Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Sunday, February 8, 2026

Interview in China (accompanying new edition of Who Gets What and Why)

 Southern People Weekly just published an interview about the new edition of the Chinese translation of my 2015 book Who Gets What and Why.  After talking about the book, they also asked questions about scientific work and Nobel prizes, and I'll include some of that below. (The English translation mostly renders "Roth" as "Ross," but in at least one place I am "Irwin Rothu.")

 Here's the link (in Chinese and in translation):

 正文
为什么“天上撒钱”不一定是好事?
南方人物周刊
2026-02-04 14:10

Why isn't "money falling from the sky" necessarily a good thing?
Southern People Weekly
2026-02-04 14:10
 

 Southern People Weekly: Although Nobel Prize-winning research often stems from studies conducted many years ago to see if it can withstand the test of time, in the long run, both the nationality distribution of laureates and the evolution of research topics reflect, to some extent, changes in the global economic power structure and intellectual trends. How do you view this interaction between "academics and the times"?

Ross: That's certainly true, both in the long and short term. After World War II, the United States' scientific research and university strength rose rapidly, leading the world and producing a large number of Nobel laureates. Among them were scholars who grew up in the United States, as well as scientists who were forced to migrate from Europe due to war and political circumstances.

Today, I have some concerns that the United States may be actively relinquishing this long-accumulated advantage—when outstanding scholars from around the world no longer feel comfortable and secure in American universities, they may choose to pursue their careers in China or Europe. Another noteworthy change is that, in the past, most economics professors at Peking University and Tsinghua University held doctorates from top American universities such as Princeton, MIT, or Harvard; now, an increasing number of professors are completing their doctoral education at Chinese universities. Overall, this is a good thing; more people dedicating themselves to scientific research benefits the world. I only hope that top American universities will continue to welcome scholars from all over the world.

Southern People Weekly: Every year when the Nobel Prize winners are announced, similar discussions erupt in China—despite its stellar economic performance, China still boasts a sparse number of Nobel laureates. A Chinese-American Nobel Prize judge, when discussing this phenomenon, stated that China's current evaluation system, centered on the number of papers and impact factors, objectively pushes research efforts towards already highly crowded and popular fields. The key to a breakthrough lies in identifying important research gaps and sustaining long-term, continuous investment. What advice do you have for young Chinese researchers?

Ross: There isn't just one way to do scientific research. Some people choose to tackle well-known, unsolved problems; they're running a "sprint." If you're not confident that you're smart enough to solve these well-known problems faster than others, then becoming famous through a sprint isn't for you.

Another path is to choose a job that requires long-term accumulation. I'm not referring to a marathon, which is still a race where speed is paramount, but rather to becoming a musician, which requires long-term creation and continuous exploration of new musical styles or genres to gain recognition.

Southern People Weekly: Your career path is the second one.

Ross: Yes, I've never considered myself smarter than anyone else. There wasn't much interest in matching theory early on, but I was very interested in it. My first paper on matching theory was initially submitted to an economics journal, titled "Matching Economics: Stability and Incentives." The journal's editor at the time was George Stigler, who was also the Nobel laureate in economics that year (1982).

He replied with a very polite letter, saying he had read the paper and found it "very interesting," but the only part of the entire article that could be considered economics was the word "economics" in the title. The paper discussed how to achieve stable matching through institutional arrangements in the absence of price adjustments and analyzed the incentives of participants. Stigler is one of the core economists of the Chicago School, known for his in-depth research on price theory. In his view, my paper did not constitute economic research.

So I published the paper in a mathematical operations research journal. Thirty years later, I won the Nobel Prize. During this time, matching theory gradually became part of economics, attracting more and more economists' attention. How could it not be (economics)? How people go to school, find jobs, and allocate kidney transplant resources are essentially matching problems. That (rejected) paper later became one of the papers cited in the Nobel Prize review.

Regardless of which path you choose, you should not make the Nobel Prize your research goal, because winning the prize itself is highly accidental.

Southern People Weekly: So, chasing a certain direction just because it seems important or popular may not necessarily bring you the success you want; similarly, you shouldn't give up your passion just because it's not popular or hasn't been recognized yet.

Ross: I often tell my graduate and doctoral students that you have to find a research area that is attractive enough to you. Because most days, you may not make any progress, but at the end of the day, you can still say to yourself, "Well, today was pretty interesting too." It is this enjoyment that draws you back to the work time and time again. ... you can't make something you dislike into something great.
...


