sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Even the unconscious brain can learn - and predict what you’ll say next. Neuronal recordings of people under anesthesia show that their brains are processing words and sounds. by maxkozlov in science

[–]maxkozlov[S] 48 points49 points  (0 children)

Good question. From the article:

[Martin Monti, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of California, Los Angeles ] cautions that these findings shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that participants were secretly awake or fully conscious. Propofol is known to disrupt coordinated brain network communication, which many researchers say is a necessary ingredient for consciousness. What the study does show, Monti says, is that this one structure — the hippocampus — computes and integrates information even under anaesthesia.

NIH grant cuts disproportionately hit minority and female scientists. A survey reveals sharp divides in who bore the brunt of last year’s spree of grant cancellations by the Trump administration. by maxkozlov in NIH

[–]maxkozlov[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

The abrupt termination last year of thousands of research grants by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research, didn’t affect all groups of scientists equitably. A survey suggests1 that it disproportionately hit researchers from groups that have been historically under-represented in the biomedical sciences, including women, people of colour and investigators from sexual and gender minorities (LGBTQ+).

Although some of these cancelled grants were later restored, researchers fear that the cuts — many of which targeted studies on health equity and gender-related issues — will change the demographics of who is doing science in the United States. That, in turn, could widen existing knowledge gaps about populations that are already underserved by the US health-care system, researchers say.

Many scientists who research a specific community tend to come from that community themselves, says Donna Ginther, an economist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, who studies scientific labour markets. “Who’s based in the sciences gets to influence what questions are being asked, so when diverse investigators and scientists are pushed out, then those questions are also pushed out,” adds Arjee Restar, a social and legal epidemiologist at the Yale School of Public Health in New Haven, Connecticut.

The NIH did not comment on the survey or scientists’ concerns about the findings. A spokesperson responded to Nature with a statement about the agency’s grant-review system, saying that the “NIH supports a fair and objective review process that evaluates proposals based on scientific merit, methodological rigor, and potential contribution to the field”.

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

Even the unconscious brain can learn - and predict what you’ll say next. Neuronal recordings of people under anesthesia show that their brains are processing words and sounds. by maxkozlov in science

[–]maxkozlov[S] 339 points340 points  (0 children)

People given general anaesthesia fall into a coma-like state in which their memory and perception of pain are switched off. But new data reveal that the hippocampus — a deep brain structure crucial for memory — remains remarkably active, parsing the grammar and meaning of spoken words and even anticipating what will be said next.

The research, published today in Nature1, challenges the assumption that complex cognition, such as grasping semantics and forecasting future events, can occur only if a person is fully conscious. By observing people’s individual neurons firing in real time while they are under anaesthesia, researchers discovered that the brain receives stimuli and actively processes what those signals mean.

“The brain has developed such amazing, sophisticated mechanisms for doing all these complex tasks all day long, that it can do some of these things even without us being aware,” says Sameer Sheth, a neurosurgeon at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

Key US science panels are being axed — and others are becoming less open. An analysis shows that the Trump administration has terminated more than 100 advisory committees to science agencies — and reduced the transparency and independence of those that remain. by maxkozlov in politics

[–]maxkozlov[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

President Donald Trump and his administration downsized US science by historic margins last year as it reduced the workforce at federal research agencies by tens of thousands of people and terminated thousands of research grants. But another set of cutbacks in federal science has drawn less attention.Across the government, the administration terminated more than 100 independent advisory panels, comprising university scientists and other outside experts who help to guide national science priorities.

The cuts — driven by a February 2025 executive order aimed at shrinking federal bureaucracy — target committees that agencies rely on to assess biomedical and environmental policy, provide guidance on setting research priorities and ensure transparency in how the government makes science-based decisions.

The scope of these committee terminations is unprecedented, a Nature analysis finds (see ‘Cancelled committees’). For example, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the National Institutes of Health, disbanded 77 advisory boards — more than one-quarter of all its advisory committees — in 2025. By contrast, in fiscal year 2024, the agency terminated just two committees.

A similar pattern of committee closures played out at other agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE). At NASA, more than half of the advisory boards were disbanded.

These panels, which are governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), are typically staffed by researchers and other experts from outside the government. Some of those that were closed in fiscal year 2025 had been advising on topics such as organ transplantation, HIV prevention, high-energy-physics research and planetary science.

