SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Government " 3,088 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Congo says number of confirmed Ebola cases rises to 676
The number of confirmed Ebola cases in Democratic Republic of Congo has increased to 676, including 136 deaths, government data showed on Thursday.
The New Law of Political Prosecutions
Judges have long defaulted to a posture of trust toward the federal government, but under Trump that is changing, and a new set of legal possibilities is emerging.
When policy impedes healthcare, what are the solutions?
Yes, there’s money on the way from the federal government. But communities and healthcare systems are also taking things into their own hands.
Social Security is Facing a Political Crisis
On Tuesday the Social Security Trustees released their latest report on the system’s finances. The numbers didn’t change much: Unless something is done, the Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program, Social Security’s official name, will be unable to pay full benefits starting in either 2032 or 2034, depending on some technical issues. That’s not far away: If the Trustees are right, the prospect of a Social Security crisis will loom over the next presidential administration. It’s important to understand, however, the nature of the looming crisis. It won’t be an economic crisis. It won’t even be a serious fiscal crisis. Whatever you may have heard, Social Security isn’t in danger of going bankrupt. What we’re facing, instead, is potential political crisis. Congress and the White House could easily take action to sustain America’s retirement system. But given the current state of our politics, there’s no guarantee that they will. There is a widespread misunderstanding of how Social Security works. While Social Security was designed to look like a pension fund, it isn’t. A pension fund pays benefits out of a stock of assets it has accumulated over time. In contrast, Social Security operates as a government transfer program, like food stamps or Medicaid. Now, unlike food stamps — but like the highway trust fund — Social Security is on paper supported by a dedicated tax, the payroll tax, that is assigned to that program. But I say “on paper” because from an economic point of view assigning the payroll tax to Social Security is just an accounting convention. What matters for the U.S. economy is the overall balance between government spending and government revenue, not the difference between one type of spending and one source of revenue. So there’s no inherent economic significance to the fact that by 2034 payroll tax receipts will be insufficient to cover promised benefits. There is, however, a legislative issue. As long as the Social Security Administration can pay benefits out of payroll taxes and its cash reserve, there’s no need for Congress to vote each year to authorize benefits — they just keep going out until further notice. However, once those resources become insufficient, benefits will fall —by 17 percent according to the Trustees — unless Congress passes new legislation that “tops up” Social Security’s finances. Yet the current administration and Republican party are such extremists that there is a real risk that Social Security will be held hostage on behalf of their goals. If this should come to pass, the hostage-takers will claim that shoring up Social Security is unaffordable. Right on cue, Mike Johnson, the Trump-sycophant Speaker of the House, declared on Monday that “entitlement programs” like Social Security “have to be adjusted and fixed,” and that Republicans will introduce a plan to that effect next year. But this is a ploy, because while the cost of maintaining Social Security benefits at their promised level isn’t trivial, it is in fact affordable. According to the Trustees’ report, the actuarial balance of OASDI up through 2050 — the amount of additional funds it would need to keep paying full benefits for the next 25 years — is 1.06 percent of GDP. To put that number in perspective, the Trump administration proposes increasing military spending next year by $420 billion, equivalent to about 1.4 percent of GDP – without any discussion of whether that’s affordable Yet how did we get to the point where Social Security will need to be topped up? The main answer is that we have an aging population, with a growing ratio of retirees collecting benefits to workers paying into the system: Trump’s anti-immigration policies are making this problem worse. According to the Trustees’ report, lower immigration will deepen Social Security’s financial hole because many immigrants are working-age adults who will pay into the system for decades before they collect benefits. In fact, this problem may be much bigger than the report acknowledges: The report’s baseline assumption is that we’ll have net immigration of almost 1.2 million people a year, and even the pessimistic case assumes 750,000 a year. Meanwhile actual net immigration has already been cut far below that — and may now be negative. Moreover, Social Security is being financially damaged by growing income inequality in America. Payroll taxes are levied only on wages up to $184,500, and they don’t touch capital income. With the distribution of income increasingly shifting from labor to capital, as well as becoming more unequal among wage-earners, revenue from the Social Security payroll tax has been falling as a share of national income. From 1990 to 2024, it fell from 5.02 percent of gross domestic income to 4.46 percent. Which brings me to the question that, these days, we ask about everything: How might Social Security be affected by the advent of AI? A short answer: If, as many of us fear, AI accelerates rising income inequality, it will further reduce the payroll tax receipts that currently pay for Social Security and further endanger its finances. On the other hand, if AI, as its advocates promise, leads to faster economic growth, it will increase the potential tax base that could and should be used to support Social Security and other social insurance programs. But to take advantage of that larger base, we’ll have to get serious about taxing wealth and capital income. Is Social Security in trouble? Yes, but only because of the way its financing is currently structured — a structure that no longer works well because our society and economy have become so unequal. Moreover, Trump’s immigration policies are further endangering its already deteriorating financial condition. So don’t believe Republicans’ gaslighting that it will be necessary to cut Social Security benefits. All that is necessary to preserve Social Security is political will to raise taxes on the wealthy and a sensible immigration policy. MUSICAL CODA Actually 67 under current law.
OpenAI and Anthropic keep warning about a future they're building
Both Anthropic and OpenAI have released papers warning that frontier models are being deployed before government regulation can catch up.
I'd have vetoed foreign sale of UK tech giant, says Business Secretary
Peter Kyle's comments come as the government sets out how it would back British technology companies.
Federal health care cuts threaten Michigan hospitals. It’s time for Medicare for All.
Community hospitals are there for us at our most vulnerable moments. They’re where our children are born. We rush our loved ones to the local ER, post-stroke, when every second counts. Unfortunately, the federal government has left communities across Michigan at risk of losing that lifesaving care. That’s why working people are joining forces to call for change, and to build a society that puts patients before profits, with Medicare for All.
The UN’s AI Panel Could Shape Global Governance. Can It Balance Science and Politics?
The United Nations’ new Scientific Panel on AI could give governments a shared evidentiary basis for policymaking—but only if it can balance independence, expertise, and political legitimacy.
The UN’s AI Panel Could Shape Global Governance. Can It Balance Science and Politics?
The United Nations’ new Scientific Panel on AI could give governments a shared evidentiary basis for policymaking—but only if it can balance independence, expertise, and political legitimacy.
How Much Should Governments Invest in Sports? Soccer Offers a Test Case.
The growth of soccer in the United States reflects decades of public-sector involvement, raising broader questions about sports-related economic development.
Leftward Progressives
As their name suggests, Leftward Progressives hold progressive views across nearly every issue area. Deeply supportive of expanding government services and the social safety net, they overwhelmingly support legal abortion and rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. This majority White group is deeply concerned about racial and ethnic discrimination in U.S. society. Leftward […]
Order and Opportunity Left
Order and Opportunity Left are the largest group in the political typology, making up 18% of the American public. They generally support a larger federal government with more services and are critical of some aspects of the economic system. But they couple this with a greater sense of economic individualism than the typology groups more […]
Pragmatic and Polite Right
Pragmatic and Polite Right hold a mix of conservative, moderate and somewhat liberal issue positions: They skew more conservative on economics and the role of government, while tilting more liberal on issues related to race and in their orientation to the rest of the world. They are also moderate in their style, prizing civility and […]
Congo says number of confirmed Ebola cases rises to 635
The number of confirmed Ebola cases in the Democratic Republic of Congo has increased to 635, including 127 deaths, government data showed on Wednesday.