Southern People Weekly: Some media outlets have summarized the Trump administration's trade strategy as using high-pressure threats, setting tight deadlines, and structured negotiation frameworks to leverage uncertainty and bargaining power to force concessions from the other side. From a game theory perspective, how do you evaluate this strategy?

Ross: I have some concerns that the current U.S. administration may not yet fully grasp the importance of being a reliable partner. Any long-term partnership, like a marriage, cannot involve daily discussions about "who does the dishes." True long-term cooperation means investing in the future at every moment, not just focusing on immediate gains. I fear we have overlooked this.

...

Southern People Weekly: Your academic journey also had its share of ups and downs—you dropped out of high school due to a lack of motivation, but successfully applied to university by taking weekend engineering courses at Columbia University; you failed your doctoral qualifying exam, but gained the appreciation of Bob Wilson (the American economist who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2020), thus avoiding an unexpected interruption to your academic career. Do these life experiences influence your views on "matching mechanisms"?

Ross: Absolutely. There's something "magical" about the PhD program: when we admit students, we base our decisions on their undergraduate performance—the only information we have when making admissions decisions. But when we "sell" them and help them find jobs, we base our decisions on the research they've done during their PhD studies.

In other words, we admit students based on their ability to learn existing knowledge and complete coursework, but evaluate and recommend them based on their ability to discover the unknown and create new knowledge. These two abilities are not entirely the same. Unfortunately, we don't have a good way to accurately predict how outstanding a person will become as a researcher based solely on their undergraduate performance. 

##############

Earlier interview:

Wednesday, December 24, 2025  Interview about the new edition of the Chinese translation of Who Gets What and Why

 

Sunday, January 25, 2026

Peer review isn't sufficient to detect/deter fraud in science

 Economists shouldn't be surprised that, in many fields of science, there is some incidence of deliberate fraud.  Being a scientist is an attractive job, and to some extent a competitive one.  Rewards flow to those who publish in top (read "competitive")  journals.  In big lab based, grant-dependent science, the ability to keep working may even depend on such publications coming at a steady rate, to keep the grants coming to keep the lab funded.  

Most journals do their gatekeeping by peer review.  But peers aren't detectives, they are volunteers who can mostly judge a paper primarily by what evidence it presents.* So we are seeing some growth in after-publication review by fraud hunters, typically also volunteers.

Here's an article by two interesting, interested observer/participants,  Ivan Oransky (a co-founder of Retraction Watch) and Alice Dreger

Science journals retract 500 papers a month. This is why it matters
A small team of volunteers is tracking thousands of falsified studies, including cases of bribery, fraud and plagiarism 
by Ivan Oransky | Alice Dreger 

 "So, how bad is the whole problem now? Much worse, it turns out, than when Retraction Watch was founded in 2010.

...

"The Dana-Farber case, unearthed by whistleblower Sholto David, exemplifies a key change behind the massive rise in retractions. Sleuths such as David — typically volunteers — function as true heroes of modern science, spending days and nights detecting plagiarism as well as suspicious data, statistics and more. Looking at studies by Dana-Farber researchers, David found that images of mice, said to have been taken at different stages of an experiment, appeared to be identical, and identified bone marrow samples taken from humans that were presented in a misleading way. This kind of painstaking work has only become possible on any sort of scale thanks to the development of forensic tools, some powered by AI. 

...

"All the large publishing houses now employ research integrity teams to review allegations and retract papers if necessary.  

 ...

"Rather than giving up, we should pay more attention to how we create perverse incentives — promoting quantity of publication over quality, and sexiness over meticulousness. Perhaps most importantly, we need to help the world understand that, when splashy results turn out to be incorrect and are retracted or amended, that’s all part of how we get closer to the truth. 

######

*Peer review is not without other problems, don't get me started. But my sense is that, not unlike democracy, it does pretty well by comparison with alternatives. 

Tuesday, January 13, 2026

The administration takes its eye off medical journals (TACOs can be good)

The war against science hasn't just focused on research universities, but also on scientific journals. (The concern with journals is that they privilege evidence, which is seen as discriminating against some viewpoints.)  And the war on science has a particular focus on medicine, and hence on medical journals. But policing journals takes patience, and (in this case, fortunately) the eye of Sauron doesn't have a lot of patience. (Sort of like pediatricians, who are always in a hurry because they have little patients...) 

Medpage Today has the story:

DOJ Sent Letters to Medical Journals. Then What Happened?
— Worrying probe into publications' partisanship may have lost steam
  by Rachael Robertson, 

"A few months into the second Trump administration, major medical journals received letters from Edward R. Martin Jr., who was the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia at the time. (He has since been replaced by Jeanine Pirro.) 

