxes, inflation, labor costs and competition from larger businesses are major concerns right now. “Indeed, while taxes are a major problem in New York and the United States overall, New York small businesses notably are struggling more with the state’s onerous, multi-level tax burden,” Ashley Ranslow, NFIB’s director for New York state, said in the July report. Compared with surveys of business owners in other states, far fewer New York respondents rated their businesses as in excellent or good health. The report also said labor costs here are about 25% higher than the national average and are the “single most important problem” facing businesses. One respondent to the New York-specific survey complained that too much red tape, taxes and laws that restrict high-yielding companies have stifled their operation’s growth. Others said high disability and workers’ compensation insurance costs, alarming increases in utility rates and excessive building regulations are discouraging. Statewide, New York has a gross domestic product of $2.53 trillion (third in the nation, followed by Texas, $2.90 trillion; and California, $4.25 trillion), a per capita income of $90,500 (sixth) and an unemployment rate of 4.6% (34th). There are 2.4 million small businesses that employ 3.9 million people. [caption id=attachment_11112 align=alignright width=451] Member of the Greater Liverpool Chamber of Commerce gather at one of the several functions the chamber organizes monthly. “Everyone in this business community encourages each other to shop local. Everyone just wants to see each other succeed,” says Megan Wilmot, the chamber director[/caption] “New York state boasts one of the largest, wealthiest and most diverse cities in the world — and that’s still only about half the state’s population,” the report said. “In other words, the state is both its iconic city and so much more — geographically, demographically, economically. But New York is not without its challenges, challenges that include notably high taxes and other weaknesses that impact the small business environment,” it said. The report includes an optimism index that compares responses from New York (NFIB) members with those of their peers in other states across several categories. This ranges from plans to increase employment to expectations for higher sales, to plans to increase inventory or expand. The scores for Empire State business owners were lower in most categories, but they did score higher than the national average in noting that they have current employment openings, and that they are hopeful that the economy will improve. “The metrics so far paint a picture of a state with a series of challenges for small businesses, from a slightly below national average Optimism Index to a more seriously below national business health to very substantially below national Employment Index. What is going on with businesses that are creating these differences?” the report stated. In Central New York, the regional labor force comprises nearly 398,000 workers. The median household income here is $71,463, and the gross domestic product for the region last year totaled $61.3 billion, according to the CenterState CEO economic development and research organization. About half of the region’s labor force works for small and mid-sized businesses, although the number of people employed in that sector has decreased by 7% since 2010, according to CenterState’s 2026 economic forecast report. “While record-high employment in large-scale enterprises provides a strong foundation for Central New York,” the report says, “the long-term health of communities depends on a thriving small business sector to serve as a stabilizer.” Area employers identify several barriers to Central New York’s anticipated growth, including lack of specialized or skilled workers, government regulations, unaffordable housing options and long-term construction disruptions. In the city of Syracuse, the number of jobs in retail trade decreased by 1,500 or 4.7% between July 2025 and this past July. By contrast, the number of jobs in the leisure and hospitality sector increased by 2.5% or 700 jobs, in the same annual period, according to the New York State Department of Labor. Still, there’s plenty of interest for new businesses across Central New York. U.S. Census figures show that the number of applications for new businesses in all four counties increased significantly in the past 20 years. In Cayuga County, there were 324 applications in 2005 compared to 470 last year. In Madison County, the number increased from 385 to 480; Onondaga County, from 2411 to 4132; and Oswego County, from 553 to 836. Downtown Cazenovia is exemplary of Madison County’s trend: In the past year, the village welcomed a bait shop, a thrift store, a vitamin infusion center, a pizzeria, a Pilates studio and an Italian restaurant. A candy store is scheduled to open on the main drag in the months ahead. Oswego’s list of interesting new businesses in the past year includes a bubble tea shop, a hot dog eatery in Fulton, a specialty grocery store that features New York state products in Mexico, a beauty and esthetics studio in Hannibal and a hardware and farm supply store in Sandy Creek. In Onondaga County, the Liverpool area has also enjoyed a steady stream of new shops and eateries in recent years. That suburban community is unique in that, unlike neighboring communities, most of the restaurants are family-owned and not part of a national chain. [caption id=attachment_11116 align=alignright width=300] Megan Wilmot is the executive director of the Greater Liverpool’s Chamber of Commerce.[/caption] Megan Wilmot, executive director of the Greater Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, said independent business owners in her community maintain a strong sense of pride in holding their own against national companies. The chamber helps boost morale with red carpet events, ribbon cuttings, coffee hours and five-year anniversary celebrations for participating businesses. “We have built such a strong community,” Wilmot said. “Everyone in this business community encourages each other to shop local. Everyone just wants to see each other succeed.” In Syracuse, the downtown retail occupancy rate last year was about 82%, a slight improvement from 2024, according to the Downtown Syracuse Committee’s most recent annual report. Buildings with the largest amount of vacant space included The Galleries, One Park Place, and Equitable Towers, though not all of those spaces are designated for retail use. New businesses that opened in downtown Syracuse last year: Better with Time Clothing, Dakshin Curry & Biriyani, Havana Tattoo Society, Milano Bean Café, Miss Daisy, Pausa Coffee, Sweets for Babe, The Society CNY and Yafah Beauty Studio. The Destiny USA mall’s occupancy rate decreased from 80% in 2023 to 72% by the end of 2024, according to Integra Realty Resources. That leaves more than a quarter of the mall’s retail space vacant. “Looking ahead, the retail market is expected to see minimal rent growth, with vacancy rates likely remaining stable in community and neighborhood centers but continuing to rise in enclosed malls,” Integra’s report said. “New construction activity is low and redevelopment plans for former malls like Shoppingtown and Great Northern are still in the planning stages. The proposed Micron chip plant may spur development, but challenges remain in finding co-developers for large-scale projects.” Nationally, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce expects that small businesses will remain resilient and see their sales and revenues eventually improve. That organization, in a recent national survey, found that 25% of small business owners expect the economy to improve in 2027, while 45% indicated that they plan to increase employment in the next 12 months. And 69% said they believe their small business is in good shape and 70% said they are comfortable with their current cash flow. Thirty-one percent of small businesses reported raising their prices in July and 28% are planning to raise their prices within the next three to four months, the report said. Twelve percent indicated that this is a good time to expand their business. “Small business owners voice optimism for future revenues and hiring,” the report said. “High costs continue to be a wet blanket on reinvestment.” The NFIB reported in July that Main Street, despite gas price hikes, “is OK … for now.” Its small business economics trend report said sales across the country have been strong compared to last year, but continued inflation and higher prices from mom-and-pop establishments are causing some “cracks” to show. “If costs stay this high for much longer, reduced investment will have a tangible economic impact,” the report said. “The status quo is OK, but the outlook? The outlook is uncertain.”
EU Screening Week 2026: Healthy Lungs for Life activities took lung health checks to communities across Europe
The European Lung Foundation (ELF), European Respiratory Society (ERS) and health partners across Europe ran Healthy Lungs for Life events to take part in the first-ever EU Screening Week, a European Commission initiative that promotes prevention, early detection and health education.
Julien Boone Heads to ESMO 2026 to Explore Emerging Science in Oncology
Julien Boone Heads to ESMO 2026 to Explore Emerging Science in Oncology / cancer, cancer medicines, esmo 2026, European Society for Medical Oncology, Fanny
WHO invites organizations worldwide to join the Together for Science and Health movement
a global call inviting organizations and institutions to affiliate with Together for Science and Health, a new movement to strengthen the connection between science, health and society and build trust in evidence-informed decision-making.
RWJBarnabas Health and Rutgers Cancer Institute Among Only Six Health Systems Nationwide
RWJBarnabas Health and Rutgers Cancer Institute have earned a systemwide accreditation from the American Society for Radiation Oncology’s (ASTRO) APEx – Accreditation Program for Excellence®, a national program recognizing radiation oncology across the entire health system for meeting rigorous national standards for safety, quality and patient-centered care.
The business case for pro bono: indirect benefits with social impact
Pro bono work has evolved into a driving force within Argentina’s legal profession, expanding access to justice while strengthening law firms, lawyers and civil society organisations. Through collaboration and institutional commitment, it has become a powerful tool for talent development, reputation building and long-term impact.
Empowering Youth to Drive Progress in Cancer Awareness and Prevention - Zambian Cancer Society
Empowering Youth to Drive Progress in Cancer Awareness and Prevention - Zambian Cancer Society / cancer, Modester Kulongwe Chingadza, OncoDaily, Oncology,
RWJBarnabas Health and Rutgers Cancer Institute Among Only Six Health Systems Nationwide to Earn ASTRO APEx Accreditation for Excellence in Radiation Oncology Care
RWJBarnabas Health and Rutgers Cancer Institute have earned systemwide accreditation from the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), becoming one of only six health systems nationwide to achieve APEx accreditation across 10 or more locations. This prestigious recognition underscores our commitment to delivering the highest standards of safety, quality and patient-centered radiation oncology care.
Mingarelli elected a new fellow of the American Physical Society
Yale physicist Chiara Mingarelli was cited for contributions in pulsar timing array theory and gravitational-wave astrophysics.
National Leadership Role for UConn Health’s Dr. Marja Hurley
Starting 1-year term as president of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research
Three Stanford faculty named American Physical Society Fellows
Wendy Mao, Xiao-Liang Qi, and Alberto Salleo have been honored for work in compressed-matter physics, quantum many-body systems, and organic and polymer electronic materials.
New Board Members and Leadership Team at OH Foundation
The Oswego Health Foundation has announced the appointment of two new members to its board of directors, along with new officers who will lead the foundation as it continues its mission of strengthening healthcare in the communities served by Oswego Health. Joining the board are: [caption id=attachment_11136 align=alignleft width=180] Susan Brannan Cole[/caption] • Susan Brannan Cole. She is a public affairs, marketing and communications leader with more than 20 years of experience. She serves as regional manager of external affairs for National Grid in Central New York. Cole also brings significant healthcare communications experience, having spent several years at Upstate Medical University in media relations, digital strategy and public engagement. She previously held leadership roles in communications and government affairs at Novelis and Constellation in Oswego. A graduate of SUNY Oswego, she is passionate about strengthening Central New York communities and supporting initiatives that improve quality of life across the region. [caption id=attachment_11129 align=alignright width=150] Rich Baldwin[/caption] • Rich Baldwin. He serves as director of marketing and business development at King + King Architects, where he leads the firm’s marketing, communications and business development initiatives. Baldwin has remained actively involved in community and nonprofit organizations, including previously serving on the board of regents at Le Moyne College. He has also supported community initiatives through organizations including the Onondaga Historical Association and Father Champlin’s Guardian Angel Society. New leadership at the foundation are: • William W. “Bill” Crist will chair the Oswego Health Foundation. He brings more than 40 years of experience in education, from classroom teacher to superintendent of schools. He retired in 2023 from the Catholic Schools of the Diocese of Syracuse and remains deeply engaged in the community through numerous nonprofit and volunteer boards. He also serves as chairman of the Sanctuary Advisory Board for the proposed Lake Ontario National Marine Sanctuary. • Heather Sunser will serve as vice chair. Sunser is a financial services practice group leader at Barclay Damon LLP, where she focuses primarily on real estate law, institutional lending, land use and municipal compliance. A graduate of Syracuse University College of Law, she is also active in community service, volunteering with Vera House Legal Clinic, Habitat for Humanity and the Volunteer Lawyers Project of Onondaga County. She serves on the Board of Trustees of the Onondaga County Bar Foundation. • Darcy Antonucci will be the foundation’s treasurer. Antonucci serves as comptroller for Broadwell Hospitality Group, overseeing the financial functions of nine growing corporations as well as the company’s administrative departments. She brings extensive experience in finance, human resources and business operations, along with a strong record of community leadership. Antonucci has served on the Compass Credit Union board of directors and is an active member of the Trinity Catholic School Board. She has also been involved with the Oswego Health Foundation Gala Committee since 2018. • Attorney Rachael A. Dator will serve as secretary. Dator serves as administrator of the Oswego County Assigned Counsel Program, where she oversees grant funding, budgeting and program operations. With more than a decade of legal experience, she has served as an assistant district attorney, court attorney and legal counsel to municipalities and social services organizations. Dator brings extensive knowledge of law, governance and nonprofit operations to her role with the foundation.
