SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " The Disrupt " 17 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Jim Cramer Likes the Nat-Gas Liquids Business and Highlights This Stock
During the episode aired on September 28, Cramer mentioned Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (NYSE:EPD), as he was highlighting the disruptions and operational bottlenecks plaguing infrastructure in the Gulf. He remarked: And I like the nat-gas liquids business, which is just crushing it in America because all the problems in the Gulf. It’s Enterprise Product Partners, […]
Global life expectancy bounces back to near pre-pandemic levels, WHO says
People around the world are living longer again, with global life expectancy almost fully recovered from the disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Friday.
ISU leader: Regions need an AI plan
It’s a good idea for regions to develop an AI plan, as the disruptive technology is changing the local economy and how businesses operate, said Mike Howard, director of the Iowa State University Murray G. Bacon Center for AI Ethics in Business. “It’s really hitting pretty much every industry that you can imagine,” Howard said.…
Edgerrin Cooper Breaks 27-Year-Old Packers Record
Exploding into his third season, the disruptive linebacker is anchoring a shorthanded Green Bay Packers defense.
Communities Deserve Access to Inclusive and Climate-Conscious Doula Care
Doula care can drastically improve the quality of care and birth experience for pregnant people facing the climate crisis’s increasing incidences of hurricanes, flooding, and extreme heat. The changing climate directly affects pregnancy health through discrete environmental disasters (such as wildfires, extreme heat, hurricanes, flooding, and droughts) and indirectly through long-term changes in the natural and social environment (such as air quality and forced migration). Environmental disasters can cause psychological distress for pregnant and post-pregnant people due to financial and personal loss, as well as the disruption of infrastructure that they rely on such as housing, health care, work, communication, and transportation. Potential adverse pregnancy outcomes include low birthweight, preterm birth, miscarriage, and neonatal mortality.
Roku May Help Fox Avoid Aggregeddon
(Welcome to the “Most Important Story of the Week”, my bi-weekly strategy column analyzing the most important (but often not buzziest) news story of the last two weeks. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. Please subscribe.) Scrolling through links over the last week, I stumbled across this fun headline: Wow. Formula 1 (the sport, not the docu-series) is the perfect “dog not barking”. As a reminder, each week in my Streaming Ratings Report, I call out the shows that miss every viewership chart. I dub them “dogs not barking”—like the Sherlock Holmes mystery—because without any data, we forget they even exist. This is in contrast to something like, say, a film flop—cough The Mandalorian and Grogu cough—where even underperforming at the box office is widely discussed here, there and everywhere. In the US, Formula 1 is now in “no public viewership data, so not discussed” territory. After moving to Apple TV from its former home of ESPN, basically no one talks about it. Apple did publish an initial, unsourced, unsubstantiated, (dare I say unserious) datecdote claiming more folks are watching Formula 1 on Apple than ESPN, but we haven’t gotten any updates since. This stands in contrast to when the sport streamed on ESPN, and ESPN PR provided weekly viewership figures. Formula 1 was, at best, a niche sport in America—averaging 1.3 million viewers in the Big Data Plus era—but now it’s basically anonymous. (And yeah, after moving to Apple, I very, very, very much doubt its ratings increased.) Unfortunately, that story isn’t quite big enough to warrant a section in today’s “Most Important Story of the Week” column, but I wanted to call it out, because otherwise, no one else will! Certainly, no one will write articles about the silence/ratings decline, unlike when they wrote breathless articles connecting the rise in viewership to Netflix’s Drive to Survive, including Reuters just last month. (This is a topic I’ve tried to provide a moderate/nuanced/non-hyped take since 2022.) Anyway, on to this week’s issue. I was a bit worried I didn’t have a juicy topic, then the Murdochs went out and did their Murdoch thing: buying Roku. So that’s the story of the week, and it happens to touch on quite a few themes of the streaming wars and the disruption therein. I’ll cover that, plus why more consolidation in Hollywood media looks likely, more good news on the Hollywood labor front, whether we’ll see an uptick in production in Los Angeles, some Broadway and theme park news, cellphone prices going up in the third world (and possibly everywhere), and more. Subscribe Most Important Story of the Week - Another Big Media & Entertainment Merger The story of the week is clearly Fox is buying Roku for $22 billion. I read a lot of good strategy takes on why Fox bought this streaming TV device maker—and I’ll have mine below—but what fascinates me more is how this deal connects to quite a few themes of the streaming wars, linking to everything from the pace of M&A to “aggregeddon” to Netflix’s recent M&A actions/inactions to the shift to advertising from pure play streaming and more. The only topic I can’t really connect it to is my old theory, “never bet against Rupert Murdoch” because he isn’t the one who did this deal; his son Lachlan inked it. (Do I think he provided advice, even at his 95 years of age? Sure.) That plus I have one additional piece of strategy for all entertainment players, inspired by this deal. So let’s dive into all those topics, starting with why I like this deal. Roku is a Great M&A Buy
2026 Short Course Highlight: The Disrupted World: Politics and Economics in Transition -
The Disrupted World: Politics and Economics in Transition Full Day Short Course | Register here 2026 APSA Annual Meeting & Exhibition — Boston, MA 9:00 am – 5:00 pm Workshop Overview The global political economy [...]