"The first letter to come to light was addressed to CHEST Editor-in-Chief Peter Mazzone, MD, MPH, of the Cleveland Clinic, and dated April 14. Martin's letter contained five questions, including how the journal assessed its "responsibilities to protect the public from misinformation" and how it handled competing viewpoints. Martin requested a response by May 2.

"Other major journals received similar letters, including the New England Journal of Medicine and Obstetrics & Gynecology, the official journal of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, as well as two other journals that did not want to be named.

"But since receiving those letters in April, the publications haven't heard a peep on the matter from DOJ, several of the journals confirmed to MedPage Today. Most of the journals also declined to comment on the details of their responses to DOJ's letter. "

Monday, December 8, 2025

Disagreement in Science: Missing Women by David Klinowski

 Here's an study of women in science that explores a novel angle.

David Klinowski; Voicing Disagreement in Science: Missing Women. The Review of Economics and Statistics 2025; 107 (6): 1743–1753. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01322 

Abstract: This paper examines the authorship of post-publication criticisms in the scientific literature, with a focus on gender differences. Bibliometrics from journals in the natural and social sciences show that comments that criticize or correct a published study are 20% to 40% less likely than regular papers to have a female author. In preprints in the life sciences, prior to peer review, women are missing by 20% to 40% in failed replications compared to regular papers, but they are not missing in successful replications. In an experiment, I then find large gender differences in willingness to point out and penalize a mistake in someone's work. 

 

 

 

Saturday, October 25, 2025

Enhancing Scientific Integrity in the Social and Behavioral Sciences--Nominate an Expert for an NAS workshop

 The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are soliciting nominations for a workshop on

 Enhancing Scientific Integrity: Progress and Opportunities in the Social and Behavioral Sciences - A Workshop

"This workshop will bring together researchers, journal editors, publishers, funders, and scientific association leaders to identify practical, forward-looking strategies for strengthening data integrity and transparency in the social and behavioral sciences. Participants will explore innovative tools and frameworks to detect and prevent errors, promote accountability, and reinforce public trust in research. Discussions will also consider how journals, institutions, and professional societies can adopt fair, sustainable practices that support scientific rigor while ensuring accessibility for researchers across many contexts and settings.

Deadline: November 7, 2025

Call for Experts

We invite you to submit suggestions for experts to participate in this activity. The call for experts closes on November 7, 2025 at 11:59 PM PST.

 "The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine proposes to convene a workshop to bring together diverse stakeholders, including journal editors, publishers, scientists, funding agencies, and scientific association leaders, to advance research and data integrity. The workshop will focus on identifying proactive, constructive strategies to enhance transparency and accountability in research practices. Key questions to be addressed include:

• How can the social and behavioral sciences continue to lead the way in advancing data integrity? What successful methods or frameworks from other disciplines might be adapted to strengthen these efforts?

• Could systematic, random audits of published data help detect and correct honest mistakes while discouraging malfeasance? What governance structures would ensure such efforts are fair, sustainable, and constructive? What new tools might facilitate this process?

• How can scientific journals refine their policies (e.g., review processes, data validation) to support transparency and integrity while maintaining accessibility for researchers across diverse contexts?

• What strategies can be employed to ensure potential solutions avoid placing undue burdens on researchers, especially those at institutions with limited resources?"

Monday, September 22, 2025

Science and politics: Can you fix science by doing much less of it?

 Today's NYT has a long opinion piece about (my former Stanford colleague) Jay  Bhattacharya in his role as the new head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  I found it confusing and confused. But the last two paragraphs made some sense.

Jay Bhattacharya Wants to Fix Science.  Is He in Over His Head?  
By Ari Schulman 

Here are the two concluding paragraphs:

"The mRNA vaccine decision was the clearest test case yet of how his idealism will go once released into the wild. In The Washington Post, he acknowledges that the Covid vaccines saved millions of lives without known safety problems. He notes unanswered questions, around dosing and side effects. But when push came to shove, his response to these questions was not, let’s answer them with science, as he told me, but: Shut the science down. It turns out that the power of science to solve problems has limits after all.

"The problem with Dr. Bhattacharya is not that he’s cynical, as his critics say. It’s that his theory is naïve about power, and so could easily become a mouthpiece for it. America’s golden age of innovation, backed by levels of public investment that make us the envy of the world, has been nice while it’s lasted. If we want to keep it going, this moment may call less for a fresh infusion of reason than some new animating spirit, not a new Galileo but a new Robert Moses, Carl Sagan, or J. Robert Oppenheimer. Let us hope that Jay Bhattacharya still has it in him. The country needs it." 