Ghosts return to walk the streets of New Bern
Ghosts will be walking the streets of New Bern for the 36th year as the annual Ghostwalk returns with a new theme to continue the Historical Society’s celebration of America’s
Pink Harvest fundraiser planned in Barneveld
The Pink Harvest Fundraiser will be held at Hotel Moore in Barneveld with raffles, live music and activities supporting American Cancer Society programs.
Sundar Pichai: Google’s Frontier Imperative, Compute Scarcity Dilemmas, Future AI Products and Businesses
Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai has little patience for doubts about Google’s willingness or capacity to compete at the frontier of AI. His company’s latest Gemini 4 Argon model — long-promised and recently delivered — beats OpenAI and Anthropic’s latest public models on coding, math, science, and knowledge-work benchmarks and has placed Google’s AI back among the world’s best. Amid chatter that Google was fine with good-enough lightweight ‘Flash’ models, Pichai pushed back hard against any suggestion that company is limiting its research ambitions. “We won’t do it any other way,” he told me in a Big Technology Podcast interview recorded this week at Google’s Mountain View headquarters. Pursuing cutting-edge research is costly for Google, requiring compute and chips that otherwise could be sold at a high markup by its cloud business. But Pichai said allocating resources to frontier AI development is “ground zero” for Google. “Our cloud business is at any given moment in time forgoing short-term revenues because we are making compute trade-offs to support frontier AI development,” Pichai told me. In our conversation, we discussed Argon (which Pichai says processed three times as many tokens as Gemini 3 in the 72 hours after launch), AI’s role in developing better models, the AI interface of the future, competition with OpenAI, Google’s partnerships with Anthropic and Apple, data centers in space, and the nature of his optimism. You can read the full conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity, below, or listen to it on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or your podcast app of choice. Alex Kantrowitz: Google is back at the frontier with Gemini 4 Argon, which beats OpenAI’s and Anthropic’s public models on benchmarks spanning coding, math, science, and knowledge work. The conventional wisdom was that Google had given up on the frontier to focus on fast, good-enough models for its products. That was wrong? Sundar Pichai: Very wrong. Look, we are so committed to being at the frontier. It’s in our DNA. We won’t do it any other way. We’ve been thinking about the AI frontier for well over a decade now. The frontier is very dynamic. It’s very competitive. It’s very exciting. I couldn’t be more pleased with how Argon has come together. We took our time with it. We made sure we tested it safely and deployed it carefully. We took a bit longer than our other models, given its capabilities. Across the board, be it for agentic work, knowledge work, coding, creative tasks, Argon is one of the really good frontier models. The first 72 hours since we launched, it’s almost up to 25 trillion tokens used, which is about three times what Gemini 3.0 had in the first 72 hours. And we are capacity constrained as we are serving it. Excited, but there are always areas….. You know, the frontier is very dynamic, and you have to keep evolving the models. There are areas which we can see we need to improve as well. We’ll be at work on all of that as well. Which areas? On any given model, Argon would be across the board better at everything if you just look even two months back. But the space is so evolving. Even on coding, for example, there are pockets where we know we need to do better, and there’s clear feedback. We’ll make it better. The argument for standard models is that they’re already good enough to build great products, with the frontier valuable only for certain tasks. Meta built Muse with good models rather than the best, and Google could put standard models into Maps, Gmail, and Search. Why isn’t that sufficient? It’s definitely not how I have thought about it at all. We are deeply committed to driving the state of the art and actually pushing where this technology can go, all the way from transformers. That’s a journey we’ve been on. You will see us continue to do that. When you’re at the frontier, you get an earlier look into the emerging capabilities, earlier than others, which helps you better prepare for the future. We are fortunate to have a wide set of opportunities across consumer and enterprise. Some of our cloud customers, for sure, want the model at the frontier. The frontier models will be better at developing the next set of models in an era of recursive self-improvement. I would argue it matters there. Internally, we have definitely seen a steep point of inflection by deploying Argon to our developers. It definitely tackles problems which our previous models could not do. Being at the frontier puts you at the innovation frontier and helps you drive that as well. There is room for models of all sizes and capabilities. That’s why we did Flash, Flash-Lite, etc. I agree with you that you can develop very good product experiences with not necessarily the most frontier model, because they tend to be slower and more expensive too. But we care about the Pareto frontier, and we’re committed to doing all of that. You said developing frontier models gives you a look at what’s coming. What do you see on the horizon? What makes this moment so exciting is you build something which you think is a culmination of months of work, and you put it out. You already see clear headroom ahead. We’ve all been working on these agentic, long-horizon capabilities, but clearly the frontier is going to have multiple of these agents working together to do things. That’s an example of an exciting paradigm underway. It’s also clear to me that users, both in consumer and enterprise, will have access to some multi-agent framework for them, working all the time doing things. It feels like a moment of infinite possibilities. Sergey Brin said one of Argon’s core innovations was relying more on the model to help develop the model. Yet incidents involving OpenAI’s bots breaking containment and Google’s bots accessing a site they shouldn’t have suggest these systems still aren’t perfectly aligned. Isn’t there reasonable cause for concern about accelerating toward recursive self-improvement? There are three parts to your question. Let’s first talk about RSI itself. You’re right, Sergey mentioned RSI being a critical contributor as we are developing Argon. But to be very clear, today, in a continuum, we are pretty far from the end state of RSI or something like that. The right way to describe it is you have RSI loops along with AI researchers in various aspects of model development. You almost have agents helping AI researchers in some automated way work together to build these models. It’s good to at least understand where we are today, and it’s super exciting. I expect that continuum to keep making progress as we go into next year. The second question is around safety. Security comes from defense in depth. You’re talking about alignment, obviously. We all are doing a lot of work to make sure the models are as aligned as possible. But it’s an active area of research, and there are clear gaps. That’s not the only thing we rely on. You have the work you do on alignment, but beyond that, we put a lot of effort into real-time monitoring as these models are working. Making sure you have good telemetry into what’s happening so that you can intervene in real time if you see unexpected behaviors. How you do that, the architecture with which you do that, how you make sure it’s all sandboxed and isolated in a way that it can continue doing its job during real-time monitoring — these are all areas of investment. Obviously, when we deploy these models, giving customers, enterprises, control, both with real-time monitoring, but their ability to decide where they deploy, what type of data which models ever have access to, etc. All that work is very, very important, and we are doing a lot of that. As an industry, we need to constantly up our game and take the time to do all this stuff, including dedicating the compute required to make sure you can safely deploy these models. The third part is: Is it all enough? This is why there are a lot of conversations in the industry, and I think it’s reasonable to be worried. The right way to approach something you worry about is early on thinking about what more we can do. As an industry, you’re definitely seeing increased levels of work on alignment, testing for safety, etc., as we deploy these models. The next step would be developing better standards so there are cross-industry standards of how we do these things, including the ability to evaluate using independent evaluators. If you look at areas like financial controls, we have accounting standards, we have independent auditors. Those are all the next natural steps for us as an industry to work toward, and regulation will end up playing a role as we go through all of that as well. Google pursues both language models and world models, while some other AI companies like OpenAI have focused more heavily on LLMs as the path to AGI. Why is world-model research important to you? As humans, you obviously perceive the world around you, and you’re taking all those inputs. Making sure these models are able to understand the laws of physics, simulate the world in high fidelity. All that, I think, are key enabling blocks for intelligence. We are working across all possible applications of this. Take an area like robotics. It’s not an accident: If you look at embodied reasoning benchmarks, Argon is state of the art. That all comes from our experience building world models. Inherently, I would expect there will be architectures which will converge all of this in the future. But for us, we view this as, today, this jagged frontier that is intelligence. We want to be at the frontier of all the possible approaches, and that will help us both drive better research, better insights, and develop a much better AGI model, is how we think about it. Some people argue Google should focus on selling its computing resources rather than using them for AI research. Cloud wants to sell compute at a high markup, while researchers need a very big computer to build the best models. How do you balance those demands? Ground zero for us is making sure we are investing in the compute that’s needed to be at the AI frontier. In 2015, I set the company to be AI-first. AI is that key horizontal ingredient across everything we do, all the way from Search to Cloud to Waymo. That is ground zero for us, making sure both for research and developing the models that we have enough compute needed. Beyond that, we have these independent businesses which each have their own long-range plans. They’re using those long-range plans to project forward, and we plan for compute for all of them. The cloud team, they have a business and they have a projection and they have demand signals. They have committed contracts. With that help, we can plan on a long-term compute trajectory for them. We’re fortunate to have this wide set of opportunities. There’s no company in the world which isn’t making trade-offs at any given moment in time. But the first principles we operate on is making sure we have enough compute to invest in the frontier, and that’s non-negotiable, and everything else works on top. Remember, we are building our own compute, our own data centers. There are long lead times. The compute we have today is a function of decisions I made in 2024. Even if you think back to a year from today, last year the agentic coding takeoff hadn’t happened. Today, obviously, when you sit and look at anything, everyone is short—not just us, other companies—and everyone wishes you had two times what you had planned for. That comes with the territory. At any given moment in time, we are planning for what we would need two to three years out in the future. You’re going to find some decisions you make may look suboptimal two years out, depending on where the state of the art is. I don’t spend too much time thinking about it. The way I think about compute allocation is making sure Google DeepMind, both for research and frontier model development, is cutting edge in terms of compute access. After that, we plan for all our businesses. It’s great we can provide our compute to other people too, like we have done. It allows us to scale that up, get real tests for it in the widest application set possible, test it in the real world, and make sure we are at the cutting edge of technology at every layer of our AI stack as well. Ben Horowitz relayed on a podcast that Andy Jassy had said compute was sold out until 2028. Are you seeing the same thing? If today a customer is coming out and asking us for compute in ’27, that is incredibly difficult to do. Even last year we went out and leased some short-term compute to accommodate some customers and help them out. But yes, we are all dealing with similar timelines. Every major technology shift seems to involve overbuilding, from railroads to fiber. Do you think that’s happening here? It depends on the time frames you’re looking at. This level of build, if I take a long enough time frame, it makes complete sense to me. We are at early stages of the most consequential technology ever, and this is not like fiber. It’s not dark. We are using it. We are capacity constrained on a daily basis. The applications, the underlying technology is improving rapidly. But running a company, the way I work through the moment is you look at your demand signals. You look at your committed revenue opportunities that you’re getting in the form of contracts. You balance that with the underlying technical capability, or internally you balance how we are using it internally, the model trajectories. Based on all that, you take a disciplined approach—a confident, aggressive, but disciplined approach—to plan out compute. But when you talk about the broader economy as a whole, you’re having people operate with various levels of risk. I focus on what I can control as a company and plan through it. If your question is, can there be an overbuild? Yes, because you can have some constrained components. Remember, what matters is a set of everything you need to build out that compute. Memory, electricity, electricians…. Land. Like 2,000 components or more. You could get constrained at some point. There could be things which cause bottlenecks, and then you could have overbuilds. There could be external shocks to the economy. There are macro risks. All that is possible at any given time. But am I confident that the compute we are planning for, we will have uses for it given enough time? Absolutely, yes. I was in the room when you said AI would be as profound as fire and electricity. If you believe that, shouldn’t you give researchers the biggest possible computer, even at the expense of today’s cloud profits? We’re all doing some form of that. Our cloud business is at any given moment in