Science And Society Dialogues

In 1966, two scientists got an $80,000 grant from the U.S. government to study microbes in Yellowstone’s hot springs. They basically went around sticking slides in hot mud to eventually prove for the first time that life could exist at such high temperatures. It sounded like obscure science for science's own sake—maybe even like a waste of taxpayer money. But from that research, they discovered a heat-resistant enzyme that years later became the foundation of PCR (polymerase chain reaction). PCR made it possible to rapidly copy DNA—an innovation that revolutionized genetic science. Processes that were either impossible or took teams of experts months were suddenly doable in a few hours. Fast forward decades, and because of that single grant: 🧬 The Human Genome Project was possible. 🧬 We mapped genes like BRAF, including the rare gene mutation I have. 🧬 We developed targeted therapies like Mekinist, designed to interrupt the exact signaling pathway my mutation hijacks. That random federal $80K grant? It led to me not dying. If the U.S. government doesn't invest $80,000 in scientists playing in the geiser mud at Yellowstone over 50 years ago, doctors today wouldn't be able to accurately diagnose diseases like mine and treatment might be limited to blunt, aggressive chemo and the hope 🤞 that it would be effective. Investing in science and research is precisely what makes our country great. Haphazardly eliminating federal grants will weaken our greatest strengths, and could literally result in the loss of lives that would otherwise have been saved thanks to advances made possible by the funded research. [I learned about this story from the awesome team at Radiolab Podcasts WNYC Studios and their podcast about it: https://lnkd.in/g-XJXH_B]

Is federally funded university research a waste of taxpayer money? Let’s talk return on investment. Over the last 17 years, my lab has received ~$15M in federal research support. Here's what taxpayers got in return: ✅ 44 PhD students, 8 MS students, and nearly 80 undergraduates trained in cutting-edge bioengineering—now leaders in biotech, academia, and public service. ✅ 80+ issued U.S. patents and 200+ peer-reviewed papers, sharing knowledge that improves health and spurs innovation. ✅ 5+ startups launched, raising $150M+ in private investment and creating 150+ high-skilled jobs. ✅ 5+ products commercialized, including IntelliSep, a sepsis test saving lives and reducing hospital costs (~30% mortality reduction, ~$1400 saved per patient). First used in hospitals in Louisiana, Alabama, and Texas. That’s just one lab. And that’s just what we can track. The full ripple effect of training, ideas, tools, and technologies created in university labs is far greater. Now, consider this: One F-35 fighter jet engine costs about $14M–$16M—just the engine. A single border wall segment (1 mile) under some contracts has cost $15–$30M For the cost of one jet engine or a half-mile of wall, federal research funding can launch companies, train leaders, save lives, and return 10x in private investment and impact. What’s more capital efficient? What has a longer-lasting impact on society? Federal research funding isn’t charity. It’s one of the smartest, most leveraged investments the U.S. makes. 🔊 If you run a research lab, I encourage you to post your own return on investment from federal research support. Show the public and policymakers just how much value we’re creating—and why this investment in America’s scientific engine is among the most capital-efficient bets our country can make to power it's future. #ScienceFunding #AcademicROI #InnovationEconomy #ResearchImpact #FederalFunding #PublicInvestment #STEM

Imagine if the ground beneath you responded to your steps. 👣⚡ In Tokyo’s high-traffic train stations, engineers experimented with an elegant idea: capture human movement and turn it into electricity. With piezoelectric floor panels, every footstep generates a small electric charge. Apply pressure → produce power. The numbers are modest: • A single step produces around 2–5 joules (0.0006–0.0014 Wh). • Even one million steps equal roughly 1 kWh. So no — this won’t run a city. But that’s not the breakthrough. The real innovation is psychological. When someone walks across the floor and sees lights flicker on, energy stops being invisible infrastructure. It becomes immediate. Interactive. Human. Step → signal. Movement → awareness. That’s what makes it powerful. Not scale. Not efficiency. Perspective. Sometimes sustainability isn’t about replacing massive systems — it’s about reconnecting people to the systems they’re already part of. Energy isn’t “out there.” It’s created, consumed, and influenced by us every day. The future of clean energy won’t just be smarter. It will be more visible, more participatory, more experiential. Where else could we turn everyday actions into visible reminders of our impact? Follow me Haider A. for more ideas at the intersection of innovation and sustainability. #Innovation #CleanEnergy #SmartCities #Sustainability

