Latest news with #NationalScienceFoundation
Fast Company
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Fast Company
Why defunding research on misinformation and disinformation isn't what Americans want
Research on misinformation and disinformation has become the latest casualty of the Trump administration's restructuring of federal research priorities. Following President Donald Trump's executive order on ' ending federal censorship,' the National Science Foundation canceled hundreds of grants that supported research on misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation refers to misleading narratives shared by people unaware that content is false. Disinformation is deliberately generated and shared misleading content, when the sharer knows the narrative is suspect. The overwhelming majority of Americans —95%—believe misinformation's misleading narratives are a problem. Americans also believe that consumers, the government and social media companies need to do something about it. Defunding research on misinformation and disinformation is, thus, the opposite of what Americans want. Without research, the ability to combat misleading narratives will be impaired. The attack on misleading narrative research Trump's executive order claims that the Biden administration used research on misleading narratives to limit social media companies' free speech. The Supreme Court had already rejected this claim in a 2024 case. Still, Trump and GOP politicians continue to demand disinformation researchers defend themselves, including in the March 2025 ' censorship industrial complex' hearings, which explored alleged government censorship under the Biden administration. The U.S. State Department, additionally, is soliciting all communications between government offices and disinformation researchers for evidence of censorship. Trump's executive order to 'restore free speech,' the hearings and the State Department decision all imply that those conducting misleading narrative research are enemies of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. These actions have already led to significant problems— death threats and harassment included—for disinformation researchers, particularly women. So let's tackle what research on misinformation and disinformation is and isn't. Misleading content Misinformation and disinformation researchers examine the sources of misleading content. They also study the spread of that content. And they investigate ways to reduce its harmful impacts. For instance, as a social psychologist who studies disinformation and misinformation, I examine the nature of misleading content. I study and then share information about the manipulation tactics used by people who spread disinformation to influence others. My aim is to better inform the public about how to protect themselves from deception. Sharing this information is free speech, not barring free speech. Yet, some think this research leads to censorship when platforms choose to use the knowledge to label or remove suspect content or ban its primary spreaders. That's what U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan argued in launching investigations in 2023 into disinformation research. It is important to note, however, that the constitutional definition of censorship establishes that only the government—not citizens or businesses—can be censors. So private companies have the right to make their own decisions about the content they put on their platforms. Trump's own platform, Truth Social, bans certain material such as 'sexual content and explicit language,' but also anything moderators deem as trying to ' trick, defraud, or mislead us and other users.' Yet, 75% of the conspiracy theories shared on the platform come from Trump's account. Further, both Trump and Elon Musk, self-proclaimed free-speech advocates, have been accused of squelching content on their platforms that is critical of them. Musk claimed the suppression of accounts on X was a result of the site's algorithm reducing 'the reach of a user if they're frequently blocked or muted by other, credible users.' Truth Social representatives claim accounts were banned due to 'bot mitigation' procedures, and authentic accounts may be reinstated if their classification as inauthentic was invalid. Is it censorship? The ' censorship industrial complex ' hearings held by the House Foreign Affairs South and Central Asia Subcommittee were based on the premise that not only was misleading narrative research part of the alleged 'censorship industrial complex,' but that it was focused on conservative voices. But there isn't evidence to support this assertion. When research does show that conservative authors have posts labeled or removed, or that their accounts are suspended at higher rates than liberal content, it also reveals that it is because conservative posts are significantly more likely to share misinformation than liberal posts. This was found in a recent study of X users. Researchers tracked whose posts got tagged as false or misleading more in 'community notes'—X's alternative and Meta's proposed alternative to fact checking —and it was conservative posts, because they were more likely to include false content than liberal posts. Furthermore, an April 2025 study shows conservatives are more susceptible to misleading content and more likely to be targeted by it than liberals. Misleading America Those accusing misleading narrative researchers of censorship misrepresent the nature and intent of the research and researchers. And they are using disinformation tactics to do so. Here's how. The misleading information about censorship and bias has been repeated so much through the media and from political leaders, as evident in Trump's executive order, that many Republicans believe it's true. This repetition produces what psychologists call the illusory truth effect, where as few as three repetitions convince the human mind something is true. Researchers have also identified a tactic known as ' accusation in a mirror.' That's when someone falsely accuses one's perceived opponents of conducting, plotting or desiring to commit the same transgressions that one plans to commit or is already committing. So censorship accusations from an administration that is removing books from libraries, erasing history from monuments and websites, and deleting data archives constitute 'accusations in a mirror.' Other tactics include ' accusation by anecdote.' When strong evidence is in short supply, people who spread disinformation point repeatedly to individual stories (sometimes completely fabricated) that are exceptions to, and not representative of, the larger reality. Facts on fact-checking Similar anecdotal attacks are used to try to dismiss fact-checkers, whose conclusions can identify and discredit disinformation, leading to its tagging or removal from social media. This is done by highlighting an incident where fact-checkers 'got it wrong.' These attacks on fact-checking come despite the fact that many of those most controversial decisions were made by platforms, not fact-checkers. fact-checkers are rated the most effective. When Republicans do report distrust of fact-checkers, it's because they perceive the fact-checkers are biased. Yet research shows little bias in choice of who is fact-checked, just that prominent and prolific speakers get checked more. When shown fact-checking results of specific posts, even conservatives often agree the right decision was made.