time forgoing short-term revenues because we are making compute trade-offs to support frontier AI development. What you’re seeing is true already. But you want to be thoughtful. Even our AI researchers have some constraints, which are also good. That’s what inspires creativity. That’s what helps you come up with a more efficient algorithmic breakthrough, maybe to use less memory. What we are committed to is to invest what’s needed to stay at the frontier. OpenAI President Greg Brockman told me a few months ago that the ideal AI product might have no interface at all—just as natural as conversation. What do you think the interface looks like in the age of AI? Computing historically has been humans adapting to computing. With AI, it’ll be the other way around. The technology will adapt seamlessly to how humans live and go about their day-to-day life. You want to be able to speak to that AI when you want to. It has context. It can be persistently running somewhere, give you continuity. You’re not dealing with a lot of complexity. It’s natural. All that makes sense to me. That doesn’t mean it won’t have any interface, however. Nowadays, even on my phone, Gemini voice models are so good. I can just press the microphone button. I can just ramble. That’s why we call it Rambler. I can ramble. It intelligently corrects with my personal context. Even my friends’ names, weird names, it gets it right, even if it first guesses it wrong. It’s amazing. I’m not going in, backspacing, editing once I finish saying it. It’s remarkable how good it’s gotten. But there are going to be moments you will need an interface. You may want to entertain yourself. You may want to watch a video. You may ask your AI to create something, and you want to watch it, consume it. The way I think about it is, you want it to be as seamless and as natural as possible, and that you are not doing the hard work adapting to whatever the interface is. The technology is adapting to how you’re working at any given moment in time. When I asked Sam Altman about competition from Google, he argued that OpenAI was building AI-native products and implied Google was bolting AI onto existing ones. Do you accept that framing, and can a “bolt-on” compete with an AI-native product? First of all, it’s a very dynamic moment. We are all pushing each other. OpenAI has pushed us as a company too. This is not just we are doing something to them. Far from it. Yes, Google went into its own version of a code red too. In the AI moment, all of us have to respond with varying levels of urgency at any given moment in time. We are constantly building new products as well. Gemini was built from the ground up as a product—the Gemini app I’m talking about. Or tomorrow, as all of us are adapting to agents, are you bolting agents onto ChatGPT, or are they building it natively? How would you think about that? You can always put these questions back. I don’t think of it that way. I think of it as you want to build world-class product experiences that are AI-native and they are winning. Some of it is adapting products, some of it is rethinking new experiences. They will all be part of how you approach this moment. How do you expect to make money from these AI interfaces? If an agent recommends a product and I buy it, should it take a cut of the sale, even if that’s disclosed? I’m going to put enterprise aside. Consumers are going to increasingly value this technology. Take software developers today. Developers are willing to pay for these coding models because it really helps make them more productive. Nobody would want to code the way they were coding three years ago, or even the same time last year. When you’re delivering value, there’s value to be had. I’ve never seen examples where consumer products really scale to billions of users, where people are using it intensely, and haven’t had monetization to go along with it. If you’re providing value to people, there is inherent value to be had. The nature of it may change. You’re asking a scenario in which agents are doing stuff for you. At the end of the day, you will have commercial needs. The agents need to fulfill those commercial needs. The providers on the other side are going to see value in that. There’s going to be some mechanism by which it gets fleshed out. That’s what an efficient system does. But what matters is that you’re building those world-class consumer experiences. I promised myself one product feature request: Can you make Gemini-powered search in Gmail as good as searching Gmail through ChatGPT? What’s going on here? One of the exciting things we announced recently is the unified Gemini agent for enterprise, and we’re bringing that to consumers. These are persistent agents which run 24/7 in the cloud. We’re spinning up a micro VM effectively for every query, and from the runtime, the harness, the model—it’s all a headless service. It’ll work everywhere, and it has your context with you. You can address this agent whether you’re in Workspace, in Search, in Gemini. Agents are going to drive this unification from a customer experience, which people are looking for. When you have a broad product portfolio and you’re moving forward fast, there are always areas where you’re moving forward faster than some other areas. That’s valid feedback. But we are putting a lot of time and effort into making sure, as we build out our agentic experience, that unification and that capability works well across all these services. People have asked where Google’s equivalent of Muse or Dots is. Do you anticipate creating a new product to compete with them? Our goal with Gemini is to be a personal, proactive, and powerful assistant. That’s what we are working toward. You saw us describe the early versions of it at Google I/O this year with Spark. Effectively, already, if you open the Gemini app as a Pro or an Ultra user, you see Chat and Task, and they start giving you that agentic experience. With Argon now, that capability is dramatically accelerated. What we announced recently in our enterprise event, we are bringing that to consumers as well. Soon in Gemini, you will be able to ask something, and it’s a continuum. You don’t need to think about whether you’re asking a chat or an agentic task. It’ll just automatically do the right thing, and it can work persistently in the background securely and get things done for you. Already, empirically, when I look at what’s coming into Gemini in our app, last year you would have tagged them and most of them would have been chats. But a steadily growing percentage is already agentic tasks in Gemini. Yes, we are going to bring personal agents to our consumers. It’ll work in the Gemini app. It’ll work in Google Search. It’ll work in Gmail. You can address it, call it, etc. We want to make sure we’re getting it right. It’ll be powered by Argon, and we are very excited to bring it to our users. Google has invested and committed tens of billions of dollars to Anthropic. What do you see in Dario Amodei that makes you want such a deep investment and partnership? Very early on, when we looked at the founding team of Anthropic, it was very clear to us this was a world-class team which was involved in some of the earliest GPT models. We were quickly able to assess that they would be at the frontier. We’ve always tried to identify and partner with companies which would be at the cutting edge of technology. We’ve done that with SpaceX. We’ve done that with Anthropic. That’s what we saw, and we had a chance to partner. Is your partnership with Apple to license Gemini for Siri expanding, contracting, or standing still? For both us and Apple, that partnership was about translating the capabilities of AI into better experiences for users. I thought Apple has done a phenomenal job of incorporating—they customize these models and build it into Siri—and it’s been great to see the reception. We are committed to doing more. You’re going to do more with them? There’s nothing specific to comment, but it’s a partnership. It’s working well. What have you learned so far about the feasibility of data centers in space? It’s a very exciting project. Projects like this remind me—I still recall that moment in the desert for the DARPA Grand Challenge, watching the Stanley car compete in it, which ended up being the basis for Waymo. With all these technologies, you’re at a moment in time where it looks a bit like sci-fi, but 10 to 20 years down the line, it’s actually working in a meaningful way. I feel the same in space. We’ve always believed in betting big on these technologies. Quantum has been a great example of it. We’re probably 10 years into the journey. Waymo, we are almost 20 years into the journey. Space, we are two to three years into the journey. It’s clear to me that it’s an approach which will make a lot of sense in the future. Being in sub-synchronous orbits with 24/7 access to the most abundant form of energy we have access to will make a lot of sense for this exponential increase in compute that we are going to need. Having said that, this is a challenging project. The team has disciplined milestones. It was a super exciting milestone to send the TPUs up to space. Sometime, as we are speaking, we are expecting a “hello world” moment from them. I look forward to seeing that happen, and we’ll continue investing here too. You previously said 25% of the code written within Google was written by AI. What’s the number today? That number in our world today is meaningless in the sense that every part of what we now touch is influenced by AI deeply. What we are tracking with Argon, for example, it’s been a point of inflection. People are using Argon to really go tackle complex projects, including projects which affect millions of lines of code. In the four weeks since we have launched Argon, we have seen a 30% increase in CLs, and more importantly, almost a similar increase—a one-third decrease in rollbacks. People are writing code more productively and better code with it. We are tracking it with newer metrics now. How are you dealing with opposition to data centers? If you can’t build in the U.S. the way you want to, where else do you go? We’re very committed to building our data centers very responsibly. When I look at our largest data centers in some of the communities where we have been the longest, I visit them, I talk to people. There are people who come and tell us their kids have gone to college because of our investments in these communities, and we’ve grown in those communities. To me, this is about doing it right. Engaging with the communities early, doing it transparently. We are committed to making sure we are bringing incremental power, and we cover 100% of the cost of our power needs for these projects. It’s understanding the impact on neighborhoods and making sure you’re working thoroughly to address them. Done rightly, you can continue making progress. But we are constantly taking feedback into account. I do worry not everyone operates the same way. People have been surprised by data centers showing up in their backyard. Those are all important. As an industry, we should continue to do better. But part of the reason, in a 20-year time frame, we are thinking about things like data centers in space is making sure we are able to put these data centers where maybe the trade-offs will be different. What unproven area of AI is Google working hardest to crack? Is it continual learning—getting models to keep updating after release—or something else? There are multiple parallel paths. You saw with Argon we have a million output tokens. With our Gemini models early on, we had a one-million context window on the input side. These are all examples of breakthroughs we are constantly working on. How do you think about synthetic data? How do you think about continual learning? How do you think about more efficient architectures? We do dedicate a meaningful percentage of our compute to these research bets too. It always goes hand in hand, including our world models. Those are all bets we are placing. Sometimes, as part of these bets, there are ideas that emerge which just make their way into the mainline models. Maybe we don’t fully talk about it, but we have multiple steps in these areas. Working in technology requires optimism that building something will improve the world, but those bets can leave real consequences when they fail. I recently returned to a town in El Salvador where enthusiasm for Bitcoin had given way to unfinished construction and something resembling a ghost town. How do you maintain the optimism you spoke about in your Stanford commencement address while accounting for those risks? I genuinely have a deep conviction that improving technology and improving access to technology makes people’s lives better. It’s been my personal experience in my life, out of which comes that deep conviction, optimism. But with that, I’ve always felt humanity’s journey is always about working hard to harness that technology to make it work well for society. The optimism is not an optimism that you just build whatever you want, whenever. You work hard to make sure you’re building technology in the service of humanity, to make the human condition better. That’s got to be the defining goal as we are approaching it. With that framework, I’m very, very optimistic. We are in very early stages of the kind of progress that we are going to see on many areas. We’re all talking about areas like healthcare. A lot of the progress is ahead. The ability to make things in a fundamentally cheaper way on many things where things have been getting expensive for a long, long time, discovering new materials, etc., which really bend the curve—it’s tough to step today and understand the impact of all that, but they’re going to be very profound. I’m very optimistic, but we have to be rightfully concerned about all the ways this technology can go wrong. Sundar, I know you don’t do many of these. Thank you. Thanks, Alex. Appreciate it.
Science or strategy? Researchers call for transparency over the Anthropocene rejection
Since its introduction in 2000, the concept of the Anthropocene—the idea that human activities are the major driver of Earth systems—has become highly influential throughout society, including in culture, ...
Sergei Guriev, Dean of London Business School, elected Fellow of the Econometric Society
LBS Dean joins 30 new Fellows announced for 2026
Rice graduate students showcase innovative research at synthetic biology science cafe
The Science and Technology Policy Program at Rice’s Baker Institute for Public Policy hosted a “science cafe” Oct. 13 to bring research to reality and answer questions from the public, giving attendees a look at projects underway in university laboratories and an opportunity to ask questions about the science, its potential applications and its implications for society.
Researchers call for coordinated action to protect European sleep health
A new paper from the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committee and the Early Career Network of the European Sleep Research Society warns that sleep health is becoming a growing public health challenge across Europe and is calling for coordinated action to protect it.
