Read the full story in the Washington Post.
The curators of the Museum of Natural History at the University of Louisiana-Monroe got grim news this March from the school’s director: The museum’s research collection had to be moved out of its current home. The reason? The space was needed for expanded track facilities.
Read the full story from the Washington Post.
As Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt defended massive proposed budget cuts to a House subcommittee Thursday, experts from the nation’s top science organization voiced their support for one of the programs slated for elimination.
A report released Thursday by the National Academy of Sciences — and prepared at the request of the EPA — argues that the agency’s Science to Achieve Results, or STAR, program, which provides millions of dollars in funding for scientific research each year, has contributed to important benefits for the environment and the public health. And it recommends that the agency continue to use it.
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.