Medscape
14 hours ago
- Health
- Medscape
Turbulence in the Oncology Workforce: A Silver Lining
Physicians are in the midst of a tectonic shift in workforce patterns that could have ramifications lasting decades. In a few short months, the current administration has implemented policies that will drastically reduce federal funding for academic science. These massive cuts include hundreds of terminated grants and slashed funding for 'indirect costs' for National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grant recipients. Alongside the federal budget cuts, entire divisions of the NIH and National Science Foundation are also being reorganized. Clinicians at many academic institutions have been advised to prepare for uncertainty, while physicians and scientists have been instructed to restrict research hiring and spending, even terminate staff without existing grants or contracts. On top of that, entire global health programs have been decimated, and 'reduction in force' emails at the FDA, CDC, or Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have left many experts without a job. However, amid this turbulence and confusion, there's a potential silver lining. The assaults on research funding and government programs may inadvertently help address a major issue: the physician shortage. As many of my colleagues at academic institutions contemplate their next move, I suspect that oncologists may find themselves returning to full-time clinical practice and patient care. And that may not be a bad thing. Prior to the Trump administration's policies, the proportion of clinicians-hours spent seeing patients had declined nearly 8% over a decade. The number of doctors who spent most of their time seeing patients had dropped considerably as well. In fact, a 2024 survey from the American Medical Association found that over 35% of physicians expressed at least some interest in leaving clinical practice altogether. This, coupled with a massive influx of physicians entering retirement, is likely to exacerbate a growing physician shortage problem. But what if more of us now choose to increase our time in the clinic or start practicing full time? For many of my colleagues who cannot sustain a non-clinical career, I think that a return to full-time patient care will be a practical, even enticing move. And considering the shortages of physicians across almost all specialties, including oncology, doctors seeking refuge in clinical practice would be a welcome development. Would I be content with a career that is increasingly more clinical? I think I would be. For me, clinical practice represents the ultimate refuge, the source of stability in a career that could otherwise be ruled by frequent career transitions encountered in the business world. The patient exam room is the one place where I can focus on a one-on-one relationship instead of the hustle and bustle of grant applications and administrative tasks. Since patient care is often a health system's top revenue source, if more oncologists return to full-time practice, we may have more leverage to negotiate solutions that reduce burnout, advance practice providers, or provide greater vacation time. I also suspect that many clinicians who choose to spend more time with patients will do so as part of a medical group or private practice — potentially reversing a decades-long trend of doctors leaving private practice to work as employed physicians. There are several tools that can help physicians make this transition easier. For one, the emergence of ambient artificial intelligence (AI) scribing may curb the exodus from clinical practice by reducing excessive documentation burdens. Instead of hyperbolic claims of AI 'replacing' physicians, I suspect that the AI revolution will simply provide physicians the necessary tools to be more efficient. The growth of telemedicine and remote patient care platforms is another enabling factor. The rise of these virtual clinics means that physicians are no longer limited by geographically boundaries when practicing medicine. Continuing COVID-era policies that allow physicians to practice across state lines would also help. If more physicians contemplate a return to their clinical roots, we have an opportunity to reshape the patient care experience in ways that both serve our communities and that create more sustainable clinical careers. The physician workforce has always been adaptable. Now, if we can find our way back to the exam room, we will bring with us diverse experiences from research, policy, and business that can improve clinical practice. Perhaps the silver lining in today's uncertainty is the chance to rediscover what drew us to medicine in the first place — the profound privilege of caring for patients — while leveraging our broader perspectives to address the systemic issues that drove many away in the first place. The future of healthcare may depend on our ability to transform this moment of professional disruption into one of renewal and recommitment to our core mission.