Spanish Science Fiction Horror Film MEMORIA to Get Release from Mondo Macabro
Memoria 1 Blu-ray disc Label: Mondo Macabro Preorder: 11/10/26 Release: 12/8/26 MSRP: $29.99 UPC: 843276036195 Catalogue #: MDO361 Genre: Horror Color 87 minutes in Spanish with English subtitles MPAA Rating: NR High Definition 1080p 1.66:1 Dolby Digital
Driving Community Health: Bristol Myers Squibb, Emirates Thalassemia Society and Dubai Science Park Host the 6th 'Help Save a Life' Blood Donation Drive
For patients living with chronic blood disorders, access to safe and reliable blood supplies is fundamental to their care journey. Marking the sixth edition of an impactful partnership, Bristol Myers Squibb proudly collaborated with the Emirates Thalassemia Society and Dubai Science Park, the region's leading science focused hub and part of TECOM Group PJSC, hosted the 'Help Save a Life' blood donation drive, bringing together community members and healthcare professionals to provide vital suppo
New Journal Section Puts Epigenetics on Trial: Ethics, Society and Science Collide
Epigenetics has spent the past two decades promising to rewrite the rules of biology. The idea that chemical tags sitting on top of DNA can switch genes on and off, that these tags can be shaped by diet, stress, pollution and poverty, and that some of them might even be passed
UCO College of Business Students Earn Accounting Scholarships
The Oklahoma Society of Certified Public Accountants (OSCPA) Educational Foundation recently honored four University of Central Oklahoma College of Business accounting students with scholarships.
One Doctor, Eight Billion Patients: After Stepping Back From The WHO Race, What I Stand For In The AI Society
The core of my policy manifesto, One Doctor, Eight Billion Patients, is a single proposition: Universal Intelligence Coverage (UIC) for health. Universal
Nebraska Humane Society: Do dogs really feel guilty? Science says maybe not
Dogs that appear guilty after chewing a shoe or having an accident on the carpet may not actually feel guilt.
What Doctors Want Women to Know About Menopause and Heart Health
The American Heart Association and The Menopause Society share four facts about menopause and cardiovascular risk for Menopause Awareness Month.
Ethan Hawke names surprising thriller co-starring ex Uma Thurman as his breakout: ‘Changed my life’
If you ask Ethan Hawke, it wasn’t ‘Dead Poets Society’ or ‘Reality Bites’ that gave him his big break — it was this under-seen, experimental thriller from a master of indie cinema that made him a star.
Sandhills Community College Small Business Center expands to Moore and Hoke Counties
Small Business Center Director, Laura Kinsman. Photo provided by: SCCSandhills Community College (SCC) is launching a redesigned Small Business Center model that expands no-cost entrepreneurial support across Moore and Hoke Counties. Rooted in the College’s commitment to strengthening small businesses and entrepreneurship as drivers of economic growth, the enhanced model is led by recently appointed Small Business Center Director, Laura Kinsman. The model also includes two new Senior Business Advisors who will provide trusted expertise, stronger community connections, and individualized guidance to entrepreneurs and business owners throughout the region.Kinsman brings a unique perspective to the director’s role as both a local business owner, operating in downtown Southern Pines, and a former Moore County educator. “Her combination of education, business ownership, leadership, and community involvement make her a great fit for the Small Business Center and the work we are continuing to build across Moore and Hoke counties,” said Taylor L. McCaskill, senior director of Workforce Development & Corporate Partnerships in a press release.Kinsman is an active member of the Southern Pines Business Association and has been connected to the Sandhills Small Business Center since the beginning of her entrepreneurial journey. She looks forward to building on that experience by strengthening the Center’s partnerships and expanding its connections throughout the community.She will lead the Center's efforts to support entrepreneurs and business owners throughout Moore and Hoke County and be the connector to the North Carolina Community College System Small Business Center Network operations. The Center offers no-cost, confidential one-on-one counseling, practical workshops, and connections to the resources and partners that help local businesses start, grow, and create jobs.A key part of this new approach, only offered at SCC, is a network of Senior Business Advisors, experienced professionals who will provide individualized guidance in areas such as business planning, finance, marketing, operations, growth strategy, and problem-solving. These advisors will serve as trusted partners to entrepreneurs and business owners, helping them turn ideas into action, overcome barriers, strengthen existing businesses, and pursue new opportunities. This one-on-one counseling is available at no cost, ensuring that high-quality business support is accessible to entrepreneurs at every stage.Senior Business Advisor for Hoke County, Kenna Parks. Photo provided by: SCCKenna Parks has been named the senior business advisor for Hoke County. She is a business professional, entrepreneur, and educator who brings a unique combination of academic training and real-world business experience. She earned her Master of Business Administration (MBA) in 2017 and has built her career around entrepreneurship, marketing, business development, and helping others turn ideas into sustainable opportunities.Senior Business Advisor for Moore County, Katrin Henderson. Photo provided by: SCCAs a military spouse, she has successfully launched and operated businesses across five states, giving her firsthand experience in adapting to diverse markets, building new customer bases and understanding the importance of global reach in today’s business environment. Over the last decade, her areas of focus include business planning, marketing strategy, branding, customer development, financial preparedness, operational planning and connecting entrepreneurs with educational programs and community resources.Parks brings an especially valuable perspective to business advising because she is an entrepreneur herself. She is the owner of Glamo Society Bridal & Formal Wear in Raeford, N.C., giving her firsthand experience with the realities of launching, operating, marketing and growing a small business. She understands that entrepreneurship extends far beyond developing a great idea; it requires strategy, financial awareness, adaptability, strong customer relationships, and consistent execution.Katrin Henderson will serve as the senior business advisor for Moore County. Thriving in hospitality and retail, Henderson has enjoyed positions in Food & Beverage Management and Retail Management in various fine dining and retail establishments in the area, before opening her own children's shop in 2015, in the Village of Pinehurst. She is a native of Moore County.Quickly immersing herself in this new world of small business ownership, Henderson joined various boards and committees, including President Elect of Pinehurst Business Partners and Event Chair for the Holly Arts & Crafts Festival. She also partnered with local organizations such as Moore County Economic Development and Moore County Chamber of Commerce and Sandhills Community College Small Business Center in events and educational opportunities. In 2026, Henderson sold her shop and now offers full-time support to both new and seasoned entrepreneurs through freelance consulting mentorship and the SCC Small Business Center program.The Small Business Center team is passionate about making business resources more accessible, and ensuring entrepreneurs know they do not have to navigate business ownership alone. Through their work with SCC, they are committed to building meaningful relationships with local businesses, community organizations, and industry partners while helping entrepreneurs move from idea to strategy, strategy to action, and action to sustainable growth.“Sandhills Community College believes deeply in the power of small business and entrepreneurship because strong local businesses create jobs, spark innovation, generate investment, and strengthen the communities we serve,” said McCaskill in press release. “Through this new Small Business Center model, Sandhills is building a stronger ecosystem where entrepreneurs can connect, grow, and thrive, while helping drive long-term economic vitality throughout our region.”To learn more about the Center's services or to schedule a consultation, please contact Kinsman directly at kinsmanl@sandhills.edu or 910-695-3938.
United CEO Scott Kirby calls for wealth tax and a near-100% inheritance tax
United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby says wealth inequality threatens society and calls for a national wealth tax and steep inheritance taxes.
CAS collaborates with Microsoft to enable faster innovation in pharmaceutical, life sciences, and chemical industries
/PRNewswire/ -- CAS, a division of the American Chemical Society, today announced the availability of CAS Connections in Microsoft Copilot. The connector gives...
C&O Historical Society announces new book about songs inspired by historic railway
The C&O Historical Society's newest book, Music of the C&O, seeks to take songs written about the C&O Railway and use them to uncover what has captivated people so much about the railway to write songs about it.
132 at UNC-Chapel Hill inducted into Phi Beta Kappa
Phi Beta Kappa, the nation’s oldest and most honored college honorary society, has inducted 132 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill students as new members. The recent induction ceremony... View Article
AIAS+ 2026 Brings Leading Scientists to San Francisco to Explore How AI Is Changing Scientific Discovery
The Tianqiao and Chrissy Chen Institute will bring leading scientists, AI researchers, engineers and innovators to San Francisco November 5–7 for AIAS+ 2026: AI Advancing Science & Society, a three-day symposium focused on one of the most consequential questions facing research today: How can artificial intelligence help scientists move beyond analyzing what is already known and accelerate new discovery?
Columbia University and Max Planck Society team up to advance fusion energy science
Columbia University and Max Planck Society team up to advance fusion energy science. The new Max Planck Columbia Center will have a total budget of $13.3 million over its five-year term.
Scientists Say the Secret to a Happier, Healthier Society May Begin in Childhood
How children are raised may matter for social well-being worldwide, with surveys across three culturally different countries linking supportive childhoods to adults’ trust and sense of belonging. At home, a child seeking comfort depends on a caregiver’s response, while time for free play offers room to explore. A University of Nottingham-led study linked these experiences,
Heart Surgery Programs at Two MedStar Health Hospitals Earn Top Quality Ratings
/PRNewswire/ -- Two MedStar Health hospitals have earned the highest quality designation, a three-star rating, from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS),...
Japan can lead the world in making preventive health pay
This op-ed argues that Japan, as the world's first super-aging society, can set a global standard for how prevention protects health, workers, and prosperity. Preventive health must be treated as core economic infrastructure for sustaining workforce participation and fiscal stability.
ASHG President Susan Slaugenhaupt Calls for Hope, Leadership, and Communication in Science
ASHG President Susan Slaugenhaupt, PhD, opened the society’s Montreal meeting with a heartfelt address of hope, leadership, and communication.
It’s time to bring back science in campaign policy discussions
Despite the politicization of science, a majority of both liberals and conservatives feel that government investment in scientific research is worthwhile for society.
2026 UHC Day campaign launch
The 2026 UHC Day campaign launch will give advocates, including civil society and young people, tools and messaging to advocate for universal health coverage and hold decision-makers to account for their global commitments.
American Cancer Society and Baptist Health Announce Partnership to Expand Cancer Screening Efforts
September 30, 2026 — The American Cancer Society (ACS) is expanding its efforts to improve access to cancer screening and early detection in Southeast Florida through an exclusive partnership with Baptist Health. This effort focuses on breaking down barriers to screening, raising awareness about prevention, and helping more people access recommended cancer screening tests. “This […]
Google Labs' 'secret society' way of thanking its MVP employees
Google Labs chief Josh Woodward revealed the "secret society" ritual and quirky awards used to thank top employees.
Hurricanes pose long-term health risks for vulnerable older adults
New research in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society indicates that older adults who rely on electricity-dependent medical devices-such as ventilators, respirators, and dialysis machines-may face substantial health risks during and after hurricanes, especially in communities experiencing severe flooding.
One Health: The Big Philanthropy Billion-Dollar Blind Spot
Why implementing One Health at all levels of society should be an irresistible proposition for philanthropy.