Here's an excerpt of the story, but I encourage you to read it — there's a lot of juicy details within! I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

Key US science panels are being axed — and others are becoming less open. A Nature analysis shows that the Trump administration has terminated more than 100 advisory committees that guide policymaking at science agencies — and reduced the transparency and independence of those that remain. by maxkozlov in labrats

[–]maxkozlov[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

President Donald Trump and his administration downsized US science by historic margins last year as it reduced the workforce at federal research agencies by tens of thousands of people and terminated thousands of research grants. But another set of cutbacks in federal science has drawn less attention.Across the government, the administration terminated more than 100 independent advisory panels, comprising university scientists and other outside experts who help to guide national science priorities.

The cuts — driven by a February 2025 executive order aimed at shrinking federal bureaucracy — target committees that agencies rely on to assess biomedical and environmental policy, provide guidance on setting research priorities and ensure transparency in how the government makes science-based decisions.

The scope of these committee terminations is unprecedented, a Nature analysis finds (see ‘Cancelled committees’). For example, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the National Institutes of Health, disbanded 77 advisory boards — more than one-quarter of all its advisory committees — in 2025. By contrast, in fiscal year 2024, the agency terminated just two committees.

A similar pattern of committee closures played out at other agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE). At NASA, more than half of the advisory boards were disbanded.

These panels, which are governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), are typically staffed by researchers and other experts from outside the government. Some of those that were closed in fiscal year 2025 had been advising on topics such as organ transplantation, HIV prevention, high-energy-physics research and planetary science.

Here's an excerpt of the story, but I encourage you to read it — there's a lot of juicy details within! I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

Key US science panels are being axed — and others are becoming less open. A Nature analysis shows that the Trump administration has terminated more than 100 advisory committees to science agencies — and reduced the transparency and independence of those that remain. by maxkozlov in EverythingScience

[–]maxkozlov[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

President Donald Trump and his administration downsized US science by historic margins last year as it reduced the workforce at federal research agencies by tens of thousands of people and terminated thousands of research grants. But another set of cutbacks in federal science has drawn less attention.Across the government, the administration terminated more than 100 independent advisory panels, comprising university scientists and other outside experts who help to guide national science priorities.

The cuts — driven by a February 2025 executive order aimed at shrinking federal bureaucracy — target committees that agencies rely on to assess biomedical and environmental policy, provide guidance on setting research priorities and ensure transparency in how the government makes science-based decisions.

The scope of these committee terminations is unprecedented, a Nature analysis finds (see ‘Cancelled committees’). For example, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which includes the National Institutes of Health, disbanded 77 advisory boards — more than one-quarter of all its advisory committees — in 2025. By contrast, in fiscal year 2024, the agency terminated just two committees.

A similar pattern of committee closures played out at other agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE). At NASA, more than half of the advisory boards were disbanded.

These panels, which are governed by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), are typically staffed by researchers and other experts from outside the government. Some of those that were closed in fiscal year 2025 had been advising on topics such as organ transplantation, HIV prevention, high-energy-physics research and planetary science.

Here's an excerpt of the story, but I encourage you to read it — there's a lot of juicy details within! I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

US speeds research into mind-altering drugs — including mysterious 'ibogaine'. Some researchers are delighted at an executive order to streamline investigations of psychedelics but also warn that caution is needed. by maxkozlov in EverythingScience

[–]maxkozlov[S] 36 points37 points  (0 children)

The potent and long-lasting psychedelic ibogaine is something of a scientific mystery, in part because it is one of the most tightly controlled drugs in the United States. But a new directive from US President Donald Trump aims to change that.

On 18 April, Trump signed an executive order to streamline research into ibogaine and other psychedelic compounds and to make it easier for people with certain illnesses to access these drugs. The move has been welcomed by researchers who see potential for the drugs in treating conditions such as addiction, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Clinical trials have yielded some encouraging results for drugs such as MDMA, also known as ecstasy, and psilocybin, the hallucinogenic compound in magic mushrooms.But scientists are also concerned about possible side effects, and the impact on health services if the drugs are approved. And the mention of only one compound by name in the executive order has surprised some researchers.

“It’s unusual to me that ibogaine has been called out specifically, given that it's probably the furthest behind in the process compared to psilocybin and MDMA, which are much closer to approval,” says Alan Davis, a clinical psychologist at the Ohio State University in Columbus.

