Read the full story from NPR.
For 51 years, a small federal program has been paying scientists to keep American waterways healthy. It’s called Sea Grant — part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — and President Donald Trump’s proposed budget for next year would eliminate it.
Read the full story at NPR.
It’s been 25 years since the National Academy of Sciences set its standards for appropriate scientific conduct, and the world of science has changed dramatically in that time. So now the academies of science, engineering and medicine have updated their standards.
The report published Tuesday, “Fostering Integrity in Research,” shines a spotlight on how the research enterprise as a whole creates incentives that can be detrimental to good research.
Read the full story in the Atlantic.
The work of a scientist is often unglamorous. Behind every headline-making, cork-popping, blockbuster discovery, there are many lifetimes of work. And that work is often mundane. We’re talking drips-of-solution-into-a-Petri-dish mundane, maintaining-a-database mundane. Usually, nothing happens.
Scientific discovery costs money—quite a lot of it over time—and requires dogged commitment from the people devoted to advancing their fields. Now, the funding uncertainty that has chipped away at the nation’s scientific efforts for more than a decade is poised to get worse.
Read the full story in Science.
President Donald Trump rolled out his first budget request to Congress today. It is for the 2018 fiscal year that begins on 1 October. It calls for deep cuts to some federal science agencies (read our initial coverage to get some of the numbers), and is likely to draw fierce opposition from the scientific community and many lawmakers in Congress.
ScienceInsider is providing analysis and reaction to the budget all day.
Come back to see our latest items (most recent at the top).
Read the full story at Pacific Standard.
In an era awash in data, scientists have begun to analyze something they’ve never really looked at before: science itself. Abstract though that may sound, the science of science could have an oddly practical application, at least in theory—namely, providing funding agencies like the National Science Foundation with a better idea of which research proposals will work and which won’t. That objective takes on special significance, what with the future of science in the United States decidedly uncertain—but it probably won’t work, a new essay argues. Indeed, insisting otherwise could hinder the progress of scientific research.
Read the full story at Nature.
Launched in 2008 to assist software developers, GitHub now boasts some 15 million users and is an increasingly popular site for researchers to share, maintain and update scientific data sets and code (see ‘Growing influence of GitHub’). GitHub is “the biggest revelation in my workflow … since I started writing code”, says Daniel Falster, a postdoctoral researcher in ecology at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. “When we started using GitHub, it was just amazing. We now use it in everything that we do.” Falster’s Biomass and Allometry Database, which aggregates various measures of plant size from 176 studies, is stored on the site. So is the Open Tree of Life project, which aims to compile different published phylogenies to build one master ‘tree of life’. It uses GitHub to store data files and publication records, and to accept new data sets from third parties.
Read the full post at Study Hacks.
Earlier this month, a group of researchers from Albert-Laszlo Barabasi’s circle of network scientists published an important paper in the journal Science. Its nondescript title, “Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact,” obfuscates its exciting content: a massive big-data study that dissects the publication careers of over 2800 physicists to determine the combination of factors that best predicts their probability of publishing high impact papers.