UN Decade of Healthy Ageing midpoint report finds progress, calls for greater investment
New evidence in the Secretary-General's report to the 81st UN General Assembly, prepared by the World Health Organization (WHO) in coordination with the UN system, finds more countries acting on healthy ageing than ever before – but longer lives will not become healthy, dignified ones without faster, more sustained investment at country level.(NEW YORK, 28 September 2026) The Secretary-General transmitted to the 81st session of the UN General Assembly the mid-term progress report on the UN Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021–2030), marking the midpoint of the ten-year global effort to improve the lives of older people. The report was prepared by the World Health Organization (WHO) in coordination with the UN Inter-Agency Group on Ageing and with inputs from thirteen UN entities, the World Bank Group and civil society partners. It finds real progress in countries – and persistent gaps that must close before 2030.The number of people aged 60 and over passed 1 billion in 2020 and is projected to reach 2.1 billion by 2050, with the fastest growth in low- and middle-income countries. Longer lives are not automatically healthy ones: globally, the gap between life expectancy and healthy life expectancy at age 60 widened between 2000 and 2023, and an estimated 71% of excess deaths from COVID-19 between 2020 and 2023 were among people aged 60 and over. “Longer lives are one of humanity’s great achievements, but we cannot congratulate ourselves while leaving millions without health and support,” said Dr Pascale Allotey, Director, Department of Sexual, Reproductive, Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health and Ageing, WHO. “The first half of the Decade has shown what is possible. The second half must be about scaling and financing the progress to meet the needs and rights of older persons.”Real progress, unevenly sharedThe report finds that more countries than ever now have legislation against age-based discrimination – up from 44.5% in 2018 to 57.7% today – and over half now have national long-term care policies, up from 49% in 2023 to 56.7%, dedicated programmes to build age-friendly environments (54.6%), and comprehensive health and social assessments of older people (54.6%). New WHO guidance on services for long-term care and for Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) delivered in communities is enabling systemic change as an increasing number of countries incorporate these services within national universal health care benefit packages. A host of UN agencies and other partners support training, increasing health workforce competencies and use of digital health tools.“This report shows the Decade of Healthy Ageing is working,” said Dr Ritu Sadana, Head of the WHO Secretariat for the UN Decade of Healthy Ageing. “More countries are legislating against ageism, providing integrated care, strengthening long-term care systems, and creating age-friendly environments than ever before, in all regions and income levels. But progress is uneven and in one area, regressive: fewer countries report active multi-stakeholder forums on ageing, down from 53.1% in 2020 to 43.3% today. The second half of this Decade must turn commitments into results, in every country.”The financing gap: this Decade's binding constraintFinancing remains the binding constraint: more than a third of reporting countries (33.8%) have very little or no dedicated resources to develop long-term care, with similar shortfalls across the Decade’s other priority areas. Less than half of countries (45.4%) have legislation providing access to assistive devices (including hearing aids, spectacles or rollators), which are key to enabling older people to maintain productive, independent and dignified lives. Only 22.7% of countries can track older people’s health over time – the largest gap across the Decade’s core progress indicators. Nationally representative information is needed in each country, as policies and interventions cannot be designed as if all older adults of a given age share similar needs and capacities. The report calls for sustained investment through national budgets, country-owned plans, development cooperation and innovative financing mechanisms to fully close these gaps by 2030.“The Decade was designed as a whole-of-UN effort, and this report shows it in action,” said Amal Abou Rafeh, Chief of the Programme on Ageing Section at the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), and Permanent Co-Chair of the UN Inter-Agency Group on Ageing. “Thirteen UN entities, the World Bank group and civil society organizations contributed to this report, with WHO as the lead technical and implementing agency. That is the model of coordination the second half of the Decade will need to scale, with countries leading legislation, funding and implementation, engaging older people.”“Investing in healthy ageing is not simply a cost; it is one of the highest-return investments a government can make,” said Fiona Stewart, Global Lead for Ageing and Pensions at the World Bank Group. “Countries that invest early in integrated and long-term care see savings that outweigh the upfront cost many times over. The evidence in this report makes the economic case; what is now needed is predictable financing at country level to act on it, along with efforts to support older entrepreneurs and the silver economy.”Older people's own voicesThe report also draws on the direct experience of older people themselves, including a multilingual global survey conducted by the International Federation on Ageing that reached more than 1000 older people across 58 countries. WHO and UN partners called on Member States to use the second half of the Decade to accelerate implementation, strengthen data systems, and secure the financing needed so that the gains of longer lives reach older people everywhere. About the UN Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021–2030)Proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in December 2020, the Decade is a global collaboration bringing together governments, UN agencies, civil society, the private sector, academia and older people themselves to improve the lives of older people, their families and communities. It is coordinated by the World Health Organization together with the UN Inter-Agency Group on Ageing. The Decade's mid-term progress report was transmitted to the General Assembly by the Secretary-General, prepared by WHO, and is available in 6 languages.Full Report available: A/81/366 Implementation of the United Nations Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021–2030): Note by Secretary-General [ العربية | 中文 | English | Français | Pусский | Español
Why So Many Social Science Claims Are False
One of the most urgent questions facing society today is the potential impact of AI on education and labor markets. So it’s no surprise that two scientists attempted to provide
Berlin's High-End KaDeWe Store Opens Dedicated Health Hub
KaDeWe department store dedicates 2,000 square meters to training, recovery and exclusive fitness brands and includes biohacking and Lagree studio.
Scientists could one day remove your bad memories. Here's how
Madeleine Finlay hears from Steve Ramirez, an associate professor of psychological and brain sciences at Boston University, whose book How to Change a Memory was shortlisted for this year’s Royal Society Trivedi science book prize. He explains how scientists have been able to locate memories in the brains of rodents, trigger them artificially and even remove them, and reveals what the practical applications of this science could one day be for humans.
How Washington Funded the Politicization of Science
Over the last half-decade, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on projects designed to influence academic policies, both in the sciences and other disciplines. The aim was to foster a progressive conception of social justice in these fields. In pursuit of this end, the foundation earmarked nearly a million dollars for a project titled “Creating Inclusive Scientific Societies through Policies and Practices,” over a million for a project on “Faculty Online Learning Communities for Gender Equity,” and over $2 million to foster “racial equity focused departmental change.” Through a public records request, I’ve obtained the proposals and progress reports for dozens of NSF grants designed to promote social justice. Although funding for these grants was eventually halted by the Trump administration, the projects illustrate an important facet of recent higher-education policy. Many of the university policies that promised “social transformation” didn’t arise in a vacuum. They were actively encouraged by outside funders—often by the federal government itself. Subscribe Accreditation—the peer-review process which enables universities to receive federal grants and student loans—has recently become a policy battleground, with accreditors wielding significant power over both universities and academic disciplines. In 2020, when Oregon Health and Science University’s medical school issued an extensive diversity action plan—which promised “consequences” for employees who failed to support “DEI, anti-racism and social justice”—it specifically pointed to the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), the medical-school accrediting body, to justify the overhaul. The NSF actively promoted DEI-focused accreditation policies. The proposal for a $1.2 million program on promoting “community engagement” in STEM, which I obtained through a records request, notes that the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology was exploring changes to its criteria “that would incorporate JEDI [justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion].” The proposal promised to “support broader JEDI efforts in the general criteria for engineering.” Another grant funded a conference designed to “identify and share best practices and strategies to integrate IDEA principles in accreditation criteria”—referring to an acronym that stands for “inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility.” Scholarly societies have become another flashpoint in debates over higher education. Critics argue that many of these societies, which have the power to shape entire disciplines, have become increasingly politicized. Again, through its giving, the NSF played a role in promoting this politicization. In one million-dollar grant that received funding in 2024, a group of psychologists proposed a series of social-justice reforms to the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. The proposal, which I obtained via a records request, asserts that “[r]edistributing resources (such as moving different people into leadership roles) is not enough” and that the society’s “governance structures do not yet reflect its stated values of diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Its solution: review and rework the society’s criteria for leadership development, academic awards, conferences, and publications. Adjusting review criteria informed by “intersectionality” designed to fight “epistemic exclusion” is an easy way to introduce de facto ideological litmus tests into the peer-review process. For many of the grants I obtained, such litmus tests seem to be the point. “Academic departments are racialized social systems that produce and sustain the byproducts of systemic racism,” a proposal for a $2.7 million project funded in 2024 asserts, promising to develop “departmentally-focused change efforts that cultivate values, assumptions, and behaviors that advance racial equity.” The University of Illinois Urbana Champaign’s million-dollar “I-ADVANCE” project, which effectively created a small DEI bureaucracy on campus, promised to Embed 28 ADVANCE faculty fellows in STEM departments” to amplify its equity goals. Another $1.2 million project promised to create “faculty online learning communities,” made up of scientists at universities around the country, that would eventually build department-level diversity action plans. “Ultimately,” the proposal asserts, perhaps more perceptively than its authors realized, “both organizational change and intersectionality frameworks deal with power.” Indeed, such grants confer a great deal of power to administrators and scholar-activists, who can even use the mere availability of funding as a tool to advance their causes. That history is worth remembering amid today’s debate over federal involvement in higher education: Washington has been shaping university priorities for years, including by financing efforts to instill progressive ideas about race, gender, and equity into academic institutions—and many of the policies those grants encouraged remain embedded within universities long after the federal money has stopped flowing. John D. Sailer is the director of higher education policy and a senior fellow at Manhattan Institute. Share
Kit Chapman wins 2026 Royal Society Trivedi Science Book Prize
Kit Chapman has won the 2026 Royal Society Trivedi Science Book Prize for The Age of Alchemy: How Early Innovators Shaped Modern Chemistry (Profile Books).
United CEO Scott Kirby wants a nationwide wealth tax
United CEO Scott Kirby said that income inequality "has become a danger to our society."
Cambodia: Imprisonment of Activists, Politicians, and Journalists Amid Unrelenting Crackdown
Human Rights Watch thanks the Special Rapporteur for his report, which describes the deteriorating situation for civil society and the political opposition amid an unrelenting crackdown on freedom of expression.
Physician Organizations Oppose Legislation That Gives Health Insurers Unilateral Control Over Out-of-Network Payments
The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and American College of Radiology (ACR) today expressed strong opposition to the Lower Premiums, Faster Payments Act, legislation introduced by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) that would eliminate the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process established under the No Surprises Act (NSA) and replace it with payment rates calculated by health insurance companies.
ESPN gambling writer defends network over ‘neutered’ coverage criticism
Former ESPN producer Nicole Noren sent chills through the industry by going public with her resignation after more than two decades at the network, citing its sports betting coverage. Since nationwide sports betting was legalized, gambling companies have taken over the sports world. That has had a stunning impact on American society that we still…
Heart Surgery Programs at Two MedStar Health Hospitals Earn Top Quality Ratings
WASHINGTON -- Two MedStar Health hospitals have earned the highest quality designation, a three-star rating, from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), placing their cardiac surgery programs among the nation’s best for patient outcomes and surgical care.
Four Berkeley Lab Scientists Receive DOE Early Career Research Awards
Funding will help researchers advance science solutions for society.
Jackson museum to hold ribbon cutting
JACKSON — The Jackson Historical Society will hold a ribbon cutting Saturday at 10 a.m. for its Town Hall relocation, renovation and restoration project, with an open house from 10
Zi-Kui Liu receives theory award from Materials Research Society
Zi-Kui Liu, the Corning Faculty Fellow in Materials Science and Engineering in the Penn State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, will receive the 2026 Materials Theory Award from the Materials Research Society.
Annual Tulsa health fair offers free screenings, dental exams and mental health counseling
The Islamic Society of Tulsa held a community health fair on Saturday at its mosque.
Feed Energy CEO Joe Riley takes reins of family business
From a young age, Joe Riley knew he wanted to own and run a business. His dad, Bob Riley, paved a path for that with a family business, leading to the father-son duo working together. “I’ve always thought that entrepreneurship and running a business was a very important part of society. Without businesses, the economy…
SOCIETY: Plum Market’s Veuve Clicquot "Chasing the Sun" event
Click here to view this item from floridaweekly.com.
American Cancer Society and Baptist Health Announce Partnership to Expand Cancer Screening Efforts
September 30, 2026 — The American Cancer Society (ACS) is expanding its efforts to improve access to cancer screening and early detection in Southeast Florida through an exclusive partnership with Baptist Health. This effort focuses on breaking down barriers to screening, raising awareness about prevention, and helping more people access recommended cancer screening tests. “This […]
Aboriginal historian Barry Corr vividly investigates colonisation – but is less convincing on politics
What right did settler society have to intervene in Aboriginal life? The humanitarian tradition has no adequate answers, says Barry Corr.
Why science’s contract with society needs citizens as research partners
Engage citizens as research partners to rebuild trust, broaden impact, and steer science toward society’s diverse needs.
Driving Community Health: Bristol Myers Squibb, Emirates Thalassemia Society and Dubai Science Park Host the 6th 'Help Save a Life' Blood Donation Drive
/PRNewswire/ -- For patients living with chronic blood disorders, access to safe and reliable blood supplies is fundamental to their care journey. Marking the...
Nebraska Humane Society: Do dogs really feel guilty? Science says maybe not
Dogs that appear guilty after chewing a shoe or having an accident on the carpet may not actually feel guilt, according to research on dog cognition.
Israel’s election is a choice between sanity and political survival
A sane government does not demonize an entire sector of society. It brings it in – into the army or national service, the workforce and shared responsibility – on equal terms.