Sunday, September 21, 2025

The 2025 Golden Goose awards

 In these difficult times for science funding, the Golden Goose Award is a reminder of its benefits.

 Here's it's backstory

Here are the 2025 winners

“Nature has all the answers”

How a knack for nature’s oddities improved disease diagnostics & inspired scores of scientists

AWARDEE: Joseph G. Gall 

FEDERAL FUNDING AGENCIES: National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation 

 and

Cisplatin Breakthrough Redefines Testicular Cancer Treatment 

 AWARDEES: Barnett Rosenberg, Loretta VanCamp, Thomas Krigas 

FEDERAL FUNDING AGENCIES: National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation 

 ######### 

 Here are all my posts on the Golden Goose.  (Two of the early awards were for market design:)

Wednesday, September 10, 2025

Politics and science disagree about drinking and climate change...

 It turns our that worries about drinking were just as woke about worries about climate change.

The NYT has the story on drinking, CBS on climate change:

Federal Report on Drinking Is Withdrawn
The upcoming U.S. Dietary Guidelines will instead be influenced by a competing study, favored by industry, which found that moderate alcohol consumption was healthy. 

"The Department of Health and Human Services has pulled back a government report warning of a link between cancer and drinking even small amounts of alcohol, according to the authors of the research.

Their report, the Alcohol Intake and Health Study, warned that even one drink a day raises the risk of liver cirrhosis, oral and esophageal cancer, and injuries. The scientists who wrote it were told that the final version would not be submitted to Congress, as had been planned." 

##########

Here's CBS's story on climate change:

More than 85 climate experts say Energy Department report on greenhouse gases is "full of errors"

"An international group of more than 85 climate experts on Tuesday published a 439-page review arguing that a report by the Trump administration's Energy Department fails to "adequately represent the current scientific understanding of climate change," and it "exhibits pervasive problems" by misrepresenting scientific literature and cherry-picking data.

"The Department of Energy's 151-page report, "A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate," was written by five authors who were hand-selected by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fossil fuel executive. It included a controversial conclusion that "carbon dioxide-induced warming appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed," and it states that "aggressive mitigation strategies" to address greenhouse gas emissions "could be more harmful than beneficial" — a statement that supports the oil and gas industry."

######

That has sparked a lawsuit by the Environmental Defense Fund.

Monday, September 8, 2025

Reputations take a long time to build but can be quickly destroyed

 US support for science is one of the things that will be hard to make reliable again.

Here's a story from the Washington Post, about and including an interview with the mathematician Terence Tao.

 The world’s greatest mathematician avoided politics. Then Trump cut science funding.  Terence Tao, often called the “Mozart of Math,” is focused on fundraising after federal research funding to UCLA was suspended.  By Carolyn Y. Johnson

" What’s hardest to restore is the sense of predictability and stability.

"People who support all the positive aspects of America have to speak out and fight for them now. The things that you took for granted, there was bipartisan support to keep certain things in the U.S. running as they have been more or less for the past 70 years because the system worked. That’s not a safe assumption anymore."


Wednesday, August 6, 2025

Fake science at scale, via organized paper mills (in PNAS and the NYT)

 Here's a recent paper from PNAS, analyzing the organized activity of paper mills producing fraudulent papers.

The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly  by Reese A. K. Richardson, Jennifer A. Byrne, and Luís A. Nunes Amaral
Edited by Daniel Acuña, University of Colorado Boulder, accepted by Editorial Board Member Mark Granovetter August 4, 2025  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.242009212

Abstract
Science is characterized by collaboration and cooperation, but also by uncertainty, competition, and inequality. While there has always been some concern that these pressures may compel some to defect from the scientific research ethos—i.e., fail to make genuine contributions to the production of knowledge or to the training of an expert workforce—the focus has largely been on the actions of lone individuals. Recently, however, reports of coordinated scientific fraud activities have increased. Some suggest that the ease of communication provided by the internet and open-access publishing have created the conditions for the emergence of entities—paper mills (i.e., sellers of mass-produced low quality and fabricated research), brokers (i.e., conduits between producers and publishers of fraudulent research), predatory journals, who do not conduct any quality controls on submissions—that facilitate systematic scientific fraud. Here, we demonstrate through case studies that i) individuals have cooperated to publish papers that were eventually retracted in a number of journals, ii) brokers have enabled publication in targeted journals at scale, and iii), within a field of science, not all subfields are equally targeted for scientific fraud. Our results reveal some of the strategies that enable the entities promoting scientific fraud to evade interventions. Our final analysis suggests that this ability to evade interventions is enabling the number of fraudulent publications to grow at a rate far outpacing that of legitimate science.