Kentucky leaders in Des Moines this week for intercity visit
A delegation of more than 150 business, education, government and nonprofit leaders from Commerce Lexington in Lexington, Kentucky, are in Des Moines today through Friday for its annual Leadership Visit, a long-running intercity program aimed at fostering regional development ideas. The agenda includes sessions on regional collaboration, talent development, agricultural innovation, executive leadership continuity and…
New OMB rule could break science in the United States
The drug that saved your mother. The treatment your doctor recommended. The clinical trial that bought someone you love more time. None of it was inevitable. It required a system built to operate outside politics and sustained over decades, because science doesn’t operate on the timeline of a politician. That system is now under direct threat. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a new rule to regulate all federal grants, not just science, but housing, education, defense, NASA and everything in between, that would fundamentally change how research is conducted in the United States. There have been a lot of fires in the past 16 months, and if everything is an emergency, nothing is an emergency. But this is a very big deal. These rules would strip away the independence that has kept science from becoming a political tool. The good news is there’s still something we can all do. How the grant system was designed to work When I was a new faculty member, I was full of millions of ideas, so I sat down and wrote an NIH proposal. I worked on it for months and thought it was so good. Then I sent it to my mentor. It came back covered in comments. Places where my reasoning wasn’t as airtight as I’d thought, methods that could be stronger, gaps in my thinking that I had been too close to the work to see. It stung, as honest feedback always does, but peer review almost always makes the work better. In fact, it’s the backbone of how American science has functioned for generations. At NIH, submitted proposals go to a panel of scientists who have experience in the field. These are the people who can read research methods and spot their weaknesses, who understand when an experiment is designed well and when it isn’t. Applications are scored rigorously, and often only the top 3-20% of proposals receive funding. The people making funding decisions are required to justify them based on these reviews. To be clear: this is not a perfect system, and good science still goes unfunded more often than any of us would like due to limited resources. There is also criticism that peer review may undervalue bold ideas that are risky but could have high payoffs. But the peer review system is nonetheless a meaningful part of the grant selection process. While thoughtful and careful changes could improve the system, the changes being proposed by OMB will not make things better. The rule that could change everything Through this OMB proposal, the system that helps decide what gets funded is being dismantled. There are many troubling elements buried in this proposal, but three provisions stand out in particular. Each would be damaging alone. Together, they would change what kind of science gets done in America, and who it serves. 1. Political appointees would decide which science gets funded, and peer review would be explicitly sidelined or ignored. The guidelines your doctor follows, the standards that determine what’s in your air and water, the drugs that get approved for your family: all of it starts with a funding decision. Right now, that decision is made by scientists who can evaluate whether the work is actually sound and whether it could move the needle forward. Under this proposal, funding decisions could be made by political appointees. The careful, expertise-driven review process that shapes grant funding would be effectively sidelined. That means that a poorly designed study could get funded simply because someone in a political office liked the sound of it, while rigorous, important work doesn’t get funded because it no longer aligns with the administration’s priorities. In other words, critical work that benefits all of us could now be missed just because it has become politically inconvenient. 2. Grants could be canceled at any point, without warning, in the middle of ongoing work. Say your tax dollars have been paying for a cancer study for two years. The grant was awarded for five years, so the team is mid-experiment. There are three additional years’ worth of answers that could change how the disease is treated for hundreds of thousands of people. With this new rule, the federal government could cancel the remaining funding tomorrow, walk away from the commitment it made with your money, and have no legal obligation to finish what it started. This is a huge waste of money. There are rarely other sources of funding for this work, which means the team, the graduate students, postdocs, and research staff who have dedicated years of their careers to this project could lose their jobs. Patients who have contributed their time to studies may not see it turn into useful learnings for others. Every hour of work already completed could result in nothing useful. Science can take decades to get to tangible outcomes. It needs a stable funding system to flourish. 3. Researchers would have a harder time communicating their findings without pre-approval from the federal government. There is a saying from Sir Mark Walport: “Science isn’t finished until it’s communicated.” Science is no use to anyone if it is kept locked away in the labs that produced the data. The proposed rule could make communicating research findings harder in a number of ways: Make it harder for scientists to widely share their findings in scientific journals. Publication costs, including journal fees that allow for broad public access, could not be paid for by federal funds which is often how scientists pay these costs. Restrict researchers from engaging publicly about how their findings should inform policy or public health guidelines. This would restrict scientists from doing the work that transforms years of lab work into decisions that actually affect people’s lives. Make it harder for scientists to attend conferences. Conferences would now need to be approved by the federal agency at the time of grant award. This disadvantages conferences or publications that are not politically aligned. Conferences are a key way in which scientists learn about work happening in their field so they can collaborate and build on each other’s findings. What good is science with a muzzle? The long-term impact These changes could (and hopefully would) be reversed under the next administration. But by then, damage has been done. Once projects are halted or denied funding by political appointees, people leave their science careers for other paths or even leave the country to do their amazing science elsewhere. You cannot pause a scientific study the way you pause a subscription you decided isn’t useful anymore. You cannot freeze a research team that depends on salaries to feed their families, causing a scramble for replacement funding that, in most cases, simply does not exist. When the money stops, everything stops, and all the work in progress and its potential are lost. Despite all of the language about reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, this new proposed rule increases the administrative burden tremendously. Every researcher watching this unfold will make a rational decision: don’t start anything that will take a decade to finish. This includes not building a team around funding that could vanish, or asking the big questions that need patience and stability to answer. The most consequential science, the kind that produces the treatments and the breakthroughs that reach your doctor’s office twenty years from now, is exactly the science that would be abandoned first. This is still a proposal, so we can all do something Some worry this rule is already a done deal. But by law, OMB is required to open a public comment period. Those comments matter because they inform members of Congress, they can be used in litigation, and they create a public record. So here’s what you can do: Submit a public comment. The public comment period on this proposed change is open until July 13. Anyone can submit a comment, and OMB is required to respond to substantial ones. Each comment must be different to count as distinct; identical comments will be counted only once. Comment as an individual, not on behalf of your organization. Here’s a full resource to help you, with useful examples, but in general: Share a story about how science or federal funding has benefitted you or is involved in your work. Are you or someone you loved a cancer survivor? Do you know someone with Alzheimer’s? Have you received NIH/NSF or other federal funding? All of these can be stories you use to highlight why you care. Explain why you’re worried about these proposed changes. You can use the wording found here or in other resources to help you. Ask them to withdraw this proposed rule. Contact your elected representatives. Congress allocates money to federal agencies to spend, and it has oversight of how that process works. You can let your representatives know this proposed change concerns you and ask them to intervene. There are levers they can push that can help at this moment. Let others know why federal funding matters. This isn’t just about science, but ALL federal grants, including for education systems, defense projects, and more. The process, including the importance of federal funding, is invisible to many. We can all make it more visible by sharing how science benefits us and why we value it. You can also share this article, or any of the resources linked here, to help spread awareness! Bottom line We are quickly losing ground in scientific research in the U.S. More changes, like the proposed rule by OMB, would decimate our ability to conduct research here, leaving us all worse off: fewer treatments for pancreatic cancer, less research on pollution impacts, fewer answers for patients with rare disease, and more unaddressed health needs. The impact will be very real for all of us, regardless of where we stand politically. Using our voices for science is more important than ever. Love, LM Big thanks to Dr. Megan Ranney for reading this over and providing brilliant insights, as always. Dr. Liz Marnik, PhD, is Executive Director of The Evidence Collective at YLE and a science communicator and immunologist working at the intersection of public trust, science, and public health. You can find her on Substack, LinkedIn, Instagram and Threads. Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE) comprises a team of experts, ranging from physicians to immunologists to epidemiologists to nutritionists, working together with one goal: to “Translate” ever-evolving public health science so that people are well-equipped to make evidence-based decisions. The YLE suite of newsletters reaches over 475,000 people across more than 132 countries. This newsletter is free to everyone, thanks to the generous support of fellow YLE community members. To support the effort, subscribe or upgrade below: Subscribe
U.K. Needs to Take More Risks to Retain Startups, Business Secretary Says
The government has taken stakes in startups like Kraken, Wayve and Oxford Quantum Circuits in recent weeks, in a bid to prevent them from moving out of the country to look for funding.
Government spying program days from expiring as Congress deadlocks
Congress is struggling to extend a key surveillance law — in part due to privacy concerns and to Trump's pick of Bill Pulte for spy chief.