Shop These Businesses for Down Syndrome Awareness Month
October is Down Syndrome Awareness month so TODAY’s Ally Love is spotlighting six incredible small businesses from the National Down Syndrome Society all founded by entrepreneurs who have Down syndrome, including The Jam Man Sweet Heat Jam, Two Fresh Brothers and more. See all their creations!
Leading life science organizations collaborate for second London Bio-Innovation Week
One Nucleus, The Society for Laboratory Automation and Screening (SLAS), and ELRIG today announced that they will be collaborating during the second London Bio-Innovation Week, to facilitate multi-event and community networking and partnering opportunities for life science companies, academic researchers, bio-entrepreneurs, investors and advisers.
An MIT-Trained Engineer Spent 5 Years Using Science to Rethink How We Smell
Jasmina Aganovic is using science to rethink personal scent, turning biology and tech into a beauty product with Future Society’s Base Scent.
ASU-Beebe Pharmacy Tech Science Program
BEEBE — Arkansas State University-Beebe is proud to announce that its Pharmacy Technician Science Program and Janet McGregor Liles, director and advanced instructor of the Pharmacy Technician Science Program and director of allied health, have recently received awards from the American Society of He
Man’s Clever Trick After Realizing His Job Interviewer Was AI Sparks Fears For Humanity’s Future
As more and more companies replace their interviewers with AI, a frustrated comedian went viral by bringing his own “AI representative” to the meeting. Curiosities, Funny, Science & Technology, Social Issues, Society
BUSINESS UPDATE: All About Cannabis
SUNY Oswego’s cannabis studies prepares for growing business opportunities By Mary Beth Roach [caption id=attachment_11114 align=alignright width=383] Marthinus (Martin) Koen is associate professor of criminal justice and cannabis studies at SUNY Oswego. He and the chair of the SUNY Oswego’s Criminal Justice Department, Roger Guy, created the program.[/caption] As the cannabis industry in New York state continues to grow, so do the business opportunities. New York’s legal cannabis market is projected to hit $3 billion in annual sales this year and more than 600 licensed dispensaries are operating across the state, according to budpedia.com. It’s estimated that New York will add about 16,160 new cannabis jobs in 2026, according to the 2026 U.S. Cannabis Jobs Report. SUNY Oswego, realizing the potential, now offers two programs to acquaint both matriculated and non matriculated students with aspects of this multi-billion-dollar business. Its cannabis studies microcredential came out last year and a minor was introduced this fall. The microcredential allows traditional students to add electives to their degree. Students who are not enrolled in the college can sign up to take classes to learn more about the field, growing the crop and managing or opening a dispensary, according to Marthinus (Martin) Koen, associate professor of criminal justice and cannabis studies at SUNY Oswego. The classes are designed to give those who wish to pursue business opportunities in the field a much broader understanding of cannabis and a more overall perspective of the various aspects of running a business, such as supply chain management, customer service and best practices. “When you’re trying to market it, when you’re trying to make sales, you’re understanding will be a lot more vast and nuanced,” he said. “The last 10 years especially, the hard science on cannabis increased and we have a lot more nuanced understanding right now that hasn’t yet permeated the pop culture,” he added. Koen’s team is also hoping to develop an independent study class that will help somebody who wants to apply for a license. That the classes fill up quickly should come as no surprise. “I think there’s a lot of people who are excited about it because it’s a new industry,” he said and they see an opportunity to make some money. Matriculated students may look at it as fun to learn about and stack on top of their existing major or minor. According to the college’s website, students interested in a microcredential would take cannabis law and policy and cultivation of cannabis, along with two other electives. For the first elective they could select either the economics of cannabis or manufacturing, distribution, and logistics of cannabis; and the second elective would be either cannabis science, analysis, and well-being or cannabis and society. The idea for a microcredential in cannabis studies at SUNY Oswego began in 2023, Koen said, as SUNY statewide was advocating for these types of initiatives. Koen and the chair of the SUNY Oswego’s Criminal Justice Department, Roger Guy, began brainstorming on ideas. Catching their attention was the legalization of full recreational marijuana use in New York state in 2021 and the problem-riddled rollout of the state’s Office of Cannabis Management. Guy and Koen created a Criminal Justice Elective called CRJ 420, called cannabis and society, to see if there was any interest. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that there was interest —a lot of it. Further discussions led to the microcredential, cannabis studies, which incorporated science, business and anthropological perspectives, Koen said. They were allowed to create their own prefixes for the classes, such as CAN 310; CAN 320; and CAN 420. Yes, the 420 was intentional — it’s a slang term and symbol used to refer to cannabis consumption and counterculture — but it’s also meant to reflect that the course, being on the 400 level, is “very academically involved,” Koen explained. The term 420 was coined in 1971 by a group of California high school students as a secret code to meet at 4:20 p.m. at a campus landmark to search for an abandoned cannabis crop nearby. The phrase has evolved, to say the least. It is now associated with cannabis use worldwide. For more information, visit ww1.oswego.edu/academics/microcredentials/cannabis-studies.
International Coalition Endorses Kyoto Vision For A Golden Age Of Science
An international coalition of 17 countries have endorsed the Kyoto Vision for a Golden Age of Science. A joint declaration issued at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Science and Technology in Society Forum held in Kyoto, reflects a shared ambition to renew and strengthen our science ecosystems and usher in a golden age of discovery and prosperity.
Ordinary Elephant Plays Oct. 2 At York Street
LYNDON — The Upright Steeple Society in partnership with Catamount Arts is thrilled to welcome mesmerizing folk duo Ordinary Elephant to York Street Meeting House in Lyndon this Friday, October
Libertarianism Is Equality of Permission
“Without shared standards of right and wrong, it’s impossible to settle disputes; it’s impossible to maintain social cohesion and trust. Every healthy society rests on some shared conception of the sacred.”
Wednesday, October 21st: BestReviews: Kitchen Essentials, Humane Society of Eastern Carolina, Entertainment Report, Remarkable Women: Thistle Farms
Eastern Lifestyle
Healthy lifestyle choices may help lower breast cancer risk
The American Cancer Society estimates that 85% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have no family history of the disease, underscoring the importance of understanding risk factors beyond genetics.
Good science requires much more than evidence
Empiricists believe that scientific theories are true only if they make correct empirical predictions: if we can't verify these predictions, then there is no reason to expect that they tell us anything about reality. However, Professor of Philosophy at King's College David Kyle Johnson argues that this is mistaken. In response to Bas van Fraassen, who has written on this subject for the IAI, he argues that we have many reasons for believing a theory to be true, such as it being parsimonious and having large scope — qualities which have been used throughout the history of science as criteria for judging theories. In 2024, Princeton philosopher Bas van Fraassen wrote a short article for IAI News entitled “Science Does not Describe Reality: The Limits and Benefits of Explanation.” At the time, I was working on two projects (a science book and a Great Course) that, when completed, would (among other things) defend science’s ability to describe reality. I wanted to write a response to van Fraassen, but the projects demanded too much of my attention. But now that those projects are complete, I am in a position to explain the objections to van Fraassen’s thesis. Summarizing van Fraassen’s argumentIn a nutshell, his argument is this: What scientists do is make predictions based on theories and then invite others to test to see whether those predictions are borne out. “If theory T is right, result R should happen in experimental condition C.” Many think that running an experiment that shows that R happens in condition C is proof that theory T is true (and should be believed). But, van Fraassen argues, that R happened in condition C is only a reason to think that R happens in condition C. That’s the only observable, or empirical, result we can actually see, so that is all that we are really justified in believing. (The underlying theory that made that prediction still may or may not be true.) That is why he calls those who accept his position “empiricists.”Before I explain what is wrong with this position, let me explain what it gets right. What van Fraassen Gets RightFirst, a theory correctly predicting the results of an experiment is not, strictly speaking, “proof” that the theory is correct. The basic line of reasoning is this:If the theory T is true, result R should happen. Result R did happen. Thus, theory T is true.In other words:“If T then R. R. Thus, T.”This is a deductively invalid, fallacious mode of reasoning, called “affirming the consequent.” Those premises do not guarantee that the conclusion follows. “If I am in Pennsylvania, then I am in the USA. I am in the USA. Thus, I am in Pennsylvania.” Clearly that argument doesn’t guarantee its conclusion; neither does the above argument.However, science is not a deductive method of reasoning; it is an inductive one. And inductive arguments merely try to raise the probability of their conclusion, not “prove” them for certain. Thus, the fact that an experimental result doesn’t prove a theory is true is irrelevant; it’s not supposed to. That is not what scientific reasoning is about.___If the hypothesis that something exists clearly provides the best explanation for what we can observe, then the belief that it exists is what is rational.___Second, it’s also true that a single experimental result doesn’t provide enough justification to believe that a theory is true. Scientists do not come to a consensus about whether a theory is true by looking at a single experiment; they look at all the evidence to determine where the preponderance of evidence points. The mere fact that I am in the USA raises the probability that I am in Pennsylvania, but not nearly enough to conclude that I am in Pennsylvania. However, if I am also regularly encountering people wearing Eagles and Phillies hats and seeing advertisements for Founding Father tours, I probably am. In the same way, a theory successfully predicting the outcome of one experiment is not enough to conclude that it is true; but if a theory makes a wide variety of predictions that are all vindicated by multiple experiments, performed by many different groups and people, all actively trying to prove the theory false (which is what good scientific experiments are designed to do)—that is a good reason to conclude that the theory is true. In other words, if you repeatedly try to prove something false but can’t, that is a very good indication that it isn’t. The problem of underdeterminationIn reply, those whom van Fraassen calls “empiricists” often point to the “problem of underdetermination.” For any given theory that makes successful predictions about what happens in experimental conditions, there are countless other possible theories that make exactly the same predictions—and since they do, the experimental evidence in question is just as much reason to accept any of those theories as it is to accept our original one. Thus, the argument goes, we have no way of knowing whether our original theory is true, or one of the other “predictively equivalent” theories is true. SUGGESTED VIEWING How Occam's Razor changed the world With Johnjoe McFadden As an example of underdetermination, philosophers often offer this example. The evidence of fossils seems to provide reason to conclude that the universe is quite old; ancient fossils are what the “ancient universe” hypothesis predicts. But it’s also possible that God created an ancient-looking universe 200 years ago, complete with a “fake” fossil record for us to find, to make it look old. The existence of fossils is what that theory predicts too. So, the argument goes, the fossil record can’t be used as evidence that the universe is ancient; the fossil record supports the “200-year-old ancient-looking universe” theory just as much. The problem of underdetermination points out that, for any theory with supporting evidence, we could invent another completely different theory that predicts exactly the same evidence, and thus undermine that evidence’s ability to support the original theory.But this “argument from underdetermination” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what scientific reasoning is and how it works. To explain, let me use another rather strange (but very real and commonly discussed) philosophical thought experiment called “The Grue Problem.” The “Grue” ProblemSuppose I want to know what color emeralds are, so I observe a few, see that they all appear green, and form the theory that “all emeralds are green.” I thus predict that the next 100 emeralds I find will also appear to be green. And let’s say that happens, and so I thus conclude that my theory that all emeralds are green is true. Now, one might rightly point out that I don’t know for sure that all emeralds are green—I have not seen them all. Maybe some I haven’t found yet are blue. Fair enough. After all, we used to think that all swans were white, until we found some black ones. But let’s say that I go on a quest and collect every emerald in the universe—and, for the sake of the argument, let’s say I can do this, and can even know that I have every one of them. So, I collect them all, look at them all, and verify that they all appear green. Can’t I now rightly conclude that all emeralds are green?Inspired by the problem of underdetermination, a friend might argue that I cannot.Sure, they all appear green now—but there could be another kind of color called “grue.” Something is grue if it is green up to a certain point in time, but then spontaneously turns blue. And there could be an infinite number of “shades” of grue. Something that is one shade of grue will turn blue at noon today, but something that is another shade of grue will turn blue at noon tomorrow, etc. So yes, the emeralds appear green now; and since they haven’t turned blue yet, they are not some “past” shade of grue. But they might be some “future” shade of grue (e.g., they may turn blue at noon tomorrow). And since all future shades of grue are consistent with “being green up to this point in time,” the evidence you have is completely consistent with the notion that all emeralds are some future shade of grue, rather than green. Indeed, that they would appear green until now is what the “some future shade of grue” hypothesis predicts. So, we have just as much reason to conclude that all emeralds are some shade of grue as we do to conclude that they are green.You’re probably thinking “It’s not equally possible that the emeralds are grue; they are obviously green.” You are right! But explaining why your instinctive reaction to my friend’s argument is correct will help inform why van Fraassen’s “empiricist” is wrong and science actually does describe reality.The main mistake my friend makes is in thinking that the “empirical evidence” (of all the emeralds appearing green) is (or even should be) all I am using to draw the conclusion that all emeralds are green. It is not. I am also considering known facts about how colors typically work; things don’t usually change color, and when they do, they don’t do so suddenly, without cause, and all at once. So, even though the simple evidence of the emeralds all appearing green up to this point is consistent with them being some future shade of grue—that is even what the grue hypothesis “predicts”—it is still exceedingly unlikely that they are. The hypothesis that they are green is much more likely. Understanding science refutes the problem of underdetermination The misunderstanding about science that the “empiricist” pointing to “the problem of underdetermination” makes is similar to the one that my friend made. Science is not just about considering experimental evidence; in fact, it’s not even just about considering empirical evidence. As Ernan McMullin and many other philosophers of science have pointed out, the inference that makes science is “inference to the best explanation” (sometimes called “abduction” or “retroduction” by McMullin). While, depending on the circumstances, scientists use many different kinds of reasoning, science as a whole is, simply put, the process of considering multiple competing explanations and comparing them to certain criteria—explanatory criteria (the kinds of things explanations must be and do, by definition, to be a good explanation)—to see which explanation is the best.And these criteria do not deal only with empirical results. Yes, successful predictions raise the probability of a hypothesis, but it’s also the case that the more new assumptions a theory makes, the less likely it is to be true; every new assumption presents an opportunity for the theory to be false. (The fewer assumptions a theory makes, the simpler or “more parsimonious” it is said to be.) Likewise, the more existing evidence a theory contradicts, the less likely it is, because in order for a theory to be true, every piece of evidence it contradicts has to be somehow faulty. (The fewer established theories a new theory contradicts, the more “conservative” it is said to be.) And, obviously, the more something explains, the better explanation it is. (This is called having “scope.”) If a theory raises unanswerable questions, it’s not expanding our understanding, and thus is not wide-scoping. Scientists consider all these things when deciding which theory to accept, because the theory that adheres best to these explanatory criteria is most likely to be true.___the mere fact that a theory’s predictive success is why it “sticks around” or “becomes accepted” in the scientific community is not a reason to be skeptical about its truth.___The reason the grue hypothesis is no good is because it invents an entirely new kind of color—not just a new shade, but an entirely different category of color (a different way colors work)—and thus is not parsimonious. It raises unanswerable questions about how and why emeralds would just spontaneously change from green to blue (and thus does not have wide scope). And it contradicts what is already well established about how color works (and thus is unconservative).The theories that the problem of underdetermination points to do the same thing. Yes, the theory that God created an “ancient-looking universe” (complete with an ancient-looking fossil record) two hundred years ago is also consistent with the empirical evidence (of a fossil record) that presently exists; but that theory is monumentally unparsimonious (it requires many extra assumptions about infinite entities) and not wide-scoping (it raises unanswerable questions about why God would do such a thing). So, I can rationally conclude that it is false.Indeed, the history of science includes many examples of theories that were rejected because they lacked parsimony and/or scope, even before their falsity (and the truth of their competing theory) was confirmed by observation. As I point out in my book, geocentrism was rejected by the scientific community because it lacked parsimony, almost 200 years before the observation of parallax confirmed that the Earth moves around the sun. And the continuum theory of matter was completely rejected by 1860, because it couldn’t explain chemical reactions or organize matter into a periodic table, even though the experiments that eventually confirmed atomic theory weren’t even proposed until the 1870s. Solving the best of a bad lot problemIn response, the “empiricists” are likely to object, this time pointing to the “best of a bad lot” problem. “We have no reason to conclude that an explanation that has been shown to be better than others is true because we have no guarantee that the true theory was among those that we were considering.” If you have a “lot” (a collection) of poor explanations, even the best one is not true.The responses to this problem, however, are numerous. Peter Lipton argues that the set of hypotheses that scientists consider are not just randomly selected and thus unlikely to contain a theory that is true; they use existing knowledge to home in on what is most likely to be true. A doctor trying to explain abdominal pain is not going to bother wondering whether demons are causing it; they are going to stick with things like appendicitis and kidney stones, because they are most likely. Further, despite its name, inference to the best explanation is not just the process of comparing hypotheses and accepting the best one; we also want one that is a good explanation in its own right. If it’s not, we are going to keep looking until we find an explanation that is. And while that process does not guarantee that we will come across the exact truth, it’s very likely that the theory that emerges as the best will be at least approximately true, and thus we will be justified in believing it. And lastly, as I point out in my book, although many theories not based in scientific evidence (like geocentrism and continuum theory) have been completely overturned, science almost always progresses by the refinement of scientifically established theories—not their replacement. (Although our sun is not the center of the universe, heliocentrism was our first step in understanding the Earth’s true place in the universe.) So even if a theory we accept today may not be completely right, accepting it is a step on the journey toward the complete truth. The example of atomic theoryNow, it’s worth pointing out that most empiricists are not skeptical of all scientific theories; they are only skeptical of the ones that hypothesize the existence of “unobservables.” It’s not like they think that round Earth, heliocentrism, and germ theory are just useful (but untrue) “instruments” for making predictions about how to most efficiently navigate the seas, predict planetary motion, and treat diseases. They admit that the Earth actually is round, that the planets revolve around the sun, and that germs exist and cause disease. These facts and entities can be observed; the theories that suggest they exist are true. It’s only when theories start hypothesizing the existence of unobservables—like electrons, or quantum fields—that can’t be observed directly, that we should start doubting the theories’ truth. And to be fair to van Fraassen, in this published work, he doesn’t really say that we should doubt the truth of such theories. Only that scientific reasoning does not rationally force us to accept them as true. Skepticism, or agnosticism, he argues, is warranted. SUGGESTED READING Science is based in metaphor By Andrew Reynolds But the history of atomic theory throws a monkey wrench into that argument. Atoms used to be unobservable; again, scientists first accepted the theory that they exist because it had such grandiose explanatory power. But then atoms were seen with electron microscopes. They thus moved into the category of the observable. But this didn’t substantially change anything about what scientists were justified in believing; it certainly didn’t change any “atomic skeptics’” minds. It just confirmed what everyone already knew! If the hypothesis that something exists clearly provides the best explanation for what we can observe, then the belief that it exists is what is rational. The fact that the thing itself is not technically observable does not make doubting its existence rational.What’s more, the atoms were seen with an electron microscope. But electrons are themselves unobservable. How can an electron microscope reveal an atom if electrons are not real? This leads us to what is famously known as Hilary Putnam’s “miracle argument.” It’s (not) a miraclePhilosopher Hilary Putnam’s miracle argument is somewhat famous. Basically, he argued that a scientific theory being able to repeatedly make successful predictions—even about unobservables—without being at least approximately true would require a “miracle.” In other words, it would be such an improbable occurrence that it could not rationally be believed—the better explanation for why scientific theories about unobservables make the right predictions is because the unobservable entities and structures they hypothesize exist.Van Fraassen has addressed this argument. Indeed, in his original article, where he references Alison Gopnik’s point about orgasms not being “necessary for procreation” even though the desire for orgasm “drives the creation of progeny,” he is pointing to his own argument about how organisms are not naturally selected by evolution to get true beliefs; to the extent that belief-forming processes are selected for, the ones that are selected are the ones that are useful for survival—not the ones that produce true beliefs. In the same way, van Fraassen argues, scientific theories are accepted, not because they are true, but because they aren’t falsified; they make successful predictions; that’s what makes them “stick around.” So, the fact that they make successful predictions (and thus became accepted) is not a reason to think they are true.This argument is similar to C. S. Lewis’s “argument from reason,” which he used to argue against evolution: “The truth of evolution undercuts our ability to know that it is true.” Lewis’ argument famously failed; Elizabeth Anscombe, by Lewis’s own admission, demolished Lewis in a debate on the topic, and I have explained elsewhere why modified versions of the argument fail as well. In short, it’s because it fails to recognize that a belief-forming process can make an organism more likely to survive because it reliably produces true beliefs. It is therefore not the case that beliefs generated by naturally selected belief-forming processes are automatically false or unjustified.In the same way, the reason a theory “sticks around” could be because it’s not falsified, because it “makes correct predictions.” But the reason it makes correct predictions is most likely because it is true. (In pointing this out, I am echoing the arguments of Musgrave, Lipton, Psillos, and Kitcher, who refuted van Fraassen’s argument and analogy long before his 2024 article.) It would be a huge coincidence that it could do so without being true. And that is the point of Putnam’s miracle argument. Thus, contrary to van Fraassen’s suggestion, the mere fact that a theory’s predictive success is why it “sticks around” or “becomes accepted” in the scientific community is not a reason to be skeptical about its truth. ConclusionLet me close by saying something about the fact that empiricists don’t doubt the truth of all scientific theories, just the ones that hypothesize unobservables. In today’s society, this theory is dangerous to espouse publicly. The nuance between being skeptical about all of science, and just the highly technical theories about unobservables, is guaranteed to be lost to the average reader. And there is so much unjustified skepticism and doubt about the findings of science and experts that a headline like “Science Does Not Describe Reality” could easily fuel the anti-science movement, worsen climate change denial and cause the next pandemic.This is why I believe it was important to still respond to van Fraassen’s article, a full two years after he wrote it. Not only, as I have argued, does it represent a philosophically inaccurate view of how scientific reasoning works and what scientific reasoning can do, but it is a dangerous view to boot. It should thus be rejected.
Darcy Burbage։ Does ePRO Implementation Require More Oncology Nursing Society?
Darcy Burbage։ Does ePRO Implementation Require More Oncology Nursing Society? / ASCOQLTY26, cancer, Darcy Burbage, electronic patient-reported outcomes,
A new study finds increasing rates of heart failure in young Americans
Death by heart failure is becoming more common in Americans under 65 years old, according to a recent study from the Heart Failure Society of America.
Politics, Philosophy and Economic Society discusses ethics of physician-assisted suicide
Members of UCF’s Politics, Philosophy and Economics Society packed into Classroom Building 1 on Thursday night to debate the ethics of physician-assisted suicide being available to patients whose deep depression
Coffins receive 2026 United Way Tocqueville Society Award
Don and Mary Coffin have received the United Way of Central Iowa’s 2026 Tocqueville Society Award, recognizing individuals whose sustained leadership, philanthropic commitment and service have created lasting impact across Central Iowa. For more than 20 years, the Coffins have been longtime advocates of United Way supporting the organization through campaign leadership, volunteer service, board…
ELRIG and The Protein Society announce keynote speakers for Protein Sciences in Drug Discovery 2026
ELRIG, a not-for-profit, volunteer-led organization dedicated to the global drug discovery community, and The Protein Society, an international, not-for-profit, scholarly society, with the mission to provide forums for the advancement of research into protein structure, function, design and applications, today announced the keynote speakers for Protein Sciences in Drug Discovery 2026.
Chiquita Gives Iconic Mascot a Voice in Annual Breast Health Campaign
In partnership with the American Cancer Society, the global banana brand replaces its iconic blue sticker with pink throughout October while bringing its ambassador to life for the first time.