The Hindu
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Funding, infrastructure, general environment woes unattractive for senior international scientists to work in India: Nobel laureate Venki Ramakrishnan
With the U.S. terminating several research programmes, firing thousands of federal scientists, and cancelling important, high-value federal research grants— $8 billion already and further cuts of almost $18 billion next year for National Institute of Health (NIH), proposed cuts of about $5 billion next year to National Science Foundation (NSF), proposed cut of nearly 25% to NASA's budget for 2026, and billions of dollars cut in grants to several universities — many U.S. scientists are planning to move to other countries. According to an analysis carried out by Nature Careers, U.S. applications for European vacancies shot up by 32% in March this year compared with March 2024. A Nature poll found that 75% of respondents were 'keen to leave the country'. The European Union and at least a handful of European countries have committed special funding to attract researchers from the U.S. But the committed funding is dwarfed by the scale of funding cuts by the U.S., and the funding is already highly competitive in Europe, senior scientists from the U.S. moving to Europe in large numbers may not happen. 'There will be a few scientists who will move, but I do not see a mass exodus. Firstly, salaries in Europe are well below those in the U.S. Secondly, moving is always difficult both professionally and personally. Finally, the U.S. is still the pre-eminent scientific country, and that will be hard to walk away from. I say this as someone who actually did move from the U.S. to England over 25 years ago, with a salary that was just over half what I was making there,' Nobel Laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, professor at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, U.K., says in an email to The Hindu. In comparison, India has only a handful of institutions such as IISc, NCBS, TIFR, IISERs and IITs that can possibly attract U.S. scientists. According to him, even the renowned institutions in India are 'world class only in some very specific areas'. 'I do not see India as a general magnet for international science,' Prof. Ramakrishnan says. Though funding for science in India has increased in absolute terms, the percentage of GDP allocated to R&D has actually reduced. India's gross expenditure on R&D is estimated to be around 0.6-0.7% of GDP in 2025. Specifically, with long-term assured funding for basic research, which is an absolute necessity to attract researchers based in America, not guaranteed by existing programmes, can India take advantage of the situation in the U.S.? 'India's R&D investment as a fraction of GDP is much less than China's and is about a third or less of what many developed countries have, and far below countries like South Korea. It will not be competitive without a substantial increase,' he says. Lack of funding and infrastructure in India About funding in general and funding for basic research in particular, Prof. Ramakrishnan says: 'Neither the funding, the infrastructure nor the general environment in India is attractive for top-level international scientists to leave the U.S. to work in India. There may be specific areas (e.g. tropical diseases, ecology, etc) where India is particularly well suited, but even in these areas, it will be easier for scientists to do field work there while being employed in the West.' Given a choice between some European country or India, he strongly vouches Europe as 'far more attractive as a scientific destination'. Some of the key pain points Indian science faces are delayed release of funding every year, researcher scholars not being paid scholarship for as long as one year, and whimsical ways in which science policies are changed with little discussion with scientists. Even the Ramalingaswami re-entry fellowship, which aims to support the return of early-career life scientists with at least three years of international postdoctoral training, has faced abrupt policy changes. Currently, there are no national policies to attract senior scientists from other countries. 'If India is serious about attracting Indian scientists abroad to return, it needs to provide far better incentives. China has shown that with sufficient investment and a stable commitment, it can be done,' he says. Funding in India is available mainly from the government agencies such as DBT, ICMR, DST, SERB with negligible private funding. In 2021, the government announced ₹50,000 crore for Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF), which will replace SERB. In December 2024, Minister of State (Independent Charge) of the Ministry of Science & Technology and Earth Sciences Dr. Jitendra Singh in a written reply to the Lok Sabha said that only ₹14,000 crore budgetary provision has been made by the government for 2023-2028. The balance ₹36,000 crore will be sourced through 'donations from any other sources' including public and private sector, philanthropist organisations, foundations and international bodies. 