Despite hot jobs report, small businesses pull back on hiring amid cost concerns
Small business owners appear to be pulling back on hiring plans, despite the government's release of a hotter-than-expected jobs report just days ago.
Searching for health insurance? Keep scrolling to avoid government impersonators
When you search online, do you click the first result you see? You’re not alone. But that habit could cost you — especially if you’re searching for health insurance or government healthcare programs like Medicare.
“Tech-Driven Prosperity & Right-Wing Racist Politics”: Quinn Slobodian on Elon Musk and SpaceX IPO
Ahead of the initial public offering for SpaceX, we speak with historian Quinn Slobodian, author of Muskism: A Guide for the Perplexed. He says Elon Musk is “creating a situation where he becomes deeply reliant on state contracts” as the U.S. government then becomes reliant on Musk. “It’s not about demolishing the government,” Slobodian says of his work with DOGE, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency that Musk led for the Trump administration. “It’s about making the government more compatible, ready for the kind of products that Musk offers, and to make him then an indispensable part of the infrastructure.” Slobodian goes on to warn that Musk’s wealth is helping to fuel his anti-immigrant, racist political ideology. “We really should be worried about the possibility of those things to live together: tech-driven prosperity and right-wing racist politics.”
Questions over Nashville Entertainment Commission as mayor proposes restructuring
The future of Nashville’s Entertainment Commission could soon look different as city leaders consider changes to how the program operates.
Tennessee to report disabled immigrant kids getting public healthcare to ICE, advocates say
Scores of low-income immigrant children living with critical illnesses could soon lose access to life-sustaining medical care after Tennessee officials directed public health departments to verify their immigration status and report to the federal government, according to the Tennessee Justice Center. The Tennessee Department of Health is targeting Children’s Special Services, a last-resort public health […]
History of Science: Why is it important?
“The study of scientific history is vital for modern research, revealing that breakthroughs often stem from continuity rather than isolated revolutions”
Alaskans Reel From the Loss of National Science Foundation Ocean-Monitoring Instruments
In the nation’s fastest-warming state with a multi-billion-dollar fishing industry and storm-threatened coastal communities, scientists say the federal government’s decommission of a deepwater sensor system is ill-timed and wrong-headed.
Alcohol study discarded by Trump officials is published in scientific journal
A government-commissioned study had been meant to inform new dietary guidelines, and found risks associated with even light drinking.
We can create the future of science right now
Paul Litvak is the founder and Executive Director of the Robyn Dawes Institute and a Visiting Scholar at UC Berkeley. He has a PhD in Behavioral Decision Research from Carnegie Mellon where he studied emotions and the sunk cost bias. Over 15 years in industry, he solved a wide range of challenging technical problems. At Meta he created models optimizing the ad review process. At Google he ran experiments to measure social influence. At Airbnb, he was a product manager leading machine learning teams optimizing search ranking and price suggestions. He also co-founded and led product at Rhythmic Health, a venture-backed biosensing startup, creating an accurate low cost system using a color changing strip and a smart phone to measure salivary lactate. The bottleneck At this point, it is uncontroversial to say that science needs to stop using the PDF article as the unit of knowledge and currency. The unbearable slowness of scientific publishing, the profit motive and margins: I’m not saying anything new. The PDF also sucks because it’s hard to extract structured information, which makes it hard to do evidence synthesis. As a result, we do much less evidence synthesis than is needed. And evidence synthesis ultimately undergirds most policy and medical decision-making. I can see second-by-second real-time odds for any sporting or newsworthy event, but a school board can’t see the best evidence on whether their 8th graders should be taught algebra. As a society, we don’t treat this as an important problem. Again, not controversial. Not only is the problem well understood, but the solution has already been laid out. What we need is AI-assisted living evidence synthesis - (1) an open knowledge graph of atomic claims, (2) claims linked to evidence, (3) assessment and synthesis of each piece of evidence, and (4) continuous updating with new data. What few realize (yet) is that the technical capacity to build this vision for a significant portion of science already exists. Not only that, scientists and startup teams are already building many of these components. I know this because I’ve been surveying the space and talking to many of the builders. There are some missing pieces: for example, evaluations of how well some of the components work. But at this point, most of what’s missing is a fully end-to-end working integration of all of these parts. In the rest of this essay, I’m going to lay out all the parts of a working living evidence layer for science and who is working on them, and propose concrete next steps for building this system. What’s now possible The diagram above outlines the components of a living evidence synthesis platform, including some of the teams working on each component1. Scientific PDFs are processed into claims with associated evidence. The evidence is subjected to a forensic audit, methodological evaluation and robustness and reproducibility checks. Finally it’s given a weight in a continuously updating synthesis. What follows is a description and status of each component and a few of the teams working on them. Document understanding The first thing you need to be able to do is turn an article into structured data. Mostly that means parsing PDFs. There are often multicolumn layouts that confuse non-specialized PDF to text processing libraries. For scientific papers, there is the added complexity of parsing formulas and tables and figures. This is a really hot area - there are startups offering APIs, and it seems like a new open source package gets posted to Github every few weeks. What follows isn’t exhaustive. A package called GROBID was the state of the art for a while, they didn’t update their package for nearly two years until very recently. In the meantime reducto.ai released an AI powered PDF extraction API, PaddleOCR became popular, IBM released a model called Docling, and both Mistral and Gemini created models and libraries. I also know of at least one other well-funded psychology research group working on a paper parser. By contrast, there are few open evals in this space, with no extensive evals for complex table comprehension in particular. Nonetheless, I’m confident this will be a solved problem soon, given the combination of LLM advances and developer interest. Hypothesis level extraction There has been increasing interest in comprehending the extracted text of papers and linking information to evidence for each hypothesis. A lot of work has already been done. Trialstreamer (Marshall et al. 2020) and RobotReviewer LIVE (Marshall et al. 2023) demonstrated automated extraction of trial population, intervention, and outcome at scale on clinical RCTs. PaperQA2 (Skarlinski et al. 2024) and Ai2 ScholarQA (2024) extended this to retrieval-augmented question answering with citation grounding. Elicit, Consensus, and SciSpace operationalized claim-level extraction for end users. OpenEval (Booeshaghi et al. 2026) is the most recent and most ambitious: 1.96 million atomic claims extracted from 16,087 eLife manuscripts using Claude Sonnet 4.5, grouped into ~299,000 results, with LLM evaluations showing 81% agreement with human peer review on a 2,487-paper subset. None of these solutions link claims to test-statistics, as you would need to evaluate randomized controlled trials. This is why I built the evidence.guide API - to extract hypotheses and associated test statistics from behavioral science papers. The best public eval of this kind of extraction I’m aware of comes from the recent SCORE project - they had humans code thousands of psychology papers to extract their claims by hand. It would be extremely helpful to the world if all scientific PDFs were available as structured open data. I’ve been working to make this happen, both directly at Berkeley and through coordination with large entities I can’t yet speak of; as hard as it is to do, I think it’s possible2. Forensic audit A lot of work has been done on forensic audit, but some gaps remain. Of course, for biology papers that rely on images for evidence, there are a variety of tools (notably Proofig and ImageTwin) to spot anomalies. These are still well short of what sleuths like Elizabeth Bik can do on her own, but these tools are constant companions among fraud analysts. There’s someone working on auditing Excel files for anomalies, and a number of teams are automating numerical checks like GRIM and SPRITE, including Scrutiny project, the INSPECT-SR team as well as statcheck. The regcheck team is building a way to use AI to compare preregistrations to analyses in papers, to ensure there aren’t significant deviations. Nonetheless, there are many other kinds of anomalies to screen for, both public and less publicly known. And there are no formal evals for anomaly detection that I’m aware of. Still, there’s a lot to draw from in this space and I’m pretty certain we will be able to scan papers for most kinds of obvious anomalies in the near future. Methodological review This area has been white hot, though I fear for many of the startups in this space, because this capability may become commoditized. There are at least six different AI peer review companies, including Refine.ink, Reviewer3, ReviewerZero.ai, Q.E.D. Science, Paper Wizard, and Isitcredible. Coarse (a pun on refine) was also recently created as an open source alternative. These systems provide qualitative feedback on the content of papers, spotting methodological weaknesses and mathematical errors. They seem to work pretty