SpaceX Owns a Real Business That Makes Big Money
A simple view of SpaceX is that it’s a low-cost rocket launcher that created the profitable Starlink satellite business and which is now burning cash to build orbital data centers and colonize Mars. Starlink doesn’t have the lead role in SpaceX’s $1.8 trillion initial public offering. But it is the real business inside the company, and the telecoms industry and its regulators can ill afford to be complacent about the disruptive threat it poses.
Now What? With Carbon Pricing Eroded and Pipeline Politics Advancing, Here Are the Pathways for Climate Success
At the end of a whirlwind week of news on carbon pricing and electricity strategy, capping a madcap year of pretty much non-stop, dramatic change, the word across much of Canada’s climate and energy transition community is that climate policy in this country has been shredded. Eviscerated. Hit with a sledgehammer by policy rollbacks that have pushed the country’s 2050 net zero target “well out of reach”. That means it’s never been more important to look for the rays of hope and glimmers of possibility. To glimpse the seeds of the next set of strategies to get Canada’s climate pollution under control and the country into the accelerating global dash away from fossil fuels. And then, once we’ve spotted those possibilities, get on with the hard, day-to-day slog of trying to make them a reality. Nothing takes away from the frustration and the deep disappointment so many climate and energy hawks are expressing, the sense of betrayal by the author of Value(s) and the former UN special envoy for climate action and finance. But we knew two things as the week drew to a close. We’re looking at the world as it most definitely is. And we don’t get to give up finding the pathways to confront climate change and deliver faster, deeper carbon cuts that leave no one else behind. So really, the first question we all have to ask ourselves is: What’s next? Subscribe All the Oxygen in the Room The outpouring of anger and grief over the carbon pricing deal between Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has been absolutely understandable. So much of the climate community poured years, more than a decade, into dragging the current federal pricing regime across the finish line, then defending it from a deluge of three-syllable rhymes after the Trudeau government proved utterly incapable of delivering its own message. The policy foisted on us by neo-classical economists took up all the oxygen in the room, burned through years of climate response time that we won’t get back, while cornering climate hawks into the position that the best response to the crisis of our lifetimes is a new tax…in an era of historic anti-tax sentiment. I mean, really—what could possibly have gone wrong? Against that history, let’s appreciate columnist Max Fawcett’s point that even a modest carbon pricing agreement with a government as off-the-wall libertarian/conspiracist as Danielle Smith’s—those adjectives are mine, not Max’s—is a win worth savouring (as long as Smith keeps her promises for a change). But part of living in the world as it is (no, I’m not letting that go) is to be clear-headed about what we can and can’t control. And one thing we get to decide, after seeing this week’s carbon price festivities take up all the oxygen yet again, is whether we want to keep letting that happen. Particularly when success down that road depends on a factor that no one with a climate agenda can control or influence—a provincial carbon pricing mechanism that has been manipulated and eroded beyond its lowest possible denominator. Thankfully, that’s not the way it has to go. Not when we have so many other powerful, practical tools at our disposal, including the ones still available to us through this abominable Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Canada and Alberta. Tools In Our Toolbox When I started roughing out this list, I didn’t expect it to grow to nearly a dozen bullet points. It’s probably still incomplete. Some of the greatest hits in today’s climate solutions toolbox include: • No Carbon Capture, No Pipeline: On Friday, Prime Minister Mark Carney explicitly stated that there’s been no change to the MOU provision that there will be no West Coast pipeline without an industry commitment to build its massive, $16.5-billion carbon capture and storage (CCUS) hub in Northern Alberta, and vice versa. The two megaprojects were joined at the hip when the MOU was signed Nov. 27, and the implementation agreement this week affirmed that they still are. A parade of independent analysts have spent years pointing to the economic and technical flaws in CCUS, while the industry kept postponing its investment decision until it could arm-twist the government for more “clarity” (by which it meant even more lavish taxpayer subsidies) on the project. Now the industry itself is running away from the CCUS hub and insisting the pipeline should proceed without it, but Carney doesn’t seem to be budging from a central tenet of the MOU to which Smith has signed on. • No Subsidies, No Investors: Climate analysts