#########

And here's the story in the NYT:

Fraudulent Scientific Papers Are Rapidly Increasing, Study Finds
A statistical analysis found that the number of fake journal articles being churned out by “paper mills” is doubling every year and a half
. by Carl Zimmer

 

Thursday, July 17, 2025

Open Letter from NAS Members to U.S. Senators and Representatives urging support for science

In a victory of optimism over experience, I continue to sign a small fraction of the open letters that come my way.  Also, it's good to exercise Americans' right to petition the government for the redress of grievances.

Below is a link to a letter organized by Professor Walter Leal with well over 1,000 signatures from members of the National Academy of Sciences. (Organizing NAS members to petition the government isn't so easy, since it has to be done without the help of the NAS, which as a government-related organization is being quite cautious in these times.)


Or, if you prefer to hear the letter read out loud, that takes about three minutes on this YouTube video (which also shows the text, but not the signers).

 

#############
Here's another take on more or less the same subject, from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
" as the United States approaches its 250th birthday, the country’s research edifice is in danger of collapse, battered by a wrecking ball known as the Trump administration."


Tuesday, June 24, 2025

Stanford celebrates the NSF–DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory (and recalls university-government collaboration on science)

 Remember when universities and the Federal government collaborated on big science?

The bold bet that built a telescope

"When the first images from the NSF–DOE Vera C. Rubin Observatory were released on June 23, they marked a historic milestone for the Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST), a landmark 10-year campaign to map the southern sky with the world’s largest digital camera, set to begin full science operations later this year. 

"Today, Rubin is an $800 million observatory backed by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE). But two decades ago, it was little more than a vision without funding, a home, or agency support.

"That changed in 2003, when Stanford University and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory jointly launched the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC), setting in motion a chain of events that helped bring the LSST to life." 

 

Image of members of the team preparing the LSST Camera for installation.
the digital camera...


Thursday, June 12, 2025

Interdisciplinary science: a heated dispute

 Here's an article in the latest PNAS, about issues in evolution that I know nothing about, but I was struck by how clearly the author makes plain in the abstract his view that some authors of other papers also know nothing.

Complexity myths and the misappropriation of evolutionary theory  by Michael Lynch, Edited by Nils Stenseth    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2425772122

Abstract: Recent papers by physicists, chemists, and geologists lay claim to the discovery of new principles of evolution that have somehow eluded over a century of work by evolutionary biologists, going so far as to elevate their ideas to the same stature as the fundamental laws of physics. These claims have been made in the apparent absence of any awareness of the theoretical framework of evolutionary biology that has existed for decades. The numerical indices being promoted suffer from numerous conceptual and quantitative problems, to the point of being devoid of meaning, with the authors even failing to recognize the distinction between mutation and selection. Moreover, the promulgators of these new laws base their arguments on the idea that natural selection is in relentless pursuit of increasing organismal complexity, despite the absence of any evidence in support of this and plenty pointing in the opposite direction. Evolutionary biology embraces interdisciplinary thinking, but there is no fundamental reason why the field of evolution should be subject to levels of unsubstantiated speculation that would be unacceptable in any other area of science.

Saturday, May 10, 2025

NSF slashed again

The "S" in NSF has again attracted the attention of the Trump administration.

 The journal Science reports the story: 

 NSF faces radical shake-up as officials abolish its 37 divisions
Changes seen as a response to presidential directives on what research to fund
By Jeffrey Mervis

"The National Science Foundation (NSF), already battered by White House directives and staff reductions, is plunging into deeper turmoil. According to sources who requested anonymity for fear of retribution, staff were told today that the agency’s 37 divisions—across all eight NSF directorates—are being abolished and the number of programs within those divisions will be drastically reduced. The current directors and deputy directors will lose their titles and might be reassigned to other positions at the agency or elsewhere in the federal government.

The consolidation appears to be driven in part by President Donald Trump’s proposal to cut the agency’s $4 billion budget by 55% for the 2026 fiscal year that begins on 1 October. NSF’s decision to abolish its divisions could also be part of a larger restructuring of the agency’s grantmaking process that involves adding a new layer of review. NSF watchers fear that a smaller, restructured agency could be more vulnerable to pressure from the White House to fund research that suits its ideological bent.