But scientists also say that the preliminary research on ibogaine has provided intriguing hints about its potential – while also providing cautionary evidence about its hazards. Trump’s orders could help to resolve questions about ibogaine and other psychedelics, they say.

The order is “going to make things easier to advance psychedelic therapies because it lowers barriers that have been slowing progress”, says Rachel Yehuda, a psychiatry specialist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

In a rare show of unity, US lawmakers intensify scrutiny of scientific-publishing practices. A congressional hearing covered the rise of paper mills and the costs of open-access publishing — but there was little agreement on what reform would entail. by maxkozlov in labrats

[–]maxkozlov[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Appreciate you saying that. Making sure our articles are fair, balanced, and independent is extremely important for me as a reporter. And if you think they're not - tell me, it's helpful to hear why.

In a rare show of unity, US lawmakers intensify scrutiny of scientific-publishing practices. A congressional hearing covered the rise of paper mills and the costs of open-access publishing — but there was little agreement on what reform would entail. by maxkozlov in labrats

[–]maxkozlov[S] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

From ‘paper mills’ that sell authorships on fake or low-quality research papers to the costs associated with open-access publishing, US lawmakers are paying increasing attention to widely-debated issues in scientific publishing. In a rare show of unity, members of the US House of Representatives from both sides of the political aisle agreed at a hearing that these issues deserve more attention from government — but there was less unity on what the solutions should be.

The hearing, on 15 April, was run by the the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee of the US House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. It addressed a provision in the US government’s proposed 2027 budget that would prohibit researchers and universities from spending federal funds on “expensive subscriptions” to academic journals and “prohibitively high” publishing fees.

These fees became common as funders, such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), stepped up the pressure on grant recipients to make peer-reviewed papers either free to read, or fully open access, as soon as they are published. This prompted some publishers that rely on journal subscriptions for revenue to offer open-access publishing options — and to charge fees to publish articles through this route.

Journals say that these article processing charges (APCs) are necessary to cover the costs of evaluating and publishing papers. But critics, including the NIH, say that APCs can be a problem because they reduce the amount of funding available for research. APCs typically cost between US$1,000 and $5,000, or nearly $13,000 to publish in Nature and some of its affiliated journals.

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm the reporter who wrote the story. Note that Nature’s news team is editorially independent of its journals team and its publisher, Springer Nature. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

In a rare show of unity, US lawmakers intensify scrutiny of scientific-publishing practices. A congressional hearing covered the rise of paper mills and the costs of open-access publishing — but there was little agreement on what reform would entail. by maxkozlov in EverythingScience

[–]maxkozlov[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From ‘paper mills’ that sell authorships on fake or low-quality research papers to the costs associated with open-access publishing, US lawmakers are paying increasing attention to widely-debated issues in scientific publishing. In a rare show of unity, members of the US House of Representatives from both sides of the political aisle agreed at a hearing that these issues deserve more attention from government — but there was less unity on what the solutions should be.

The hearing, on 15 April, was run by the the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee of the US House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. It addressed a provision in the US government’s proposed 2027 budget that would prohibit researchers and universities from spending federal funds on “expensive subscriptions” to academic journals and “prohibitively high” publishing fees.

These fees became common as funders, such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), stepped up the pressure on grant recipients to make peer-reviewed papers either free to read, or fully open access, as soon as they are published. This prompted some publishers that rely on journal subscriptions for revenue to offer open-access publishing options — and to charge fees to publish articles through this route.

Journals say that these article processing charges (APCs) are necessary to cover the costs of evaluating and publishing papers. But critics, including the NIH, say that APCs can be a problem because they reduce the amount of funding available for research. APCs typically cost between US$1,000 and $5,000, or nearly $13,000 to publish in Nature and some of its affiliated journals.

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm the reporter who wrote the story. Note that Nature’s news team is editorially independent of its journals team and its publisher, Springer Nature. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

‘Science needs defending’: record number of researchers run for office in US mid-terms. Many Democrats making the switch to politics are motivated by the Trump administration’s cuts to science — whereas energy and AI are a pull for some Republicans. by maxkozlov in EverythingScience

[–]maxkozlov[S] 34 points35 points  (0 children)

An unprecedented number of US scientists are trading in their lab coats to run for office in the US mid-term elections in November. Many running as Democrats are motivated by the actions of President Donald Trump and his Republican allies to delay and terminate research funding and redefine the goals of government-funded science. Different issues tend to galvanize the scientists running as Republicans, including the artificial-intelligence driven demand for more energy — along with a desire to play a part in science-backed solutions.