and advocates have quite rightly been hammering away at Carney and his team, insisting that any new capacity the industry wants to build must proceed without new subsidies. The government has responded with a growing collection of funding and financing mechanisms for the very wide menu of industrial development and nation-building projects they say they want to take on, and that menu always includes fossil fuel infrastructure. But it’s hard to see how even the combined fiscal clout of the federal and supportive provincial governments will deliver the financial backing private investors would need when the business case for new fossil fuel development is evaporating before their eyes. Particularly when… • No Market, No Demand, No Investors: As our friend Markham Hislop at Energi Media (our apparently sleepless friend, given the massive volume of great material he’s been churning out) points out this morning, the biggest vulnerability in any pipeline deal is the assumption that Asian buyers will want the oil or liquefied natural ga that our fossil industry is so keen to send them. Hislop writes in part: Ottawa and Alberta are effectively betting that countries like China and India will continue increasing oil imports for decades as their economies grow and energy consumption rises. That assumption underpins the entire economic rationale for expanding oil sands production and building billions of dollars in new export infrastructure. But Asian energy systems are changing rapidly… China, India, South Korea, and other major hydrocarbon importers are now investing hundreds of billions of dollars into electricity systems built around wind, solar, batteries, nuclear, hydro, and expanded transmission infrastructure. Domestic “energy sovereignty” is increasingly replacing the old energy-security model based on stable oil and gas imports. Those investments are expected to sharply slow oil demand growth and eventually reverse it, even as overall energy consumption continues rising. There are also refining constraints. Many Asian refineries and petrochemical complexes are already optimized to process discounted heavy crude from the Middle East and Latin America. That raises serious questions about how much additional Canadian bitumen Asian markets can absorb at profitable prices. Small wonder that there’s still no private sector investor for the project, despite Smith’s government desperately beating the bushes to put together a deal. For now, Alberta is acting as proponent and covering early start-up costs for a pitch to the federal Major Projects Office, which could actually turn into the next tough hurdle for Smith and her pipeline to jump. • Canada Day Looms: How ironic that Canada’s birthday this year could become a major chokepoint for the provincial premier who’s been working so diligently to tear the country apart! The July 1 target date for Alberta’s pipeline proposal is baked into the MOU, was reaffirmed by the implementation plan, but it hadn’t dawned on me that it cuts both ways. As one very smart colleague wrote in an email yesterday, “they’ve thrown the ball into Alberta’s court to get the project proposal on the table really quickly and to have to do a whole pile of work to put together a massive, complicated project that would typically take years to assemble, and they’ve given them weeks to do it.” That makes July 1 a looming deadline that Smith won’t be able to run away from politically, especially with the separatists in her party and her caucus breathing down her neck. (See previous ref to off-the-wall.) But if Alberta comes in with a sloppy, incomplete submission, even after Carney bent over backwards to simplify the application process and the rules that govern it, it may be harder for the province or the industry to blame Ottawa and insist on the faster process they claim their investors are demanding. (Oh, wait—which investors would those be??) • We’ll See You In Court (Then We’ll See You Again): If Carney did cave, that would be just one more reason for Indigenous and other affected communities to take the government and the process to court—Just as Alberta First Nations did, successfully, in response to Smith’s half-baked separation referendum. Veterans of the Harper era have been warning that a shoddy process around fossil fuel infrastructure or other major projects will be a recipe for the very delays that process seeks to avoid. And now more than ever, with renewable energy and energy storage eating fossil fuels’ lunch in import markets around the world, a delayed pipeline or LNG terminal may be as good as a cancelled one. • Charged Up, Ready to Go: With its goal of doubling Canada’s electricity supply to meet a doubling of demand by 2050, the national electricity strategy that Carney unveiled Thursday has a lot to like. With its explicit language about speeding the shift from fuels to more efficient and affordable electricity, global investment and deployment patterns that already favour that shift, an emerging bidirectional power grid, the role of front-line options like rooftop solar and heat pumps, the emergence of electric vehicles as