As soon as this evening, NSF is also expected to send layoff notices to an unspecified number of its 1700-member staff. ... The agency is also expected to issue another round of notices tomorrow terminating grants that have already been awarded, sources say. In the past 3 weeks, the agency has pulled the plug on almost 1400 grants worth more than $1 billion."


Sunday, April 6, 2025

CDC’s laboratory on sexually transmitted diseases is shut by Trump administration

 Statnews has the story:

CDC’s top laboratory on sexually transmitted diseases is shut by Trump administration
‘We are blind,’ researcher says, noting the lab is crucial to tracking drug-resistant gonorrhea and other diseases
  By Helen Branswell April 5, 2025

"At a time when the world is down to a single drug that can reliably cure gonorrhea, the U.S. government has shuttered the country’s premier sexually transmitted diseases laboratory, leaving experts aghast and fearful about what lies ahead.

"The STD lab at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — a leading player in global efforts to monitor for drug resistance in the bacteria that cause these diseases — was among the targets of major staff slashing at the CDC this past week. All 28 full-time employees of the lab were fired.

...

"A CDC white paper on antibiotic resistance released during the first Trump administration listed drug-resistant gonorrhea as one of five urgent threats facing the country. Antimicrobial resistance to that last drug that reliably works to cure gonorrhea, ceftriaxone, is rare but on the rise globally."


 

Monday, March 31, 2025

Open letter on Science

 Here's the NYT story out this morning,

Trump Administration Has Begun a War on Science, Researchers. Say Nearly 2,000 scientists urged that Congress restore funding to federal agencies decimated by recent cuts.

 

And here's the letter (and all the signatures):
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
We all rely on science. Science gave us the smartphones in our pockets, the navigation systems in our cars, and life-saving medical care. We count on engineers when we drive across bridges and fly in airplanes. Businesses and farmers rely on science and engineering for product innovation, technological advances, and weather forecasting. Science helps humanity protect the planet and keeps pollutants and toxins out of our air, water, and food.

For over 80 years, wise investments by the US government have built up the nation’s research enterprise, making it the envy of the world. Astoundingly, the Trump administration is destabilizing this enterprise by gutting funding for research, firing thousands of scientists, removing public access to scientific data, and pressuring researchers to alter or abandon their work on ideological grounds.

The undersigned are elected members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, representing some of the nation’s top scientists, engineers, and medical researchers. We are speaking out as individuals. We see real danger in this moment. We hold diverse political beliefs, but we are united as researchers in wanting to protect independent scientific inquiry. We are sending this SOS to sound a clear warning: the nation’s scientific enterprise is being decimated.

The administration is slashing funding for scientific agencies, terminating grants to scientists, defunding their laboratories, and hampering international scientific collaboration. The funding cuts are forcing institutions to pause research (including studies of new disease treatments), dismiss faculty, and stop enrolling graduate students—the pipeline for the next generation’s scientists.

The administration’s current investigations of more than 50 universities send a chilling message. Columbia University was recently notified that its federal funding would be withheld unless it adopted disciplinary policies and disabled an academic department targeted by the administration. Destabilizing dozens of universities will endanger higher education—and the research those institutions conduct.

The quest for truth—the mission of science—requires that scientists freely explore new questions and report their findings honestly, independent of special interests. The administration is engaging in censorship, destroying this independence.  It is using executive orders and financial threats to manipulate which studies are funded or published, how results are reported, and which data and research findings the public can access. The administration is blocking research on topics it finds objectionable, such as climate change, or that yields results it does not like, on topics ranging from vaccine safety to economic trends.

A climate of fear has descended on the research community. Researchers, afraid of losing their funding or job security, are removing their names from publications, abandoning studies, and rewriting grant proposals and papers to remove scientifically accurate terms (such as “climate change”) that agencies are flagging as objectionable. Although some in the scientific community have protested vocally, most researchers, universities, research institutions, and professional organizations have kept silent to avoid antagonizing the administration and jeopardizing their funding.

If our country’s research enterprise is dismantled, we will lose our scientific edge. Other countries will lead the development of novel disease treatments, clean energy sources, and the new technologies of the future. Their populations will be healthier, and their economies will surpass us in business, defense, intelligence gathering, and monitoring our planet’s health. The damage to our nation’s scientific enterprise could take decades to reverse.

We call on the administration to cease its wholesale assault on U.S. science, and we urge the public to join this call. Share this statement with others, contact your representatives in Congress, and help your community understand what is at risk. The voice of science must not be silenced.  We all benefit from science, and we all stand to lose if the nation’s research enterprise is destroyed.  