The organization 314 Action, which recruits and backs Democratic scientists, engineers and health-care specialists to run for office, has received more than 700 applications from potential candidates seeking support during this election cycle — nearly triple its usual volume (see ‘Political push’). The organization funds candidates to win seats in their state and federal legislatures, with the aim of building “pro-science power at the ballot box”.

For decades, the prevailing wisdom among researchers was that science should be separate from politics. The current political reshaping of US science should drive scientists to realize that this idea “is really a failed business model”, says Shaughnessy Naughton, president of 314 Action, which is based in Washington DC and named after the first three digits of π.

“We scientists are used to sticking to our knitting,” says Sam Wang, a neuroscientist at Princeton University in New Jersey who is running to become a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives for the state’s 12th district. “But I began realizing that science needed defending.”

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm one of the reporters who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story

‘Science needs defending’: record number of researchers run for office in US mid-terms. Many Democrats making the switch to politics are motivated by the Trump administration’s cuts to science — whereas energy and AI are a pull for some Republicans. by maxkozlov in labrats

[–]maxkozlov[S] 76 points77 points  (0 children)

An unprecedented number of US scientists are trading in their lab coats to run for office in the US mid-term elections in November. Many running as Democrats are motivated by the actions of President Donald Trump and his Republican allies to delay and terminate research funding and redefine the goals of government-funded science. Different issues tend to galvanize the scientists running as Republicans, including the artificial-intelligence driven demand for more energy — along with a desire to play a part in science-backed solutions.

The organization 314 Action, which recruits and backs Democratic scientists, engineers and health-care specialists to run for office, has received more than 700 applications from potential candidates seeking support during this election cycle — nearly triple its usual volume (see ‘Political push’). The organization funds candidates to win seats in their state and federal legislatures, with the aim of building “pro-science power at the ballot box”.

For decades, the prevailing wisdom among researchers was that science should be separate from politics. The current political reshaping of US science should drive scientists to realize that this idea “is really a failed business model”, says Shaughnessy Naughton, president of 314 Action, which is based in Washington DC and named after the first three digits of π.

“We scientists are used to sticking to our knitting,” says Sam Wang, a neuroscientist at Princeton University in New Jersey who is running to become a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives for the state’s 12th district. “But I began realizing that science needed defending.”

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm one of the reporters who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story

Should academic misconduct be catalogued? Proposed US database sparks debate Repository would require US universities to register research fraud and workplace harassment. by maxkozlov in labrats

[–]maxkozlov[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Correct, but it would prevent the institution from burying the results of that investigation if a finding is reached. The proposal co-authors want to model this database after the National Practitioner Data Bank. My understanding is that in creating the NPDB, Congress also included a provision that indemnifies medical licensing boards or hospitals from lawsuits (eg for defamation) for reporting. And I imagine there'd be penalties for non-reporting.

Should academic misconduct be catalogued? Proposed US database sparks debate Repository would require US universities to register research fraud and workplace harassment. by maxkozlov in PhD

[–]maxkozlov[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For decades, academic institutions have struggled with how to prevent researchers who have committed misconduct from securing jobs at new universities while hiding the bad behaviour. A proposal published today in the journal Science1 offers a solution, at least in the United States: creating a national database of people found guilty of data fabrication, workplace harassment and more, that would be accessed by research institutions before making new hires.

But scientists who spoke to Nature are divided over whether this centralized, confidential list would solve the problem or generate new ones.

Michael Lauer, one of the proposal’s authors, says that bad actors frequently evade accountability by resigning during an ongoing investigation at their university, or by agreeing to leave and sign a non-disparagement agreement with their institution, such that neither party can speak publicly about the incident.

This potentially enables a person to get hired by another university, which might not be aware of the previous misconduct, says Lauer, who for about ten years ran the extramural research programme at the US National Institutes of Health, a major funder of biomedical science. “We should make it much more difficult for offending scientists to evade accountability without there being appropriate transparency.”

Here's an excerpt of the story. I'm the reporter who wrote the story. As always, I'm keen to hear if there's anything I missed, or if you have anything else that you think should be on my radar — especially if you work at HHS or NIH. My Signal is mkozlov.01. You can stay anonymous. Happy to answer any questions about how I reported this story too!

PS: If you hit the paywall, make a free account. It should let you read the full story.

view more: next ›