'In many developed countries, the ratio of private to public investment is almost two or more. In India, it is almost the opposite. This is really a failing on the part of Indian industry,' he says. Years ago, Singapore succeeded in attracting senior scientists to move permanently or as visiting fellows. He attributes Singapore's success in attracting talent from other countries to high salaries with low taxes, and excellent scientific infrastructure. On the societal front, Singapore, which is clean and well-run, with first-rate schools, health care, mass transit, and safety, has become the desired destination for scientists from developed countries, he adds. Scientists moved from Germany to the U.S. and other countries in the 1930s because they were in significant personal danger. 'They and others moved to the U.S. because the U.S. could actually offer more facilities, higher salary, all in a free society. India does not offer any of these advantages,' he says. Lack of better roads, cleaner air To attract senior scientists from other countries and to encourage talented people already working in India, he stresses on two critical aspects — scientific and social. 'India needs a strong, stable commitment to science, which means not only much more funding but also more stable funding, much better infrastructure and, just as importantly, insulating science from politics and excessive bureaucratic rules and regulations.' About the social factors, he says: 'The other detriment to attracting scientists (especially non-Indians) from abroad is India itself. Today, well-off Indians have essentially seceded from public spaces in India. Today, the streets are filthy and full of trash, the sidewalks are not navigable, and the air is unbreathable in most cities... Which non-Indian would want that sort of life for themselves and their children?' He is full of praise and appreciation for researchers in India contributing to science despite several challenges. 'I have many scientific friends in India and I am always amazed by how they manage to do such good work in such difficult conditions, and yet be so cheerful. Young Indians are so bright and enthusiastic, but they are being let down by the country as a whole. India has a demographic dividend — it is one of the few large countries with a youthful population. However, this is a temporary advantage, and if India squanders it, it may find itself unable to be competitive in the future with other Asian countries and the West,' he cautions.
E&E News
a day ago
- Politics
- E&E News
Groups sue science agency over grant terminations
A coalition of groups representing teachers, researchers and educators is suing the National Science Foundation for terminating scientific grants. The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, contends that the science agency's moves to terminate more than $1 billion of scientific grants, cooperative agreements and other financial awards at the direction of the Trump administration and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency operation 'violates the separation of powers and is unlawful.' The science agency — whose broad research funding includes projects at universities, nonprofits and industry — announced earlier this year that it had begun terminating awards 'that are not aligned with NSF's priorities.' Advertisement That change in priorities preceded the termination of 'numerous active grants for projects that seek to expand participation of women and underrepresented groups in STEM as mandated by Congress, along with other basic research projects,' the lawsuit says.
BBC News
3 days ago
- Science
- BBC News
World's largest digital camera about to release first photos
The first photos from the largest digital camera in the world are about to be revealed and we are expecting some out-of-this-world Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) camera was built to capture ground-breaking photos of week - on Monday, 23 June - some of these observations will be revealed to the world for the first time. According to the Guinness Book of Records the LSST is not only the largest digital camera, but also the one with the highest resolution which means it can take really detailed top-of-the-range phones have cameras with a resolution of up to 50 megapixels, whereas the LSST has a resolution of 3,200 megapixels!But you definitely can't carry this camera around with you, it's about the same size as a small car and weighs a massive 2, it is kept at the Vera C Rubin Observatory in Chile attached to a powerful images it will take are so large that it would take 400 ultra-high-definition televisions to display one of them at full size. The camera aims to capture 1,000 images a night over the next 10 years and the project's mission is to catalogue 20 billion goal is to capture an ultra-wide and ultra-high-definition time-lapse record of our US National Science Foundation and Department of Energy say the images captured will help scientists answer questions about dark matter, the structure of the Milky Way and the formation of our Solar System."No other telescope has been able to detect both real-time changes in the sky and faint or distant objects at the same time on this enormous scale. "These capabilities mean that exceedingly rare events in the sky, never detected before, will be captured for the first time."The first spectacular images are to be unveiled on 23 June at 11am in the US, which is 4pm in the 'First Look' event is set to be live-streamed on YouTube for any astronomy enthusiasts.