The views expressed here are our own and not those of the National Academies or our home institutions.

Wednesday, March 5, 2025

Demonstrating for science (in Washington and elsewhere)

 Scientists are more accustomed to demonstrating science than demonstrating for science, but that may need to change.

Nature has the story:

NEWS, 03 March 2025
US science is under threat ― now scientists are fighting back
Researchers are organizing protests and making their voices heard as Trump officials slash funding and lay off federal scientists.
By Heidi Ledford & Alexandra Witze 


"Across the United States, researchers are navigating uncomfortable territory. Repeated threats to research funding and the mass firings of federal workers have pushed some scientists to take on unfamiliar roles as activists, speaking at rallies, calling legislators and forming new pressure groups. “Historically, scientists have done a really bad job of advocating for their own activities,” says David Meyer, a sociologist at the University of California, Irvine. “So this is a new challenge.”

Unaccustomed role

The events of the past six weeks have compelled many scientists to embrace that challenge. Soon after the second inauguration of US President Donald Trump on 20 January, the new administration attempted to freeze payments on federal grants; announced that it would review and potentially cancel any grant that mentioned terms it deemed indicative of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes; and issued dramatic cuts to the overhead, or ‘indirect costs’, paid on projects funded by the US National Institutes of Health.

...

"For many scientists, the big event is coming up on 7 March, at ‘Stand Up for Science’ rallies slated to take place in 32 cities around the country. The main event, in Washington DC, is spearheaded by a group of five researchers, most of them graduate students, who came together to combat their own initial feelings of powerlessness. “It’s been inspiring, as this has grown, to see how many people were feeling the same way and to take action,” says Emma Courtney, a graduate student in biology at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York."


Tuesday, January 7, 2025

National Medals of Science and Technology (including Cynthia Dwork for differential privacy)

 In one of the final acts of his administration, President Biden celebrates 25 distinguished scientists and engineers. (I'm particularly glad to see Cynthia Dwork recognized for her work on differential privacy.)

 Forbes has the story:

Biden Names 25 Recipients Of National Medals Of Science, Technology, by Michael T. Nietzel

In a statement from the White House, Biden said, “those who earn these awards embody the promise of America by pushing the boundaries of what is possible. These trailblazers have harnessed the power of science and technology to tackle challenging problems and deliver innovative solutions for Americans and for communities around the world.”

...



"The 14 recipients of the National Medal of Science are:

    Richard B. Alley, the Evan Pugh University Professor of Geosciences at Pennsylvania State University. Alley researches the great ice sheets to help predict future changes in climate and sea levels.
    Larry Martin Bartels, University Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Law and the May Werthan Shayne Chair of Public Policy and Social Science at Vanderbilt University. His scholarship focuses on public opinion, public policy, election science, and political economy.
    Bonnie L. Bassler, Squibb Professor in Molecular Biology and chair of the Department of Molecular Biology at Princeton University, for her research on the molecular mechanisms that bacteria use for intercellular communication.
    Angela Marie Belcher, the James Mason Crafts Professor of Biological Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering at MIT and a member of the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research. She was honored for designing materials for applications in solar cells, batteries, and medical imaging.
    Helen M. Blau, Donald E. and Delia B. Baxter Foundation Professor and the Director of the Baxter Laboratory for Stem Cell Biology at Stanford University for her research on muscle diseases, regeneration and aging, including the use of stem cells for tissue repair.
    Emery Neal Brown, the Edward Hood Taplin Professor of Medical Engineering and Computational Neuroscience at MIT, was recognized for his work revealing how anesthesia affects the brain.
    John O. Dabiri, Centennial Chair Professor at the California Institute of Technology, in the Graduate Aerospace Laboratories and Mechanical Engineering. His research focuses on fluid mechanics and flow physics, with an emphasis on topics relevant to biology, energy, and the environment.
    Ingrid Daubechies, the James B. Duke Distinguished Professor Emerita of Mathematics at Duke University, was honored for her pioneering work on signal processing.
    Cynthia Dwork, Gordon McKay Professor of Computer Science at Harvard University, was recognized for research that has transformed the way data privacy is handled in the age of big data and AI.
    R. Lawrence Edwards, Regents and Distinguished McKnight University Professor, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Minnesota. Edwards is known for his refinement of radiocarbon dating techniques to study climate history and ocean chemistry.
    Wendy L. Freedman, the John and Marion Sullivan University Professor in Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago, for her observational cosmology research, including pioneering uses of the Hubble Space Telescope.
    Keivan G. Stassun, Stevenson Professor of Physics & Astronomy at Vanderbilt University for his work in astrophysics, including the study of star formation and exoplanets.
    G. David Tilman is Regents Professor and the McKnight Presidential Chair in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior at the University of Minnesota. He studies biological diversity, the structure and benefits of ecosystems and ways to assure sustainability despite global increases in human consumption and population.
    Teresa Kaye Woodruff is the MSU Research Foundation Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology and Biomedical Engineering at Michigan State University. She is an internationally recognized expert in ovarian biology and reproductive science.

