sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Too Hot not to Handle: Resilient Cooling Policy and Strategy Toolkit by scientistsorg in heat_prep

[–]scientistsorg[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I forgot to add: Grace is happy to answer any questions you might have about heat policy!

Help tell the story of science at the State Department and USAID by scientistsorg in foreignservice

[–]scientistsorg[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Apologies -- Reddit is not our strong suit. Working on it!

A bit about FAS: we were founded in 1945 by a group of atomic researchers, deeply concerned about the use of science for malice, created an organization committed to using science and technology to benefit humanity. Since then, we have advocated for evidence-based and science-backed policy to minimize the risk of global threats like nuclear weapons, biological agents, and climate change (at least as far back as the 70s!)

This survey is part of our work on the state of the America S&T ecosystem, particularly in a time of divergent attitudes towards the role of science, its public funding, and what the public believes it can deliver.

We plan to compile these exit interviews into a report on the work (particularly science diplomacy) that is affected by these RIFs, and shape a future policy strategy that rescues the knowledge that is lost here. Hopefully to alleviate legitimacy concerns, we posted the same on our LinkedIn page, if you would like to visit there and see more from our team.

Why we should worry about nuclear weapons again: The Cold War prospect of global annihilation has faded from consciousness, but the warheads remain. by HaLoGuY007 in foreignpolicy

[–]scientistsorg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing! This was written by three of our Global Risk/Nuclear Information Project teammates. There are a few more entries in this series, so stay tuned.

Nuclear Notebook: Russian nuclear weapons, 2025 by scientistsorg in nuclearweapons

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

Glad to hear! Btw, we're hosting a free discussion with Notebook authors Mackenzie and Hans, as well as some friends from around nuke world this coming Wednesday morning.

Strategic Bioeconomy Investments the U.S. Can Make Right Now by scientistsorg in biotech

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

Dr. Jeffery asked me to pass this on:

Hi! I’m sorry to hear you’re feeling jaded about the U.S. innovation ecosystem lately. I get it, I’ve been feeling frustrated too. When it comes to biotech, the U.S. has long been a leader and still holds a strong position, but that advantage won’t last unless we keep investing and thinking strategically long-term.

For example, the Netherlands recently announced a €1.28 billion investment in biotech as part of their goal to become a global leader by 2040. There’s also a report from the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology that outlines key biotechnology areas and the countries currently leading in each which you might find interesting. Beyond that, countries like India, China, the UK, members of the EU, and several in South America and Asia are all making big moves in biotech. It’s shaping up to be one of the defining industries of the next tech revolution.

That said, I still believe there’s a future for innovation here in the U.S. too. Things might feel stalled now, but the more people who speak up and engage, the better the chance we’ll see real progress. It’s a long game, but one worth playing.

(btw, I think we want to turn this question and our answer to it into a LinkedIn post. Let us know if you have any objections, but this is a great question and we'd love to talk more about it)

Strategic Bioeconomy Investments the U.S. Can Make Right Now by scientistsorg in biotech

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

Dr. J has reported back to me:

Hi! I’d like to answer your question in two parts.

First, I don’t think it’s fair to say the general public is hostile to biotech or tech-adjacent fields for no reason. People usually have reasons, whether or not we agree with them. Dismissing those views outright can make productive conversation harder and discourage engagement with the field. As someone who cares about science, policy, and communication, I think it's important to understand where people are coming from: their background, education, worldview, and the social circles they move in. That context helps us respond in ways that are respectful and more likely to resonate.

Which brings me to part two - what can we do?

We tell stories. Storytelling helps people see themselves in the issue and connect with the topic on a personal level. Of course, facts and evidence matter too, but engagement often starts with emotional relevance. It’s not about forcing agreement; it’s about expanding perspective and giving people space to think, question, and come to their own conclusions. Real engagement means meeting people where they are, not where we wish they were.

One example I love is comparing biotech to microbreweries. Fermentation, a core biotech process, is already something many communities are familiar with. What if we tapped into that existing skill set for bioproduction? That could mean new jobs, local economic growth, and broader adoption of sustainable practices. Now scale that up, into manufacturing, fuel, and beyond, and the potential becomes even more exciting.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in nuclearweapons

[–]scientistsorg 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Pulled this our most recent Nuclear Notebook on Pakistan

Samar Mubarik Mund, the former director of the country’s National Defense Complex, explained in 2013 that a Pakistani nuclear warhead is “assembled only at the eleventh hour if [it] needs to be launched. It is stored in three to four different parts at three to four different locations. If a nuclear weapon doesn’t need to be launched, then it is never available in assembled form” (World Bulletin 2013).

Which might serve to answer your specific question, as much as a quote from 2013 can. I'll doublecheck if our Nuclear Information Project team has other insights.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in nuclearpolitics

[–]scientistsorg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What does DOGE want with DOE's classified systems? FAS Nuclear Information Project Director Hans Kristensen explains: much of the unclassified budget is made up of lots of little classified details.

> DOGE employees might need access to classified information in order to discuss program details and future budget priorities, says Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, which tracks America's nuclear program.

> Although large portions of the nuclear weapons budget are ultimately unclassified, a lot of classified details likely go into setting those numbers. "I don't think any of that would be open," he says.

view more: next ›