behind-the-meter energy storage, and the domestic jobs and manufacturing to make it all happen, the document doubles down on the essential cornerstone of a faster shift off fossil fuels. The strategy envisions a more prominent role for gas and nuclear power. But some of those provisions were already in the Clean Electricity Regulations that climate hawks are now fighting so hard to defend, inserted as a compromise in a futile attempt to mollify the industry and its political representatives in Alberta and Saskatchewan. But once again, gas will be a tougher sell when it’s more expensive and now so much more unpredictable than the clean alternatives. The new nuclear technologies are still speculative and deeply vulnerable to cost overruns. Increasingly, utilities, developers, and investors know it. Carney declared Thursday that “it doesn’t do us good to be sitting in court all the time with provinces. It doesn’t do us good to be talking past each other. What does do us good is to come together with specific projects.” There are no guarantees, but so much of the language and narrative-building in the electricity strategy suggests the lion’s share of those projects will be renewable. • The Party Has Already Started: The electricity strategy only rarely digs down to specific projects, but provinces representing three-quarters of Canada’s population are already embracing a faster transition. Hydro-Québec is working on a 10-year, $185-billion renewable energy and grid buildout by 2035. Ontario recently brought 10 provinces and territories together in a National Energy Corridor Agreement to boost interprovincial and -territorial transmission infrastructure. And the MOU implementation agreement commits Alberta to facilitate investment in renewable energy projects, a big step back from its continuing, punitive restrictions on renewables development. The electricity strategy envisions much of the financing and infrastructure that will be needed to pull those advances together into an integrated whole. • Delivering on Affordability: The MOU implementation plan has little or nothing to say about affordability (are you surprised?), but the electricity strategy does, with a top-line pledge to reduce home energy costs for seven out of 10 Canadian households by 2050, a total saving of $15 billion across the board. It’s just a start, but it puts affordability on the government’s narrative map. If they’re serious and deliberate about patching together a least-cost energy strategy, it’ll have little if any room for oil, gas, or nuclear—not with powerful evidence, for example, that electricity prices are higher when those prices are set by gas. • Smith Proves that Canada Works: By signing a deal that makes it harder to claim the federal government is blocking a new pipeline, Smith has helped prove Carney’s constant anti-separatist refrain that “Canada works”—incurring the rage, no doubt, of her own political base. Canada also needs to work for anyone who depends on a clean environment, healthy and thriving ecosystems, and safe, stable climate. But with Smith and her separatist constituents setting up as a fifth column for annexation by Donald Trump’s United States, let’s set aside any notion that 51st state status for Canada is a recipe for anything other than climate disaster (and so much else). Resisting and withstanding Trump (just 170 more sleeps until mid-term elections, which is a damn sight better than the 730 we started with) doesn’t mean a free pass for a pipeline, but we can still appreciate it that keeping Canada whole and sovereign is still Carney’s Job One. • The Words Not Spoken: Apart from a commitment to export a million barrels of “low-emission” Alberta bitumen per day (memo to Smith and Carney: You realize that that’s less than the industry is already exporting??), the MOU implementation plan says nothing about the international trade and economic sovereignty deals that Carney has been travelling the world to negotiate. It didn’t have to. Carney doesn’t need permission from Danielle Smith, her American enablers, or her separatist allies to continue building the alliances that will ratchet down our economic dependency on our unstable, unreliable neighbour to the south. But every connection he builds with countries outside North America helps align our economy and our future with a faster shift off fossil fuels. Little if any of this was on our bingo cards a year or two ago. But it’s the pathway that has opened up to us. And if it gives Canada any climate or energy gains at all in an era still dominated by Trump and his increasingly ridiculous tariffs, his loutish trade negotiations and his continuing annexation threats, we have to take the wins. Not least because they’ll be the point of departure for what we can achieve in 2027, 2029, and beyond, as Trump’s grip and this era begin to loosen and then fade. What is Carney Doing? If this line of thought is right—and it’s a possibility, not a prediction—it means that Carney’s actions and decisions are largely about buying time. Time for Trump’s power to wane. Time for Alberta’s separatist/conspiracist virus to spread, mutate, die