查看更多>>摘要：The endless churn of damaging actions from the Trump administration toward science-from freezing and canceling grants to ending programs that encourage greater participation in science-has wreaked havoc in American universities and reverberated around the world as worries about international collaborations and access to American scientific resources threaten the global scientific enterprise. The situation has created anxiety and stress on campuses in the US as administrators contemplate their next moves and faculty and. students wonder how to respond. As I travel to campuses around the United States and talk with research faculty, trainees, and students, a common question I hear is "What can I do?"
Adrian ChoJocelyn KaiserDavid MalakoffJeffrey Mervis...
566-567页
查看更多>>摘要：President Donald Trump alarmed science leaders last week when he asked Congress to make unprecedented cuts to the 2026 budgets of major federal science agencies. The 2 May request calls for cutting spending by more than one-third at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and by more than half at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and NASA's science office. It also eliminates most federal spending on climate and ecological research. The proposed science cuts would be part of an overall 23%, $163 billion cut to nondefense discretionary spending-a roughly 15% sliver of the $7 trillion federal spending pie. In contrast, the thinly detailed budget request calls for hefty increases in spending on defense and homeland security in the 2026 fiscal year that begins on 1 October.
查看更多>>摘要：In a blow to many foreign medical researchers who rely on U.S. funding, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced last week that by the end of September, it will halt what are known as "foreign subawards," in which U.S. researchers share their grant money. These funds support collaborations ranging from investigator-initiated research projects to large clinical trial networks that test new medicines, and a single NIH grant can have more than a dozen subawards to other countries. NIH cast the move not as a way to reduce its funding of foreign research, but as necessary to better track the agency's money and "maintain national security." Going forward, NIH said, foreign scientists must directly apply for separate grants, and it will revise the process for that.
查看更多>>摘要：A study that used artificial intelligence-generated content to "participate" in online discussions and test whether AI was more successful at changing people's minds than other humans has caused an uproar because of ethical concerns about the work. This week some of the unwitting research participants publicly asked the University of Zurich (UZH), where the researchers behind the experiment hold positions, to investigate and apologize. "I think people have a reasonable expectation to not be in scientific experiments without their consent," says Casey Fiesler, an expert on internet research ethics at the University of Colorado Boulder. A university statement emailed to Science says the researchers-who remain anonymous-have decided not to publish their results. The university will investigate the incident, the statement says.
查看更多>>摘要：Michelle Koplitz looks back on her master's program with fondness, but being the only Deaf researcher in a group of hearing colleagues was difficult. "I felt very alone and isolated," she recalls. Koplitz knew that, for a Ph.D., she would need community-something she found in a group of programs known collectively as the Deaf Scientists Pipeline. This initiative-a collaboration between the University of Rochester (UR)/University of Rochester Medical Center and the Rochester Institute of Technology's National Technical Institute for the Deaf-provides scholarships, mentorship programs, and other support for Deaf students from high school all the way through postdoctoral training. It's the only pipeline of its kind in the world. But in early April, Koplitz got the news she'd been dreading: Four out of five National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants supporting the pipeline had been terminated, and the fifth was in danger of being cut as well. Collectively, the programs estimate they will lose about $3.6 million in future funding that was committed in the most recent award and renewal cycles-a drop in the bucket compared with the total NIH budget, but essential to sustain the pipeline, which has supported dozens of students and researchers at the Rochester universi- ties over the past 12 years. "This is a real step back," Koplitz says. "I'm afraid that we're going to lose the little bit of progress that we've made."
查看更多>>摘要：On 28 March, Briony Swire-Thompson began seeing reports online that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) might cancel grants for research on misinformation. At first, she didn't think she would be affected. Swire-Thompson, a psychologist at Northeastern University, studies misinformation-but not the political lies that get most of the attention. She's interested in false information about cancer, and why people fall for it. "There's a lot of people online trying to sell their snake oil," she says. But on 2 April, she got an email from NIH saying her work was no longer "effectuating government priorities" as it was "research to influence the public's opinion." She had to halt any work paid for by the grant immediately and won't be able to hire postdocs, research assistants, and Ph.D. students, she says. "It will dramatically impact the size of my lab going forward."
查看更多>>摘要：Work relating to Microsoft's new quantum computing chip has been called into question after an author on the study acknowledged it contained "undisclosed data manipulations," according to emails obtained by Retraction Watch and Science. The findings, published in 2017 in Nature Communications by a Microsoft-funded lab at the Delft University of Technology, were a key step in demonstrating how an ultrathin "nanowire" might be useful as a bit in a quantum chip, just as a transistor is used in a conventional computer. Last month, the paper received an editorial expression of concern and extensive corrections to address gaps in data following an investigation by the journal. But two of its authors say the correction is insufficient and the study should be retracted. Henry Legg, a quantum physicist at the University of St. Andrews, also has concerns. "This is the latest in a long line of issues we have seen with Microsoft-funded research," he says. "It seems when they turn up with funding, standard research practices can go out the window."
查看更多>>摘要：It is almost certainly the most consequential 100 days that scientists in the United States have experienced since the end of World War Ⅱ. Since taking his oath of office on 20 January, President Donald Trump has unleashed an unprecedented rapid-fire campaign to remake-some would say demolish-vast swaths of the federal government's scientific and public health infrastructure. His administration has erased entire agencies that fund research; fired or pushed out thousands of federal workers with technical backgrounds; terminated research and training grants and contracts worth billions of dollars; and banned new government funding for activities it finds offensive, from efforts to diversify the scientific workforce to studies of the health needs of LGBTQ people. The frenetic onslaught has touched nearly every field-from archaeology to zoology, from deep-sea research to deep-space science. And it has left researchers from postdocs to lab heads feeling bewildered, worried-and angry. Many fear that in just 14 weeks, Trump has irreversibly damaged a scientific enterprise that took many decades to build, and has long made the U.S. the envy of the world.
查看更多>>摘要：On a cool, sunny, mid-April day, the cheerful redbuds and other flowering trees amid the sprawling labs here on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) main campus belied the pervasive gloom. Nearly 3 months into President Donald Trump's administration, NIH's in-house scientists and other workers were reeling from mass layoffs of colleagues; the removal of leaders; and limits on travel, communication, and purchasing that have shut the agency off from the world, hamstrung experiments, and crushed the community's spirits. On that spring day, a senior scientist lamented that two star colleagues in his institute were heading back to their native China from NIH, abandoning an institution that had always drawn talent from around the world. "I want to cry," he said. Another pointed to the retirement the previous day of a noted NIH nutrition scientist who said the agency had censored his publications and interactions with the media.
查看更多>>摘要：Adana Llanos knows it takes years to build trust, but only seconds to break it. That's especially true when doing research with people of color: Historical abuses and pervasive racism in health care systems make many hesitant to participate in studies today. The Columbia University epidemiologist has spent nearly 2 decades forging relationships with community partners, laying groundwork that enables her to study nuanced issues such as how neighborhood environments contribute to breast cancer severity in racially diverse populations. "This isn't just [research] that I decided to do last year," she says. But that hard-won trust may now be at risk. On 14 March, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) abruptly terminated two of Llanos's three grants. One was for a study of how societal factors affect whether a woman receives the best care for cervical cancer and present barriers to treatment; it had enrolled about 200 of its intended 960 participants. Llanos is looking for alternative funding to restart recruitment, and to compensate the members of the community who served as advisers for the work so far. But even if the NIH money were restored, she says, the researchers could miss critical time points to follow up with the women already enrolled. Her other project, a breast cancer study, is also on hold.
NETL
NSTL
Amer Assoc Advancement Science