Why evidence matters more than headlines: and the danger of snake oil! In the world of neurodevelopmental conditions and traits such as autism and ADHD, one thing is constant: families are searching for answers. That very human drive for explanation and certainty can, unfortunately, make us vulnerable to misinformation, fear-mongering, and snake oil solutions. Two recent and well-known examples illustrate this risk. 🔹 the MMR vaccine and autism In 1998, a small case series suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Despite only involving 12 children, the story made global headlines. We now know that this research was not only flawed but fraudulent, and it has since been fully retracted. Yet the damage was real: vaccination rates dropped, measles outbreaks occurred, and public trust was eroded. 🔹 Paracetamol use in pregnancy More recently, headlines have suggested that paracetamol (acetaminophen) during pregnancy may increase the risk of autism or ADHD. However, the largest study to date – covering more than 2.4 million children in Sweden – found no increased risk when careful sibling comparisons were made. Earlier “signals” were most likely due to family and environmental factors, not the medication. These cases highlight a bigger problem: Headlines are short, bold, and dramatic; science is careful, slow, and nuanced. false claims spread faster than careful corrections. Once fear takes hold, it can drive people toward unproven interventions, costly treatments, or avoidance of safe healthcare. This is where “snake oil” creeps in. When people are scared, there will always be those ready to exploit that fear with promises of miracle cures, restrictive diets, or expensive “brain training” that lacks evidence. So, what should we do? ✔️ Check the evidence base, not just one study – ask whether findings are replicated, large-scale, and peer-reviewed. ✔️ Be wary of anecdotes over data – individual stories can be powerful but are not proof. ✔️ Look at who benefits – is the claim linked to financial or political gain? ✔️ Communicate carefully – those of us in healthcare, education, or research Have a duty to share science accessibly, honestly, and without sensationalism. For families and professionals alike, the message is clear: don’t let fear be louder than facts. Evidence is our best safeguard against misinformation and exploitation, and it is what truly helps us support autistic and ADHD individuals to thrive.

For decades, the US government has painstakingly kept American science #1 globally—and every facet of American life has improved because of it. The internet? Flu shot? Ozempic? All grew out of federally-funded research. Now all that's being dismantled. For MIT Technology Review I spoke with more than 10+ federal workers who occupy, or until recently occupied, scientific and technical positions across various agencies. They explained to me how much behind-the-scenes work the US government does to keep America’s engine of innovation humming. Government funds account for more than *half* the R&D budget that US universities spend each year—in 2023, that was $60B out of $109B. The gov also does a lot of its own research at national labs like Oak Ridge & Los Alamos and agencies like NOAA and DoD. What are the returns on that investment? Better healthcare, better drugs, better consumer tech. Per Mariana Mazzucato's research: Pretty much every major technological transformation in the US, from electric cars to Google to the iPhone, can trace its roots back to basic science research once funded by the federal government. But it’s not just about the money. The government helps attract the best minds to the US. It helps the best minds in the US go safely overseas to do field work. It brokers agreements to foster international science collaboration. It tracks and aggregates data to support life-saving research. US scientific leadership also plays a huge role in bolstering US *global* leadership. Being world-class at science has long been a hugely successful diplomatic and soft power tool for deepening relationships with allies and stabilizing those with competitors. Plus, if the US wants to secure its semiconductor supply chain, if it wants to prepare the military for climate change, if it wants to prevent the next pandemic, it needs top scientists. Now the Trump admin is hacking away at every pillar of American scientific leadership: Stable science funding. Academic freedom. Many of the federal agencies and programs that support science and technology work. And all while countries like China are becoming their own scientific leaders. Federal workers are stunned. Keeping the US first in science and technology has never been a partisan issue. No one predicted the wholesale assault on these foundations of American prosperity. https://lnkd.in/gx3EBRxF