out, or at least die back, with help from a vaccine of federal steadiness and calm (appropriate enough, for a movement populated largely by vaccine deniers) that no conspiracy theory can dismiss. And time for the government’s trade and investment agenda to deliver results—even knowing that some of those results will bring impacts that front-line communities will not and should not accept. In the immediate moment, none of this changes the way the wider climate community has to respond, from campaigners to investors to front-line practitioners. All of our voices are still essential. But those voices will be stronger and more confident if we have a clearer sense of the brutal game we’ve been pulled into, and a plausible path (or two it three) for playing it to the win we need. This conversation also underscores our biggest task for the remaining years of what was supposed to be the “decisive” decade for climate response: if we can shift the energy narrative in Canada, make it a mainstream view that the country’s preoccupation with oil and gas has us falling farther behind a changing world, we’ll see far better results in the 2030s and beyond. For many veteran climate advocates, taking on that part of the fight will begin with recognizing that most of our friends and family, neighbours and colleagues already understand that climate change is real and right in front of us: they’re looking away and staying silent because they don’t have what climate communicator Katharine Hayhoe calls “efficacy”. As Hayhoe recently pointed out in a feature interview with The Energy Mix, it amounts to science denial to keep hammering away at the dire news about global warming without also helping audiences understand what they can do about it, with multiple studies telling us why that won’t work. Far better to open those conversations with the dominant crises like energy security, food security, emergency preparedness and business continuity, affordability, and financial security that have knocked climate change far lower on the list of public priorities, and will likely keep it there. We Knew This Would Happen Climate hawks have always known this day would come. For decades, we warned that everyone had to pay attention to climate change right now, because it would be much tougher to respond once the crisis itself started affecting our daily lives. We were right, and here we are. But now, thanks to decades of hard work, communities and countries have an alternative to doubling down on fossil fuels. “In 10 years everyone will have ‘always known’ that solar and batteries were going to win,” Morgan Solar Executive Chair Mike Andrade writes on LinkedIn. With the disruption in the Strait of Hormuz roiling energy priorities around the world, Canada and the United States are among the shrinking number of countries that are still very keen on fossil fuel development. Understanding that gap is a first, essential step in spotting the opportunities ahead, and averting the deep economic as well as environmental and social risk we face if we don’t seize them. Thanks for reading The Energy Mix Weekender! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work. Subscribe Mitchell Beer traces his background in renewable energy and energy efficiency back to 1977, in climate change to 1997. Now he and the rest of the Energy Mix team scan 1,200 news headlines a week to pull together The Energy Mix and The Energy Mix Weekender. Chart of the Week BYD Eyes 20 Dealership Locations After Canada Greenlights Chinese EV Imports ‘Sledgehammer’ Carbon Price Deal Boosts Emissions by 230Mt, Aims for Fall 2027 Pipeline Approval ‘Worse Than Harper’: Regulatory Rollback Would Stop Canada from Assessing Project Impacts, Critics Warn Electricity Strategy Aims for Doubling by 2050, Allows ‘Flexibility’ for Gas Power Plants Opposition Mounts as O’Leary’s Data Centre Approved in Drought-Stricken Utah Diluted Carbon Price Misses ‘Reality of the World We’re In’, Could Impede Diversified Trade: Climate Institute $200B in Clean Energy Investment Will Need On-Time Delivery, Reliable Policies, Trade Association Says ‘Sovereign Pipeline’: CEO Pitches to Keep Trans Mountain in Government Hands What a Supercharged El Niño Could Mean for Canada Canada’s future is electric, and here’s how a power grid superhighway would get us there (Toronto Star) The Perilous Waters of Hecate Strait (Globe and Mail) Saudi Aramco profits jump despite conflict in Middle East (The Guardian) Farmers confront rising cost of fertilizer and fuel as spring seeding under way (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) Clarkson forecasts 24% decline in offshore oil, gas capital expenditures (Oil & Gas Journal) Pipe Dreams: How Oil and Gas Fail to Deliver Economic Development in Africa (Oil Change International) Developing countries must hold the pen to script the fossil fuel transition (Climate Home News) Iran war threatens the dream of a post-oil economy in the Gulf (Washington Post) U.S. Oil, Gas Work Force Hits Lowest Level Since 2022 (Rigzone) Why Polestar Is Doubling Down on Net Zero as Rivals Pull Back on EVs (Bloomberg) Why this Michigan utility plans to sell its hydro dams for $13 (E&E News/Politico) Levees can no longer save New Orleans (Vox)