The nine individual recipients of the National Medal of Technology and Innovation are:

    Martin Cooper for his work in advancing in personal wireless communications for over 50 years. Cited in the Guinness Book of World Records for making the first cellular telephone call, Cooper, known as the “father of the cell phone,” spent much of his career at Motorola.
    Jennifer A. Doudna, a Nobel Laureate in Chemistry and the Li Ka Shing Chancellor’s Chair in Biomedical and Health Sciences at the University of California, Berkeley. She is a pioneer of CRISPR gene editing.
    Eric R. Fossum is the John H. Krehbiel Sr. Professor for Emerging Technologies at Dartmouth College. He invented the CMOS active pixel image sensor used in cell-phone cameras, webcams, and medical imaging.
    Paula T. Hammond, an MIT Institute Professor, vice provost for faculty, and member of the Koch Institute, was honored for developing methods for assembling thin films that can be used for drug delivery, wound healing, and other applications.
    Kristina M. Johnson, former president of The Ohio State University was recognized for research in photonics, nanotechnology, and optoelectronics. Her discoveries have contributed to sustainable energy solutions and advanced manufacturing technologies.
    Victor B. Lawrence spent much of his career at Bell Laboratories, working on new developments in multiple forms of communications. He is a Research Professor and Director of the Center for Intelligent Networked Systems at Stevens Institute of Technology.
    David R. Walt is a faculty member of the Wyss Institute at Harvard University and is the Hansjörg Wyss Professor of Bioinspired Engineering at Harvard Medical School and Professor of Pathology at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He was honored for co-inventing the DNA microarray, enabling large-scale genetic analysis and better personalized medicine.
    Paul G. Yock is an emeritus faculty member at Stanford University. A physician, Yock is known for inventing, developing and testing new cardiovascular intervention devices, including the stent.
    Feng Zhang, the James and Patricia Poitras Professor of Neuroscience at MIT and a professor of brain and cognitive sciences and biological engineering, was recognized for his work developing molecular tools, including the CRISPR genome-editing system."

#########

Here's my post from ten years ago:

Saturday, February 7, 2015 Differential Privacy: an appreciation of Cynthia Dwork

 

Tuesday, October 8, 2024

An own-goal in replication science--retraction of a paper that reported high replicability

  A 2023 paper reporting high replicability of psychology experiments has been retracted from Nature Human Behavior. The retraction notice says in part 
"The concerns relate to lack of transparency and misstatement of the hypotheses and predictions the reported meta-study was designed to test; lack of preregistration for measures and analyses supporting the titular claim (against statements asserting preregistration in the published article); selection of outcome measures and analyses with knowledge of the data; and incomplete reporting of data and analyses."

RETRACTED ARTICLE: High replicability of newly discovered social-behavioural findings is achievable

This article was retracted on 24 September 2024

Matters Arising to this article was published on 24 September 2024

This article has been updated

Abstract

Failures to replicate evidence of new discoveries have forced scientists to ask whether this unreliability is due to suboptimal implementation of methods or whether presumptively optimal methods are not, in fact, optimal. This paper reports an investigation by four coordinated laboratories of the prospective replicability of 16 novel experimental findings using rigour-enhancing practices: confirmatory tests, large sample sizes, preregistration and methodological transparency. In contrast to past systematic replication efforts that reported replication rates averaging 50%, replication attempts here produced the expected effects with significance testing (P < 0.05) in 86% of attempts, slightly exceeding the maximum expected replicability based on observed effect sizes and sample sizes. When one lab attempted to replicate an effect discovered by another lab, the effect size in the replications was 97% that in the original study. This high replication rate justifies confidence in rigour-enhancing methods to increase the replicability of new discoveries.

########


############

In general, I'm more optimistic about replications than preregistrations for identifying replicable results and testing hypotheses about them.  In this case, preregistration apparently revealed that what was written up as a replication study had begun as something else, and that the goal posts had been moved ex post, apparently in inappropriate ways.
######
Somewhat related are my posts on the Einstein Foundation Award for Promoting Quality in Research.