well, and many academics report bitterly that they exceed the average quality of typical peer reviewers. But there are few evals here either. What evals exist so far involve using LLM-as-judge (circularity problems abound) or comparing against human reviews of questionable quality. What you’d ideally want is an eval that measures capturing known errors in papers3. Reproducibility and robustness Another active area has been using AI agents to automate computational reproducibility4 and robustness5 checks in papers that report numerical results. For more recent papers where data and code are available, AI agents can see whether they can re-run the analyses and produce the numbers reported in the published paper. In addition to a handful of individual academics who have been experimenting using Claude Code for this, the Institute for Replication is a leading group working on building an end to end system. The evals related to this problem are the most mature, with CORE-Bench (Siegel, Kapoor, Narayanan 2024) and PaperBench (OpenAI 2025) available to benchmark agents on this task. There is also work on getting AI agents to test alternative ways of analyzing the data to ensure the results are robust to small analytic design choices. Synthesis This is the most underdeveloped area where significant investment is required. Although some automated evidence synthesis systems exist — for example, otto-sr is building an AI agent to write systematic reviews — none of these incorporate the full range of paper level signals to weight evidence appropriately. Nor is there anything like an eval or a gold standard for a good systematic review. Arguably Cochrane reviews are the closest we have to gold standard human systematic reviews, though I’ve heard academics in the know complain about their uneven quality. A key question for a synthesis platform is how to weight anomalies and methodological issues in assessing the quality of a piece of evidence. This is an unsolved problem and one I’m very keen to work on. Continuous updating There are many pieces of basic infrastructure available for monitoring for new research and initiating updates. OpenAlex is the current open citation graph. Retraction Watch integrated into Crossref in October 2023. Scite tracks how citations support, contrast, or mention prior claims. The Living Evidence Network demonstrated continuous-update workflows in clinical guidelines. Engineering this is a relatively straightforward task. When you look over this technical architecture and all the progress being made, it’s hard not to be optimistic that a living guide to scientific evidence will be built. The stakeholders are ready The social infrastructure for this is starting to coalesce — it’s not just a pie in the sky academic exercise to imagine this coming into existence. Institutions like the Center for Open Science, the Institute for Replication, the INSPECT-SR, the Living Evidence Network and more are all working on scaling work to improve research quality. Funders are also aligned. The Sloan Foundation has funded living evidence work through COS. Coefficient Giving supports the Institute for Replication and COS. The Astera Institute and the Institute for Progress have shown interest in this space. NIH has established an Office for Replication and Reproducibility. Although there are (very unfortunately) serious headwinds in science funding generally, there is an active group of funders interested in metascience. A brief word about what I’ve been doing at RDI. First, as a Visiting Scholar at Berkeley I’ve been actively figuring out how a non-profit and a public university can conduct and make public the results of large-scale academic article data mining. With some of the money I raised from donors, I commissioned a legal analysis of recent case law and publisher text data mining (TDM) agreements in order to understand whether a massive open data mining of academic articles is possible (with caveats, it is). I’ve also been working to bring together stakeholders in this space, and identify gaps. I’ve also been doing some software development in this space, with more to come. A pilot proposal The assumption undergirding all of this is that an AI, given all this information, would make the right judgment about a scientific claim with lots of conflicting evidence, weighing all the factors appropriately. That’s the hypothesis we need to test. Randomized control trial research is the best place to focus on first. RCTs are used to make many of the important decisions in society - from medical trials to public policy changes. And they use a relatively uniform set of inferential statistics with lots of known and available diagnostics. Behavioral science experiments, within the broader realm of RCTs, should be first used as a testbed whose results can be generalized. Because behavioral science is at the vanguard of open science practices, replications abound (there are thousands of them) to serve as ground truth training data. Key Hypothesis Therefore the pilot would test, in behavioral RCTs that have been replicated, whether the quality of evidence for a claim can be used to accurately predict whether that claim will replicate. Secondary Hypotheses Compared to claims that replicated, non-replicated claims demonstrate a greater share of forensic anomalies in their source literatures. Hypothesis level claim and statistic extraction is accurate enough to scale living evidence without onerous human review costs. Replication prediction is more accurate than prediction markets6 or journal prestige. If all the different quality signals we gather do accurately predict which studies will replicate, then we can use that model to score evidence to power the living evidence layer. Why this is informative regardless of outcome If the pilot succeeds, the architecture extends to medical RCTs (where Living Evidence already operates and integration is mostly about claim representation), then to slices of basic biology with stable replication structure. If it fails, the field learns which quality signals are load-bearing and which ones metascience has oversold. Either result is a contribution to knowing what the literature supports. Implications for funders Because this burgeoning ecosystem of builders already exists, a well-informed philanthropic or government funder could play a crucial catalyzing role in bringing this future about. They could play at least three roles: creating open structured datasets, publishing open benchmarks and incentivizing the solving of key technical challenges. First, open archives of papers that the government maintains, like PubMed, could be turned into structured data amenable to large scale metascience and claim aggregation. I know the US government already has an interest in doing this, though some key open questions remain unanswered. How do you determine the best models and systems for accurately extracting information from papers? How can you establish a robust way to allow researchers to flag errors and correct them? And finally, how do you create a legal regime in working with publishers to maximize the scope of available papers? For the latter, a university or a private philanthropy may be better positioned to make structured data publicly available under journal subscription terms or fair use. Philanthropists or government funders could also coordinate to create or commission benchmarks that evaluate whether important problems have been solved. For example, an open benchmark for claim extraction from a range of different scientific article types would be extremely helpful. Ensuring the underlying data are accurate is vital for creating these evaluations. I’ve discussed opportunistically using various human-created datasets for this purpose, but a consistent problem is that errors in human data make it difficult for them to serve as a gold standard. Finally, with structured data and benchmarks available, the government or private philanthropy could use them to incentivize groups to develop machine learning systems that meet these benchmarks. Prizes are one potentially valuable tool for this. For example, you could establish a prize for a system that accurately updates a living meta-analysis for a small set of claims. Prizes are particularly useful as signals of problem importance, and can help create vibrant ecosystems of public and private research—see, for example the role the government played in kickstarting the current work on nuclear fusion. Conclusion The drawbacks of the current scientific publishing system are known. Scientists agree, metascientists agree, philanthropists agree: the published PDF plus citation graph isn’t the right substrate for maintaining a representation of the evidence base in science. The pieces needed to build the alternative either already exist or are rapidly taking shape. The community is forming around exactly this problem, with concrete partnerships and shared infrastructure. A pilot should start on behavioral science RCTs because that’s the slice of empirical science most amenable to legibility, where replication ground truth is richest, and where the failure modes are best documented. What’s been missing is the galvanizing mission to assemble these pieces into something that works. That’s what I’m proposing to build. *** 1 I have a broader field map that I’ll release publicly soon. This is me, building in public! 2 If this is something that you are excited about, please reach out and talk to me. 3 More on this very soon too! 4 This tests whether, given the code and the data, you can get the same statistics as reported in the published paper. 5 This tests whether the results are the same as a paper’s given alternative analytical decisions in conducting the analysis (like outlier omission). Closely related is the idea of a “multiverse” where you come up with many different ways of answering the same underlying research question with the same data, and test whether the results hold in all those alternative methods. There’s been work on the latter as well. 6 Some of the replications, e.g. those from the SCORE project, had paired the experiments with forecasts from prediction markets. So we get to look at this for free.
US: Global Health Aid Tied to Harmful Conditions
The United States government is conditioning lifesaving health assistance on broad access to surveillance data and extractive rights to pathogen samples and data for pharmaceutical development.