Mayor Bowser's budget proposes sweeping changes to mental health services in D.C. schools, raising concerns
Bowser wants to bring school behavioral health services under a city agency to reduce costs. But many fear the disruptions will hurt students and overwhelm teachers.
Wasted Investments, Looming Crisis: The Impact of U.S. Global Health Funding Cuts on HIV in South Africa
Executive Summary Starting in 2025, the Trump administration abruptly slashed and disrupted funding for global health, jeopardizing hard won public health gains and irreplaceable investments in infrastructure and partnerships for disease response, health security, and research. As of late March 2026 – more than a year after the disruptions began – HIV, tuberculosis (TB), and […]
Underground fire aftermath still hurting downtown business: ‘We’ve had to leave Charles Street to make money’
More than a year after an underground fire shut down part of Charles Street near Mount Vernon, nearby businesses say the disruption continues to hurt foot traffic and deliveries.
International science cooperation must go on, say research leaders
Science leaders in Europe and Canada say international cooperation must go on amid geopolitical turmoil. At the same time, Europe and like-minded countries should continue to enhance and diversify international partnerships, a Science|Business conference hears. Hugh Brady, president of Imperial College London, told delegates that Europe’s response to the current geopolitical climate should be to “diversify in terms of research partnerships and build resilience and scale into our own system.”A first priority should be for the EU to sort out the scope of the upcoming European Competitiveness Fund and ensure that, together with the next iteration of Horizon Europe, it can drive the development and scale up of new technologies. The EU and the countries associated to the Horizon Europe programme represent “the world's most successful research innovation ecosystem,” Brady said. In order to mitigate the negative effects of shifting geopolitics, the EU together with the UK, Switzerland, Canada, South Korea and others should talk about “building resilience” and address their own “regional needs,” he added. Responding to TrumpUnder Donald Trump’s leadership, the US government has slashed science budgets and shut down international research programmes. Nearly 8,000 grants at the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation have been frozen or terminated. Courts have overturned most of these cancellations, but the disruption caused remains significant. While Europe may persuade a few thousand disgruntled scientists to move across the ocean to work on topics that have been de-funded in the US, it’s unclear what should happen next with transatlantic scientific cooperation more broadly.“Now is the time for us to show [US researchers] our support as much as we can,” Brady said.The European Research Council (ERC), the EU’s basic science funder, has seen a surge in applicants from the US. According its latest data, US-based researchers submitted 347 proposals to the last three big funding rounds, up from 158 in the previous set of calls. The European Commission has also launched a €22.5 million pilot call in 2025 for the Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions, the EU’s researcher training scheme. It plans to extend this support with a €51.25 million call in 2027 as part of the Choose Europe initiative, which is intended to make the continent a more attractive place to pursue a career in research. Related articlesData corner: US researchers are choosing EuropeEU-India deal highlights growing alignment on technology policyMeanwhile, in the private non-profit sector, the Volkswagen Foundation is experimenting with a new type of grant that would allow US researchers to split their time between the US and Germany. While these schemes are useful, Europe should not bet on an exodus of scientists from the US. “The idea that we might all see them flocking over to Europe is naïve and counterproductive,” said Maria Leptin, president of the ERC, also speaking at the Science|Business conference on February 5. “We need research in the US to be as healthy as possible. I really admire those who are staying there with a will to fight and an optimism that the world will turn into a better place again,” Leptin said. Preserving dataDespite political disruption, academics have found ways to continue cooperating and sharing research data. Leslie Weir, president of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions and Canada’s national librarian, said the US cuts have raised concerns about research data security, after ideologically sensitive databases were limited or deleted by the Trump administration. But international organisations teamed up to ensure that the data is not lost. “It's interesting to see that researchers and libraries across North America are collaborating to make sure that data at risk is duplicated elsewhere outside [the US],” Weir said.