Brazil: Lessons from a Disaster
By Antonio Martins (Outras Palavras) Defeats become deeper and more prolonged when we misunderstand what caused them, avoid correcting course, and embrace “solutions” that only compound our mistakes. Lula’s government and the Brazilian left suffered a disaster in Sunday’s election. Contrary to every poll, the president finished the first round 2.2 million votes behind Flávio Bolsonaro—and, more significantly, 3.4 million votes below his total four years ago, when the machinery of the state was working against him and in favor of his opponent. His vote share declined in 98 percent of Brazil’s municipalities. The PL, the main party of the far right, elected 121 deputies and 28 senators, becoming the largest caucus in both houses of Congress. The parties aligned with the Centrão—Brazil’s bloc of transactional center-right parties—were somewhat diminished, but will still hold roughly 250 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 35 in the Senate. That will make it easier to assemble the majorities needed to amend the Constitution or impeach Supreme Federal Court justices. If elected, Flávio Bolsonaro could appoint four members of the Court, substantially altering its internal balance of power. What produced these results? How can the far right be prevented from consolidating them into a prolonged political hegemony? And what is the essential change of direction the left now needs? Explaining the Disaster Across the commercial media and the exuberant chaos of digital platforms, interpretations are multiplying. Some focus on specific episodes: Lula’s absence from the Globo debate, his very close relationship with Alexandre de Moraes, or his emphasis on issues supposedly remote from most people’s everyday concerns, such as rare earth minerals. Among the more systemic interpretations, three seem especially questionable. One argues that the principal defeat was not the left’s, since its congressional representation declined only slightly. The decisive movement captured at the ballot box, according to this view, was a shift within the right itself—from the more moderate and transactional forces of the Centrão toward the more ideological and radicalized forces of the PL and Novo. A second interpretation holds that the nature of electoral and political processes has changed. The material interests and aspirations of society, it argues, no longer play the central role they once did; they have given way to forms of subjective self-identification that the left has yet to understand. And a third concludes that, because of these two developments, we should expect a political winter: a prolonged period in which the far right and the broader right dominate Brazilian political life. There are important elements in all three interpretations. The problem lies in what they deny or leave out: Lula’s third government was a small-bore government. It offered the majorities that elected it neither a clearly better life nor reasons to believe again in politics and its power to transform society. These failures flowed from two fatal accommodations, which I will examine below. As a result, the government suffered a slow but steady erosion of support. And, as has happened in so many Western countries, it gave the far right the opportunity to present itself as anti-system and to benefit from popular frustration and distress. The interpretation that emphasizes the migration of votes from the center-right and traditional right toward the far right has been advanced, among others, by the courageous journalist Leonardo Sakamoto. In his UOL column on Monday, October 5, he highlights the miserable behavior of the traditional conservative parties. Over the past four years, they repeatedly joined forces with the “neo”-fascists, helping to “normalize” them—a criticism that could equally be directed at almost the entire corporate media. Believing they could use the far right as a stepping stone, they instead ended up partly devoured by it. This was especially true in the Senate, where the PL’s gain of 13 senators and Novo’s gain of two came at the expense of the PSD, which lost nine; the MDB, which lost two; the PSDB, which lost two; and the PP, which lost one. Sakamoto’s observation is accurate and necessary, but it leaves uncomfortable questions unanswered. Why did the erosion of the Centrão benefit the far right rather than, for example, producing growth for the left—as has happened so many times before, both in Brazil and elsewhere? The answer is not difficult. Throughout its four years in office, Lula’s third government was almost invariably associated with the Centrão. Here lies its first accommodation: accepting the limits imposed by conservative institutions; avoiding, as much as possible, any attempt to strain those limits through popular pressure; and believing only in the modest changes that could be squeezed through openings in Congress. The failure of the campaign to end the six-day workweek is emblematic. Lula could have electrified the presidential race by pairing it with a popular campaign for passage of the measure. Instead, he chose to place his hopes in the hands of Senate president Rodrigo Alcolumbre. He generated no mass mobilization, did not force his opponents onto an uncomfortable defensive, and won no victory. In September 2025, the government squandered the greatest of its many opportunities to shake up conservative power in Congress. Popular opposition to the so-called Shielding Amendment—which, if approved, would have restricted criminal proceedings against members of Congress—brought crowds into the streets, mobilized primarily by artists and social movements. This opened the possibility for a broader political education: a campaign that could begin exposing the limits and dysfunctions of Brazil’s political system while putting Bolsonaro’s movement on the defensive for its predictable support of political privilege. The amendment was defeated. But the executive branch then backed away from the fight. It remained associated with an institutional world widely seen as corrupt, elitist, and indifferent to ordinary people’s struggles. In doing so, it forfeited its credibility as a vehicle for the protest vote. On Sunday, it reaped the bitter fruits. Are We Doomed? Taking a different approach from Sakamoto, the philosopher Moysés Pinto Neto and other writers have drawn attention, in their first analyses of October 4, to the fragmentation of the public sphere produced by Big Tech platforms. Through their algorithms, these platforms present each person with a different view of social reality. As a consequence, it becomes much harder to identify common material problems and demands—for example, the fight for labor rights or for a properly funded public health system. Voters no longer embrace such demands, these authors argue, because they no longer see themselves as part of a collective. Instead, they tend to value the identities assigned to them by neoliberal subjectivity—the role of the entrepreneur, for example. On this interpretation, the left’s possible error lies in clinging to outdated illusions. Moysés’s warning is highly relevant and resonates with arguments such as Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor’s “Apocalyptic Fascism and the Billionaires’ Bet.” Unlike a century ago, the far right no longer promises a radiant future. It concentrates instead on resentment—especially that of young men. “They belong to a generation that fears it may never own a home, but compensates with the pleasure it gets from constantly provoking progressives online. Convinced their future has been stolen, they share memes romanticizing historical authoritarian regimes,” the authors write. But Moysés seems to confuse this danger with inevitability. He fails to see that the left’s answer cannot be adaptation. On the contrary, it must strengthen the possibility of politics as collective action. Nor does he recognize that precisely such a reversal is already becoming possible in some of the most promising mobilizations of the twenty-first century: the election, at the end of 2025, of the young Muslim Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York, on a platform centered on the intensely material fight for an affordable city; the Left Party’s victory in Berlin two weeks ago, built around the demand to expropriate private real-estate corporations; and the very recent wave of demonstrations in Spain—including an occupation of Madrid’s Puerta del Sol—in which tens of thousands of young people mobilized by the Tenants’ Union have demanded limits on rents. By putting itself in the straitjacket of the “fiscal framework” in the first months of 2022, Lula’s third government adopted the second fatal accommodation of its term. Faced with conservative institutions and a country devastated by four years of Bolsonaro, increased public investment was the government’s remaining weapon for offering a more dignified life to the majority and forging an anti-conservative pact with them. The same state that disburses 1 trillion reais a year to enrich a small class of rentiers could instead spend money to extend the Family Health Strategy to every Brazilian, at a cost of 30 billion reais; provide full-day public schooling and childcare to all adolescents and children—and, especially, relief to their mothers; achieve universal sanitation while cleaning up polluted urban rivers; multiply metro systems; begin transforming the urban peripheries; and undertake many other urgently needed projects. In April 2023, an article in Outras Palavras warned that the fiscal framework could “shrink the Lula government and preserve the forces that condemn the country to inequality and regression.” A year later, another article showed that restraints on public spending were strangling policies vital to ordinary people and undermining the president’s popularity. In November 2024 came a reality check, in the form of the government’s humiliating defeat in the municipal elections. Even then, the fiscal lock was neither removed nor loosened. On the contrary: throughout the government’s four years, fiscal restraint remained central to its political narrative. The administration proudly proclaimed that it had “put the state’s accounts in order,” without grasping either how misleading that phrase was—given the payment of 1 trillion reais in interest—or how badly the message was hurting it politically. Lula finally woke up in September 2026. The increase in Bolsa Família benefits, after four years of being frozen; the announcement that anti-obesity drugs would be offered through Brazil’s public health system; and the ban on online betting showed that the state has the power to act decisively on behalf of the majority when those in government are willing to confront obstacles. The huge marches that closed the campaign in Fortaleza, Salvador, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo on the eve of October 4 showed how such initiatives can mobilize activists and the broader public. But it was too late—and too little to change the outcome of the first round. History has not ended The possibility of a turnaround in the three weeks leading up to November 25 cannot be ruled out. It will not be simple or easy. Lula must not only make up a deficit of 2.2 million votes; he must also offset the movement of voters who backed other right-wing candidates in the first round, most of whom are likely to move toward Flávio Bolsonaro. Pulling that off will require a broad, grassroots effort to win over voters, potentially reinforced by new initiatives from Lula. The coming hours and days will be decisive. If Bolsonaro’s movement also wins the presidency, the result will create a high-risk situation for Brazilian sovereignty and democracy. The enormous challenges posed by such an outcome would require the left to reexamine, in depth and with a genuine willingness to engage in self-criticism, its political projects—or its lack of them—and its practices. But would that mean we are condemned to the long winter of far-right hegemony that some analyses are beginning to forecast? It is far too early to say, suggests a recent text by Álvaro García Linera, the thinker who served as vice president of Bolivia under Evo Morales. His central hypothesis is that this political current will prove short-lived. At a moment when the entire world is once again talking about sovereignty and protecting national economies, the far right offers a stale, recolonizing neoliberalism. Its submission to the United States is as blatant and pathetic as Flávio and Eduardo Bolsonaro’s overtures to Donald Trump. Its project amounts to something like every man for himself: greater inequality, capitalism without limits, devastation, and supremacism. Will it work? In the United States, just two years into his second term, Trump himself is reaching record levels of unpopularity and may be on the verge of losing Republican control of both the House and Senate in November. Every new beginning is difficult. Whatever the outcome of the second round, the defeats of October 4 show how profoundly the Brazilian left will have to rethink and rebuild. But just as it would be foolish to underestimate the seriousness of its mistakes, it would be equally foolish to conclude that rebuilding a political project is no longer possible. History has not ended. The times are moving faster than ever. Originally published in Portuguese by Outras Palavras. English translation by Eric Blanc; I’ve added the subtitles. More We can’t stop the far right at home or abroad without a revitalized labor movement, which is yet another reason why you should become a sustaining supporter of the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee (EWOC) — one of US labor’s pivotal bright spots. Relatedly, Jacobin published a short piece of mine reflecting on a decade of Bernie Sanders inspiring a whole new generation of young worker organizers.
Violence in France is a consequence of the last decade's political reconfiguration
NEWS ANALYSIS. The violence on the fringes of protests across France on Saturday is the result of the evolution of the political system during Emmanuel Macron's presidency, marked by the rise of radical parties that promote a conflict-driven vision of society and a confrontational approach.
Physical media is here to stay
As society delves deeper into the digital age, physical media separates itself as its own niche. On July 1, PlayStation announced that production of physical video game discs would be discontinued from January 2028. From that point forward, all future releases would be available only digitally in the PlayStation store or retailers. PlayStation claims the...
Researchers warn of growing threats to sleep health across Europe
A new paper from the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committee and the Early Career Network of the European Sleep Research Society warns that sleep health is becoming a growing public health challenge ...
Driving Community Health: Bristol Myers Squibb, Emirates Thalassemia Society and Dubai Science Park Host the 6th 'Help Save a Life' Blood Donation Drive
/PRNewswire/ -- For patients living with chronic blood disorders, access to safe and reliable blood supplies is fundamental to their care journey. Marking the...
American Cancer Society adds Guardant Health's Shield blood test to colorectal cancer screening guideline
'By making colorectal cancer screening more accessible with a blood-based option in conjunction with other established methodologies, we can get people screened.'
Exercise helps Via Christi cancer patients take charge of their health
The American Cancer Society says regular exercise can improve a patient’s quality of life, give them more energy, and help them better deal with the side effects of treatment.