Worse than he thought: Blaise Ingoglia again blasts Jacksonville budget, alleges $275M in wasteful spending this fiscal year
'Somebody needs to rein in local government here.'
Untangling the new rules for disadvantaged enterprises
Here's what you should know about programs designed to aid companies deemed disadvantaged by the government.
Commentary: Small businesses can overcome current government contracting uncertainty
Prepare for more complex requirements and identify opportunities that still exist — and there are still opportunities, advises two leaders leader in the field of women's economic development.
Commentary: Yes, we can end corporate influence in politics
There’s more money in politics than ever. But some state governments, like California, are finding ways to fight back.
As America 250 approaches, fewer Americans see their country as exceptional, AP-NORC poll finds
A new AP-NORC poll finds that as the U.S. prepares for an extravagant celebration of its founding principles, fewer Americans see their country or its system of government as exceptional
Keir Starmer to say ‘tech revolution must work for everyone’ in speech on AI
Prime minister to give speech on the government’s technology policy this morning
South Korea's Lee says success of business should be shared, plans surplus tax revenue use
South Korean President Lee Jae Myung said on Monday the gains of business success should be shared throughout society and the government will devise a plan to effectively use the surplus tax revenues generated from the country's semiconductor sector.
‘What if all cockroaches came together?’ The youth movement threatening to shake up India’s politics
Cockroach Janta party began as online joke but is growing into one of the most unexpected challenges to country’s rightwing government
Wayne Winegarden: Politics and conflict are driving up your food costs
The federal government can, and should, help families struggling with rising food costs by reforming the ill-considered regulatory policies that are meaningfully inflating the price of food.
Indo-Pacific Health Alliance for Security 2026 Summit
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — Military, civilian, and non-governmental leaders from 20 countries launched the 3rd Summit of the Indo-Pacific Health Alliance for Security, June 7-8.
We moved to Italy for citizenship. Then Italy changed the rules.
An American family had originally qualified to become Italian citizens and moved to Turin to speed up the process. Then, the government changed the law.
Netanyahu’s mafia politics risk degrading integrity of Israeli government
A coalition run like a mafia, based on fear, personal loyalty, and proof of allegiance, cannot properly serve the public interest because its first priority is protecting the leader, not the country.
Minor sports at University of Arkansas, other major colleges struggle to survive
FAYETTEVILLE -- The future of tennis and other minor sports at major universities depends on the kindness of people with deep pockets or the helping hand of the federal government.
Politics, public safety collide as feds investigate MARTA security
Two days after President Donald Trump’s endorsed candidate for Georgia governor called for placing state troopers on MARTA trains, the federal government launched an inquiry into the transit system’s security and safety protocols.
Hilda S Renteria
Scope of work: Renteria oversees the firm's audits and attestation engagements, focusing on governmental and nonprofit sectors. She is responsible for completing financial and single audits, implementing new financial reporting standards and driving the firm's audit services growth.Biggest professional win: In 2023, she was featured in Illinois CPA Society's Insight Magazine for her role in expanding the firm's audit practice, surpassing growth targets and introducing new technologies.Other contributions: Renteria co-founded the Prado & Renteria Foundation in 2014 to support Indigenous communities and first-generation college students. She serves on the Illinois CPA Society Government Report Review Committee and is a member of the American Institute of CPAs.
Do New Leadership Hires Clarify WELL Health Technologies' (TSX:WELL) Public-Sector Digital Health Strategy?
WELL Health Technologies has appointed Dr. Andrew Bond as Chief Health Officer and Head of Public Sector, and Derek Clark as Chief Operating Officer, adding experienced leadership to clinical governance, government engagement, and platform-wide operations. These hires deepen WELL’s bench in both health system policy and complex multi-entity execution, reinforcing its push to work more closely with public health systems while scaling its national digital and clinic network. Next, we’ll...
See the vintage hotel NYC is converting into affordable housing
Developers, nonprofit leaders, and New York government are partnering to convert Manhattan's Stewart Hotel into hundreds of affordable homes.
Sacramento County residents can track local health trends in real time. Here’s how
County officials said the new portal will make public health information easier to access and explore.
Trump says he’s considering government stake in top AI companies
Industry leaders will soon gather at the White House to discuss the idea, the president said. The comments come as SpaceX, Anthropic and OpenAI prepare to go public.
Oceans week 2026
This week is National Oceans week. One of the main events in Washington DC is Capitol Hill Ocean Week (or CHOW). This two-day event, sponsored by the U.S. Government, brought policymakers, scientis…
US Supreme Court backs federal regulators in wins for FCC and SEC
The U.S. Supreme Court in a pair of rulings backing the power of federal agencies has reaffirmed limits it previously imposed on government regulators but rejected bids by challengers to push those constraints into new territory.
Football regulator faces 'defining test' over potential Derby investment
English football's independent regulator faces a "defining test" as Saudi Arabian government official Turki Al-Sheikh attempts to invest in Derby County, says Amnesty International.
Who is cutting $1 million-plus checks to MAGA Inc. and what do they want?
The evidence is circumstantial, but the list is long. Supporters who have business with the federal government clearly see utility in contributing large amounts to President Donald Trump’s super PAC, MAGA Inc.
Trump administration imposes sanctions on Cuban president
The Trump administration on Thursday imposed sanctions on Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel as it seeks to further ratchet up pressure on the government in Havana.
US Sanctions Cuba’s President as Trump Pushes Harder for Change
The US sanctioned Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel and members of his family, ratcheting up pressure on the communist government even further.
AP report: Ex-national security adviser John Bolton will plead guilty in classified information case
The deal would resolve a criminal case filed in October that charged Bolton with 18 counts of either retaining or disseminating classified information, including diary-like notes from his time in government that officials say he shared with his family members as he was preparing a memoir about his time in office.
Partisan Politics Trumps Peer Review
On May 29, the Office of Management and Budget published a proposed rule that would fundamentally reshape how the federal government funds scientific research.
NY state government helped shape American ideals. How we reported it
USA TODAY Network-New York spotlighted the historical links between political leaders in Albany and American rights forged over the past 250 years.
Jackson vows regulation of data centers in Maine
In addition to requiring AI companies to pay their “fair share,” Jackson proposes safeguards to ensure AI doesn’t replace Maine workers, environmental oversight and transparency when AI is used by state government.
Justice Department Eyes Alternative ‘Weaponization’ Payouts After Fund Pushback
Some Trump supporters are aiming to secure government settlements by suing under an 80-year-old law.
Armed clashes erupt in Somalia’s capital ahead of a planned anti-government demonstration
Opposition figures say the rally planned for Thursday was intended to protest what they call constitutional violations and efforts by President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud to extend his tenure. The government has rejected those allegations.
RFK Jr. seeks to peek at Americans’ medical records for clues on autism and vaccines
U.S. health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is pursuing federal government access to most Americans’ medical records, in a quest to research a link between vaccines and autism — a connection the medical establishment studied for decades and flatly rejects.
BofA Says Foreign Buyers Lured by UK Yields Despite Politics
Bank of America predicts a streak of gilt purchases by foreign buyers extended through May, as some of the highest government yields in major developed nations offset political turbulence and inflation fears.
Is the ‘Charlotte Way’ cracking? Business leaders worry about new direction
For decades, the so-called Charlotte Way has meant collegial government, deference to business leaders and a shared belief that growth is good for a world-class city. Now, after several less business-friendly votes by a new City Council, some leaders worry the Charlotte Way is cracking. Tony Mecia of the Charlotte Ledger joined WFAE Executive Editor Ely Portillo for our weekly segment BizWorthy.
Zombie Blairites still have British politics in their grip – it’s time to break free
Tony Blair’s departure as PM should have prompted a fresh start for Labour. But Starmer’s sad, backward-looking government remains in his thrall, says Guardian columnist Aditya Chakrabortty
Orange County business owner supplied Iran with U.S. technology, federal prosecutors say
A Newport Coast man running a business out of Iran was arrested and charged with violating federal law Wednesday after prosecutors say he spent years illegally importing American technology into the country, including to Iran's nuclear establishment, without notifying the U.S. government.