Alarm as US mulls prioritising citizens in research funding
A senior White House official said the Trump administration is considering ways to prioritise research funding to American citizens, triggering alarm in the research community that the country could destroy its century-long status as a magnet for overseas talent.Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), said last week that it is “important for us to continue to emphasise the use of federal R&D dollars towards American scientists and technologists that are staffed by Americans in their labs.” Asked about support for Chinese students during a Congressional hearing, Kratsios went on to say that in future funding announcements, the OSTP would “emphasise” that “we're funding American students.”The precise meaning of his impromptu comments, and what they could mean in policy terms, isn’t yet clear. The OSTP did not respond to multiple requests for clarification from Science|Business.But given that US science and technology has relied on overseas talent for the past century, Kratsios’s words have alarmed former US science officials.Immigrants have made up around 30-40% of US Nobel Prize winners since the 1940s, for example. Except for some sensitive projects, countries typically grant research funding on a nationality-blind basis, lest they deter foreign scientists from immigrating. “If director Kratsios’s statements are taken literally and become official policy of the White House, [research-intensive] universities will likely have to close labs if not entire research divisions,” said David Biggs, a former science and technology official in the US State Department. In their most extreme interpretation, Kratsios’s comments would imply that foreign scientists established in the US would see access to funding curtailed. This would “result in many world-leading professors who work in the United States in fields that this administration considers a priority (like fusion energy, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing) leaving the country,” said Cole Donovan, a former US science diplomat, and now associate director at the Federation of American Scientists.CripplingHowever, given the context of the conversation, Kratsios may have been referring more narrowly to funding for doctoral or postdoctoral students. At the hearing, he said he wanted to see labs staffed by US citizens. But even this would have devastating consequences for the US science system, say former officials, because the country is so dependent on early-career foreign researchers. Recent statistics show that nearly half of those in the US with a PhD in science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) are considered short-term visitors, or non-residents in the official terminology. If this included residents who are not yet citizens, the proportion would likely be even higher. “Foreign PhD students are really a significant and core part of the university STEM workforce, and postdocs is similarly large,” said Donovan. Preventing US-based academics from hiring them from overseas would be a serious blow, he said. “If it's the case that this administration intends to limit funding to labs staffed only with US citizens, the effect will be to cripple the American scientific enterprise,” said Chris Marcum, a former OSTP official. “To think that these researchers can simply be replaced is a pipe dream. The labs will close,” said Marcum. Go elsewhereAround half of US-trained postdocs are foreign-born, said Biggs. “If these top international students cannot get funding to do their research, or even if they hear that funding for foreign students has been greatly restricted and will be super competitive, they will no longer choose to study in the US and will go elsewhere.” It’s unclear for now if Kratsios’s comments will translate into a real policy shift. But they could add to turmoil in the US science system since Donald Trump took over as president one year ago. Related articlesNIH turmoil risks reciprocal EU-US access to health research fundingUS set to close office responsible for global science and technology dealsTrump halts new NIH grants to international health-research partnersSince then, nearly 8,000 grants at the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation have been frozen or terminated, Naturereports. Courts have overturned most of these cancellations, but the disruption caused remains significant. Both those agencies have also dished out around a quarter fewer grants this year than normal, the journal reported. International student enrolment is also down by 17%. The Trump administration also proposes to cut research budgets by around a third, although Congress may mollify the cuts.
Alarm over US plan to prioritise citizens in research funding
The US’s leading science official has said the country will focus its research spending on scientists with US citizenship, triggering alarm that the country could destroy its century-long status as a magnet for overseas talent.Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), said last week that it is “important for us to continue to emphasise the use of federal R&D dollars towards American scientists and technologists that are staffed by Americans in their labs.” Asked about support for Chinese students during a Congressional hearing, Kratsios went on to say that in future funding announcements, the OSTP would “emphasise” that “we're funding American students.”Kratsios’s precise meaning, and what it could mean in policy terms, isn’t yet clear. The OSTP did not respond to multiple requests for clarification from Science|Business.But given that US science and technology has relied on overseas talent for the past century, Kratsios’s words have stunned former US science officials.Immigrants have made up around 30-40% of US Nobel Prize winners since the 1940s, for example. Except for some sensitive projects, countries typically grant research funding on a nationality-blind basis, lest they deter foreign scientists from immigrating. “If director Kratsios’s statements are taken literally and become official policy of the White House, [research-intensive] universities will likely have to close labs if not entire research divisions,” said David Biggs, a former science and technology official in the US State Department. In their most extreme interpretation, Kratsios’s comments would imply that foreign scientists established in the US would see access to funding curtailed. This would “result in many world-leading professors who work in the United States in fields that this administration considers a priority (like fusion energy, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing) leaving the country,” said Cole Donovan, a former US science diplomat, and now associate director at the Federation of American Scientists.CripplingHowever, given the context of the conversation, Kratsios may have been referring more narrowly to funding for doctoral or postdoctoral students. At the hearing, he said he wanted to see labs staffed by US citizens. But even this would have devastating consequences for the US science system, say former officials, because the country is so dependent on early-career foreign researchers. Recent statistics show that nearly half of those in the US with a PhD in science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) are considered short-term visitors, or non-residents in the official terminology. If this included residents who are not yet citizens, the proportion would likely be even higher. “Foreign PhD students are really a significant and core part of the university STEM workforce, and postdocs is similarly large,” said Donovan. Preventing US-based academics from hiring them from overseas would be a serious blow, he said. “If it's the case that this administration intends to limit funding to labs staffed only with US citizens, the effect will be to cripple the American scientific enterprise,” said Chris Marcum, a former OSTP official. “To think that these researchers can simply be replaced is a pipe dream. The labs will close,” said Marcum. Go elsewhereAround half of US-trained postdocs are foreign-born, said Biggs. “If these top international students cannot get funding to do their research, or even if they hear that funding for foreign students has been greatly restricted and will be super competitive, they will no longer choose to study in the US and will go elsewhere.” It’s unclear for now if Kratsios’s comments will translate into a real policy shift. But they could add to turmoil in the US science system since Donald Trump took over as president one year ago. Since then, nearly 8,000 grants at the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation have been frozen or terminated, Naturereports. Courts have overturned most of these cancellations, but the disruption caused remains significant. Both those agencies have also dished out around a quarter fewer grants this year than normal, the journal reported. International student enrolment is also down by 17%. The Trump administration also proposes to cut research budgets by around a third, although Congress may mollify the cuts.
Fort Worth business reflects on two years since Sandman Hotel explosion
Two years after an explosion injured 21 at the Sandman Hotel, nearby Fort Worth businesses are still recovering from the disruption and delays.
What Can U.S. Employers Do About Rising Healthcare Costs?
U.S. employers are grappling with surging healthcare costs as healthcare prices and service volumes rise. Provider consolidation, high drug prices, labor shortages, and growing chronic disease are fueling the cost increases. Employer have largely responded by shifting expenses to workers. Their track record in pursuing aggressive options—including collective purchasing, tiered plans, value-based care, and advocating for changes in government policies—is poor. The big question is whether they have the will to become more aggressive in pursuing remedies. The outlook is not promising. The reasons include the complexity of the problem, employee resistance to some solutions, and the fact that most employers just don’t have sufficient “skin in the game” to take on the disruption and risk that would be required to bend the healthcare cost curve significantly or sustainably.