Politics: What’s Life Like For The Government Employees Still Working?
More than 300,000 federal workers have left government service since the start of the second Trump administration.Some were laid off by the administration. Some took buyouts. Some walked out. The cuts hit every major agency — from the State Department to the Justice Department.That doesn’t mean things have been easy for those still working for the government. Last week, the Office of Personnel Management proposed requiring all federal employees to sign non-disclosure agreements that would prevent them from sharing internal government information.We sit down to talk about how those cuts are affecting the workers who remained.Find more of our programs online. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.
It’s Possible to End Corporate Influence in Politics
There’s more money in politics than ever. But some state governments are finding ways to fight back.
Rethinking Political Change in Iran from Protest to War
One month before the United States and Israel began the current war against Iran on February 28, 2026, mass uprisings within the country resulted in the severest government crackdown in its modern history. Protests and repression were accompanied by calls for outside intervention. US President Donald Trump declared on January
Elections to top science bodies test Croatia’s gender equality in research
Croatia’s track-record on gender equality in science has been both questioned and lauded in recent months, following both bad and good news on the topic. On the one hand, a senior awards committee was announced without a single woman researcher included. On the other, the national science academy welcomed its first cohort of fellows with more women than men.Members of the committee, which gives national awards recognising scientific achievement, are proposed by the ministry of science and endorsed by the parliament. The current line-up does include a woman, but she is culture minister Nina Obuljen Koržinek rather than a researcher. Even then, she didn’t make it into the photograph released to announce the appointments on April 16. “The image speaks a thousand words,” says Tanja Rudež, a science journalist for Jutarnji List newspaper. “I am surprised that none of these men, all well-known scientists, saw a problem with the fact that there was not a single successful female scientist on the committee,” she told Science|Business.Ivan Đikić, a prominent Croatian biochemist based at Goethe University Medical School, commented on LinkedIn that the news illustrated a “sad truth” about the state of science in Croatia.“It [. . .] reveals a system where women, despite contributing a substantial share of high-quality, internationally competitive science, are systematically excluded from the very processes that determine recognition and influence,” he wrote. Some 60% of researchers in Croatia are women, according to the Croatian Bureau of Statistics, and they perform well in international competitions. For example, of the 12 European Research Council (ERC) grants awarded to Croatian researchers, seven went to women.“So how is it possible that decision-making bodies are still dominated by men over 60, while not a single female ERC laureate is involved in the selection process?” asked Đikić. “This is not a marginal oversight; it is a structural failure.” The ministry of science did not reply to a request for comment. The awards committee is not unusual. For example, a scientific advisory body announced by the ministry of demographics in April comprises 35 men and five women. The board of the Croatian Science Foundation, newly appointed by the parliament, is a little better, with five men and two women, but still unequal. “This is especially significant because such bodies do not merely distribute prestige. They shape research priorities, funding allocation and long-term scientific development,” Marija Lugarić, chair of the parliament’s committee on gender equality, told Science|Business. “Representation here matters not only symbolically, but materially.”Referring to the awards committee and the board of the science foundation, Lugarić says that while both bodies were appointed by parliament, neither met the minimum 40% gender balance threshold that Croatian law and EU guidelines expressly recommend for public bodies.Đikić wants to see EU institutions put pressure on the government to ensure basic standards of fairness, transparency and democratic governance in science policy are met. “Meaningful change will not come without pressure,” he wrote. “It must intensify both within Croatia and at the level of European institutions. Anything less undermines the credibility of Europe’s commitment to excellence and inclusion in science.”Rudež also underlined the importance of talking and writing about this topic, “because public opinion in Croatia does influence changes in the status and visibility of women in science.”The European Commission has not yet responded to a request for comment.Good news from the academyA more positive story came from the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts on 21 May, with the announcement of seven new women fellows and five men. This is the first time in the academy’s 165-year history that women have outnumbered men in a new intake.One of the new fellows, two-time ERC grantee Iva Tolić, credits the academy leadership with trying to be more modern and inclusive, representing the whole community better. “The academy is really aware that so far, before this election, there were very few women,” she told Science|Business. “So, they are actively trying to make this more equal.”Related articlesExplained: How the MSCA is close to achieving gender balanceCall for EU to leverage academic freedom in global talent raceRudež is more cautious, noting that despite the academy’s “breakthrough this year [. . .] it is still a predominantly male institution, with only 18% women.”This reflects a wider imbalance in Croatia’s research landscape. “The key levers of power in science are still in the hands of men,” she went on. “For example, all 14 rectors of private and public universities are men.”Similarly, Lugarić says a structural glass ceiling still exists in Croatian science, which is “most visible precisely where power is exercised.”She cites data from the Commission’s She Figures 2024 report, which shows that Croatia ranks second in the EU for gender equality in research and innovation overall, with an equality index of 79.6 out of 100. It is in the top five for women’s career advancement, participation in research; representation across all research sectors and for scientific publications.In stark contrast, it ranks second to last when it comes to women in decision-making positions in science. “This is not a coincidence,” Lugarić says. “It is a structural pattern.”Informal barriersThe persistent under-representation of women in the highest structures of Croatia’s academies, boards, award committees and leadership positions is not down to formal barriers, Lugarić says, but arises from more subtle obstacles such as “informal networks, persistent expectations regarding traditional gender roles and the unequal distribution of care responsibilities.”Tolić would like to see more support for young women in terms of affordable housing and child support, and higher salaries. Currently, she says, salaries in science stay low for the first 10-15 years, while housing and spaces in kindergarten are limited and expensive. “You have to work a lot, you get very little money, so it’s not great to have a family in this situation,” she says.But despite the challenges, Tolić is optimistic, saying that gender equality in research in Croatia is “definitely improving and going in the right direction.” The situation is particularly promising in biology, she adds, where most full professors, heads of department and deans of faculties are women. Lugarić, too, see the glass ceiling “very slowly, cracking,” and cites the academy election as an example that structural change is possible. Yet the situation in the national awards committee is a “stark reminder that without a conscious, systemic commitment to gender balance, progress will remain slow and uneven.”
GOP lawmakers push to make Israel pay for U.S. weapons
In a reflection of the turbulent politics of Israel, two Republicans are pushing a resolution that would require Israel to pay for any weapons it gets from the United States. The Republicans are staunchly pro-Israel and Netanyahu’s government supports the move as an effort to head off growing anti-Israel sentiment in the United States.
Open science: The key to accelerated, trustworthy research
Colin Adcock at the American Physical Society, argues that open science is essential for accelerating trustworthy research
Palantir Contracts Have Become ‘An Unacceptable Point of Weakness,’ UK Politicians Warn
A government committee says that the country’s growing dependence on the data analytics company is a serious liability.
Trump signs an executive order to vet top AI models for national security risks
The order establishes a framework for the federal government to vet the national security risks of the most advanced AI systems for up to a month before their public release.
Policy experts offer differing views on health care for all at HJ26
During Thursday's plenary at Health Journalism 2026, policy experts discussed whether the government should guarantee health care for all.
How Science Works
The 2nd Weather and Climate Livestream is now underway. It is organized by a group of early-career researchers concerned about declining funding for the field and eager to demonstrate how weather and climate research makes a difference in our lives. Last year’s event was a great success, drawing terrific press coverage including a piece in the NY Times. This year features a strong lineup of talks aimed at a general audience — I highly recommend tuning in. Share I gave a talk yesterday about How Science Works in Three Steps. You can see the short presentation here (I’ve appended a transcript below): And please tune into the livestream here. It runs through tomorrow at 6 pm ET. Thanks for reading The Climate Brink! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe Cleaned up transcript: Thank you, and thanks to everyone tuning in. I want to talk about something I think a lot of people don’t really understand: how science actually works. Arguments over any scientific topic — climate change, vaccines, you name it — revolve around competing claims. For climate change, the claims are: Is the Earth warming? Are humans to blame? What will the impacts be? Over the last 150 years, the scientific community has developed a remarkably robust method for sorting out which claims are true and which aren’t. That method is what I want to walk through. So how does science generate knowledge? If you ask a high schooler, they’ll give you the version they learned in ninth grade: an individual scientist forms a hypothesis, runs an experiment, and draws a conclusion. That’s more or less what happens at the individual level, though in practice it’s more iterative — you design, test, and refine all at once, landing on a slightly different idea each time until you reach a conclusion about whatever hypothesis you’ve ended up with. But this isn’t science. It’s only step one. Any individual scientist can make mistakes — scientists are human. Maybe there’s a bug in the code, maybe there’s an error in the experiment. Just because someone ran an experiment and reached a conclusion doesn’t mean it’s right, and scientists don’t treat a single result as settled truth. Step two is peer review, the first layer of quality control. The scientist writes up what they did and submits it to a journal, which sends the paper to other experts in the field. Those experts judge whether the methods are sound, whether it properly references prior work, and whether the conclusions actually follow from the data. Ask any scientist and they’ll tell you peer review is miserable — the comments come back brutal, often harsh, and you have to revise and resubmit, sometimes multiple times, before an editor finally accepts the paper. Peer review catches an immense amount of bad science, but it can’t catch all of it. Reviewers get sloppy or overworked, they miss obvious mistakes, and they can’t catch hidden errors — a bug in the code, a misread instrument. So a peer-reviewed paper making it into a journal doesn’t mean the paper is right. Nobody treats a single paper as the final word. That’s where step three comes in: the crucible of science. Important results get retested by the broader community. If you publish something interesting, it gets dissected. Sometimes people try to reproduce your work directly but more often they test its implications. If someone claims X is true, and that implies that Y is also true, then scientists will go check Y. If a claim survives this gauntlet long enough, it becomes accepted. That’s how we generate knowledge. Let me give an example: the ozone hole. In 1985 — and I doubt many people watching were around then, but I remember it well — Joe Farman and his colleagues published observations from Antarctica showing that a huge chunk of ozone was disappearing every year. This was shocking because most atmospheric chemists had expected ozone loss to occur at mid-latitudes and high altitudes, not over the South Pole. When scientists see something they don’t understand, they rush to explain it, and several competing hypotheses quickly appeared in the peer-reviewed literature. One pointed to chlorine chemistry from chlorofluorocarbons. A second blamed nitrogen chemistry, possibly driven by solar proton events — meaning the sun was responsible. A third argued it wasn’t chemistry at all but dynamics: winds were carrying naturally low-ozone air from the lower atmosphere up into the stratosphere. Then the community went to work testing which theory could survive the crucible. Aircraft flew into the ozone hole and found no nitrogen, ruling out the nitrogen theory. Measurements showed the air in the polar vortex was descending, not rising — which would bring high-ozone air down, eliminating the dynamics theory. Meanwhile, those same flights measured enormous amounts of chlorine, strongly correlated with exactly the regions where ozone was being destroyed. That became known as the “smoking gun” paper, and it established that chlorine chemistry was the cause. Through this process, a consensus emerged. And it’s worth being clear that this consensus is organic. There’s no vote, no poll, no meeting where it gets decided. Scientists go to conferences, talk to one another, and independently arrived at the same answer. It’s the ultimate free market of ideas. After the consensus was established, the peer-reviewed literature doesn’t even mention the rival theories — it simply takes chlorine chemistry as given. That’s what a consensus looks like. It doesn’t mean every single scientist agrees, but it does mean there’s no longer any legitimate debate. So where can you see what scientists actually think? It’s all in the peer-reviewed literature, which contains the entire historical record of the argument: the discovery, the competing theories, the debate, the testing, and finally the community coalescing around one answer. But there’s a lot of room for misrepresentation. You can dig up an old paper claiming the ozone hole was caused by dynamics and wave it around as if there still was a debate about the cause of the ozone hole — without mentioning that the idea was disproven long ago and that even its own authors no longer believe it. There’s a bigger problem, though: the peer-reviewed literature is written in a language I call “nerd.” It’s extremely hard to read — honestly, some of it is hard for me to follow. It takes graduate students years to work through the literature in a single field, so we can’t expect policymakers or ordinary people to do it. This is where scientific assessments come in. The most famous is the IPCC — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The job of an assessment is to read and summarize the peer-reviewed literature, synthesizing what’s settled, what’s been disproven, and what remains genuinely debated. To ensure the assessments accurately summarize the peer-reviewed literature, assessments are written by large teams, which are far less prone to bias than individuals and which dilute the influence of any one scientist with an axe to grind. The teams are deliberately assembled to avoid stacking the deck, and the reports themselves go through multiple rounds of peer review. That rigorous process is exactly why you can trust them and why people consider the IPCC to be the gold standard of what we know about the climate system. An assessment produced through a different process may well not be credible. You can even watch the consensus evolve across assessments. Take the attribution of warming. The 1990 IPCC report said the observed warming was broadly consistent with model predictions but also comparable to natural variability — in other words, we don’t know whether humans are responsible. By 1995, it concluded that the balance of evidence suggested a discernible human influence — a sentence only a committee could write, and one that barely commits to anything. By 2001, most of the warming over the previous 50 years was judged “likely” due to greenhouse gases; by 2007, “very likely”; by 2013, “extremely likely.” The 2023 report says essentially the same as 2013 — there’s not much stronger language available. So, to wrap up: science is our ultimate tool for deciphering the universe — the most successful method we’ve ever developed for determining what’s true and what isn’t. Our understanding is written into the peer-reviewed literature, so if you want to know what scientists think, that’s where to look. And for those of us who don’t speak nerd, scientific assessments are the Rosetta Stone — they translate nerd into English. Let me open the floor to questions. Thank you.
Senator Cassidy’s Final Health Test: Confirmation Hearings For CDC, FDA, Surgeon General
Senator Cassidy's political future may be settled, but his role in confirmation hearings can influence the future of health, scientific integrity and trust in government.
EPA Leadership Strip the Agency of Its Ability to Protect Us from Toxic Chemicals
Over the last year and a half, the Trump administration has recklessly dismantled the democratic institutions that keep us safe, including the systems that rely on the best available science to inform government decision-making. This campaign has resulted in more than 560 attacks on science to date.
New science puts ‘sense of safety’ at the heart of whole-person care
Associate Professor Johanna M. Lynch explores the significance of feeling safe as a critical component of health and wellbeing
Towards a responsive health system and equitable access to quality RMNCAH services
Indonesia’s vast geography and sociocultural diversity shape the delivery of reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health (RMNCAH) services in ways that are both enabling and challenging. Across provinces, significant variation has been observed in how services are planned, resourced, and delivered. These variations in service standards and quality are felt daily in the lives of women, newborns and adolescents. Despite these challenges, progress is visible. National estimates show a drop in maternal mortality ratio, from 331 to 140 per 100 000 live births since 2000, signaling improvements in care quality and access. Fertility has stabilised and contraceptive use has grown, yet unmet reproductive health needs persist, and adolescent pregnancies continue to reflect early marriage and limited access to youth-friendly services.To better understand how Indonesia’s health system has evolved under decentralisation, the Ministry of Health, supported by World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), IPAS and the Asian Development Bank (ADB), conducted a joint external review of RMNCAH programmes. This review draws on multiple sources of evidence, including existing literature, policy documents, national health system data, as well as field visits to six selected provinces to represent Indonesia’s geographic and administrative diversity. During the field visits, review teams observed service delivery in health facilities, spoke with health workers and local leaders and met mothers and families to understand how RMNCAH policies are operationalised. One of the challenges identified was the management of low birthweight (LBW) infants, a major contributor to neonatal deaths, under resource constraints. One midwife described a severe case of extremely LBW twins, one stillborn and the other died after three days of care. She recalled how the surviving infant struggled to swallow and may not have received breast milk, while simultaneous emergencies required the team’s attention, affecting the care provided to the infant.A subsequent review of the case by the district health office revealed insufficient antenatal care, fragmented maternal medical history due to population mobility, referral delays, limited provider capacity in neonatal intravenous access and a heavy workload that constrained proper newborn monitoring. These insights informed recommendations to strengthen both system-wide and service-level responses. Since the early 2000s, Indonesia’s decentralisation initiative has given much of the responsibility for funding, staffing and managing health services to regional governments. While the Ministry of Health sets national clinical standards, daily management of public health facilities falls under regional authorities through the Ministry of Internal Affairs. While this arrangement allows services to be tailored to local needs, it also depends heavily on local capacity for planning, budgeting and management. Health facilities and district health offices are better positioned to translate national priorities into local action when they have access to consistent technical support, helping health workers manage resource constraints and infrastructure gaps.The complexity of Indonesia’s health system governance is no easy feat to navigate. Understanding these dynamics is essential to strengthening policy, improving coordination and ensuring more equitable access to services across Indonesia. Under the leadership of Ministry of Health, recommendations from this exercise will be key in guiding the nation’s roadmap to an equitable and quality health system for RMNCAH.Written by Edit Oktavia Manuama, National Professional Officer (Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health), and Jessie Yunus, National Professional Officer (Gender, Rights, Equity, and Disability Inclusion)
Trump faces a new inflation warning from the bond market, adding to his midterm challenges
The world is getting more uptight about lending money to President Donald Trump’s government.
Unnecessary care? OIG questions vascular procedures billed by surgeons, cardiologists and radiologists
The Trump administration believes Medicare paid up to $105 million for questionable vascular procedures in 2023 alone. No accusations have been made at this time, but the government believes 139 different physicians deserve "further scrutiny."
Missed Opportunities: Using Medicaid Section 1115 Projects to Improve the Health of Medicaid and Medicare Beneficiaries
Medicaid Section 1115 demonstration projects are widely used to test innovative policies but are subject to “budget neutrality” limits so that federal expenditures do not exceed what the federal government would have spent if the project was not adopted.
Racial Equity Impact Assessments as Tools for Advancing Population Health and Equity in Local Policy
Racial equity impact assessments (REIAs) are used by local governments to integrate equity considerations into policymaking and decision-making processes by evaluating potential impacts of proposed legislation before enactment.
Ken Welch says Charlie Crist’s property tax pitch would leave St. Pete with ‘impossible choices’
'Deeper property tax cuts would leave local governments with impossible choices that ultimately hurt families and communities.'
Another NATO ally signs onto European nuclear umbrella as continent boosts self-defense
Norway becomes the ninth country to join France's nuclear deterrence initiative as European governments seek greater self-reliance from U.S. defense.
Meet DFP Spring Fellow, Gideon Ondap, University of Maryland, College Park -
Gideon Ondap III is a second-year government and politics PhD student and a recipient of the President’s Fellowship at the University of Maryland, College Park. Gideon studies American politics with a focus on race and ethnic [...]
Devin Galetta leaves Department of Financial Services to lead Luke Murphy's CD 2 campaign
Galetta served as Deputy CFO under Blaise Ingoglia since July and held jobs in state government for 21 years.
The Latest: Trump faces new inflation warning from bond market, adding to midterm challenges
The energy price spike triggered by the Iran war has seeped into the price of bonds that help fund the U.S. government, causing interest rates to climb in ways that are worsening affordability pressures, hampering economic growth and creating a new risk for Republicans in November’s midterm elections
The small business making big investments to deliver advanced defense technologies
Employee-owned Physical Sciences Inc. has been scaling small business government R&D awards to solve some of the thorniest national security challenges.
Paramount's Delrahim slams 'fear-mongering' and partisan politics clouding Warner Bros. deal
President Trump once said he would be involved in the Warner Bros. sale but Paramount lawyer Makan Delrahim said the company has "no deals" with the president
Mississippi rural health program least transparent in U.S.
Mississippi will get over $1 billion from the federal government for rural health care. State lawmakers say they don't know where that money is going.
Trump is facing a new inflation warning from the bond market, adding to his midterm challenges
The world is getting more uptight about lending money to President Donald Trump’s government
NHS single patient record to be debated for first time
Reforms to the NHS records system could result in 20,000 fewer visits to A&E annually, according to government projections.
Trump is facing a new inflation warning from the bond market, adding to his midterm challenges
The world is getting more uptight about lending money to President Donald Trump’s government.
Ministry of Public Health, WHO Thailand and the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the Kingdom of Thailand launch initiative to strengthen Thailand’s public health workforce
28 May 2026 | Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in ThailandA skilled and coordinated public health workforce is essential for protecting population health and responding to public health emergencies. Strengthening these capacities was the focus of a meeting held on 28 May 2026 at the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Thailand.Dr Ailan Li, WHO Representative to Thailand, together with Dr Watcharanan Tinnaitorn, Deputy Director of the Division of Public Health Emergency Management, Ministry of Public Health, and officials from WHO and the Ministry of Public Health, met with Counselor Zhang Xiaoxiao from the Economic & Commercial Counsellor's Office, Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in the Kingdom of Thailand to mark the launch of collaboration under the WHO Roadmap to strengthen the public health workforce.The initiative supports Thailand in strengthening its public health workforce across both health and non-health sectors. Public health emergencies require coordinated action across a wide range of professions and institutions, including health workers, border control officers, water safety specialists, communication professionals and local government authorities. Through the project, partners will work together to assess workforce capacities, strengthen competencies and promote coordination across sectors to support preparedness and response efforts.The discussion highlighted opportunities to enhance cross-country collaboration through knowledge exchange, communication activities and engagement at key project milestones, supporting workforce development and emergency preparedness efforts.Beyond its immediate objectives, the initiative also reflects Thailand’s contributions to public health at regional and global levels. The exchange highlighted the importance of sharing experiences, lessons learned and good practices through international cooperation to strengthen public health capacity and preparedness.WHO expressed appreciation to the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Thailand for supporting the project and recognizing the importance of investing in public health workforce development, preparedness and health security through partnership and multilateral cooperation. WHO also commended Thailand’s continued leadership and commitment to strengthening public health systems and emergency preparedness, including through cross-sector collaboration and workforce development.WHO remains committed to supporting Thailand and partners in advancing resilient and people-centred public health systems and strengthening preparedness for future health challengesAbout the EPHF Roadmap ProjectThailand is one of four countries selected in 2026 to initiate implementation of the Essential Public Health Functions (EPHF) Roadmap, alongside Maldives, Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste. The initiative is funded by the China International Development Cooperation Agency (CIDCA). The project is led by Thailand’s Ministry of Public Health, with WHO Thailand serving as a co-implementing partner. Other partners include the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC), the International Association of National Public Health Institutes (IANPHI), the Global Network for Academic Public Health/Public Health Interprofessional Leadership Alliance (GNAPH/PHILA) and the World Federation of Public Health Associations (WFPHA).
Climate science without a notorious worst-case scenario
(The Center Square) – The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change threw out one of its most extreme emissions scenarios last week, a major development in climate science that will li...
Climate science without a notorious worst-case scenario
(The Center Square) – The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change threw out one of its most extreme emissions scenarios last week, a major development in climate science that
Readers respond: Dundon business model good for government
Letters to the Editor can be submitted to letters@oregonian.com with full name and place of residence.
Justice Ministry expands 'top-tier visa' program to attract foreign science and tech talents
More science and technology talent will become eligible for South Korea’s "top-tier visa" starting in June, as part of a government policy aimed at attracting m
Trump Wants Minerals, Health Data for Aid. African Nations Are Pushing Back.
Governments bridle at U.S. demands for private medical data and, in some cases, access to minerals.