I was surprised by that: Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, trust in science has steadily declined. The fraction of US adults that have little to no confidence in scientists to act in the public’s interests has roughly doubled, from 12% in April 20 to 27% in October 2023. These findings of the Pew Research Center have recently been confirmed in Germany, where much of Bayer’s research activity originates. The Science Barometer 2023 by the German "Science in Dialogue" initiative shows that the fraction of Germans who somewhat or completely distrust science has likewise roughly doubled from 6% in April 2020 to 13% in August 2023. Despite the stark difference in absolute levels, the dynamics are remarkably similar. I firmly believe that sound scientific knowledge is crucial for tackling future global challenges. We must therefore monitor and counteract these developments.  For science to be trusted, it must improve people's lives. Public investment in research is more important than ever. Equally important is prudent regulation that does not hinder companies’ R&D departments from delivering persuasive products, e.g., by cutting unnecessary red tape. According to the German Science Barometer, the main reason behind the distrust however is related to the financing of research. And indeed, the history of industry efforts to manipulate scientific findings is well documented. Bayer is committed to continuously addressing this issue. That is why we are expanding the Bayer Science Collaboration Explorer to the U.S., after last year’s launch in Germany. The database invites everyone to discover our research collaborations with public research institutions and individuals. Both studies also emphasize the fundamental role of education. Improving the quality of our educational institutions is essential to ensure trust in science in the long term. With our educational portfolio, we want to contribute to this safeguard. Bayer's school laboratory program Baylab is a good example of this. The 5th of May 2023 marked the end of the three years and ninety-six days in which the COVID-19 pandemic was formally declared as a ‘public health emergency of international concern’ by the WHO. But the damage to trust has stayed. It is now time to rebuild trust through clear communication – and to admit mistakes that were made when reliable knowledge was still scarce. I would like to invite everyone to think about ways in which we can get back to a basis of mutually accepted facts. Let's make use of the naturally persuasive power of the scientific method. Explore more findings from the Pew Research Center’s survey (https://lnkd.in/ebCtuXqD) and the German Science Barometer 2023 (https://lnkd.in/e-nYtawr; currently in German only).

It’s a normal day. You're crossing the street, when suddenly the wail of an ambulance siren pierces the air. As it speeds closer, its high-pitched screech startles you. But as it zooms away, the sound seems to slow down, the pitch dropping into a deeper groan. This in & out of sound reminds me of an interesting concept of physics known as the Doppler Effect. Named after Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, this effect explains how the frequency (or pitch) of a sound wave changes when the source of the sound moves relative to an observer. When the ambulance is far away relative to the observer, the waves are spaced evenly. But as it approaches, each sound wave gets compressed, and we hear a higher pitch. Once it passes, the waves stretch out, and the sound becomes lower. This isn’t limited to just sound, though! The Doppler Effect applies to any type of wave, including light. Astronomers use it to study stars and galaxies, measuring how the light waves change to determine if a celestial object is moving toward or away from Earth. This shift in light waves—called "redshift" when moving away and "blueshift" when approaching—helps scientists understand the universe’s expansion. From racecar engines and train whistles to helicopter blades, the Doppler Effect is all around us. The Doppler Effect not only adds a layer of science to everyday experiences but also has crucial applications in various fields. In medicine, Doppler ultrasound helps visualize blood flow, capturing the movement and speed of blood cells in our bodies. And in meteorology, Doppler radar helps track storm movements, essential for predicting severe weather. The beauty of the Doppler Effect lies in its simplicity and ubiquity! This seemingly small concept stretches across vast fields, from the sound of sirens to the mysteries of space. So, what else in our everyday world could be hiding a bit of science like the Doppler Effect? I have always been curious to the mysteries that surround us. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴. Video source: Scienceabc (YouTube) #science #nature #physics #learning #education

In reading Emily Adkin’s most recent HEATED newsletter, I was confronted with a profound question that exposes a paradox in the climate crisis narrative: Who, in actuality, is being jailed for climate crimes? The narrative of Hoàng Thi Minh Hồng, a Vietnamese activist who was scheduled to elucidate climate activism strategies in politically contentious environments at the TED Conferences Countdown event, underscores the problem. Detained by her nation's authorities, her testament via video crystallized the perils activists encounter when defying influential bodies exploiting our ecosystem. In light of surging global temperatures and devastating floods, an intriguing dichotomy emerges: those protesting climate injustice often face harsher retribution than those perpetrating it. Simultaneously, we have stories like that of Rose Abramoff a climate scientist who exercised civil disobedience, not once but twice, to hasten global climate action. Signifying an emergent cohort of scientists discarding their non-activist labels, she is an active participant of the Scientist Rebellion, a global movement urging for drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. I am inspired by her bravery, and that of many others. This growing boldness from climate activists and organizers prompts a thought-provoking insight. As the severity of climate change escalates, the outcry for action grows increasingly louder, with some individuals risking personal freedom for the greater good. It challenges us to critically evaluate the question of accountability: Should it lie with those endeavoring to salvage our world, or those pushing it towards a precipice? #ClimateJustice #Activism #ClimateChange

In Indonesia’s courts, truth can be a lonely witness. For more than two decades, professors Bambang Hero Saharjo and Basuki Wasis of the Bogor Institute of Agriculture have stood where science meets power, testifying against companies accused of torching forests and draining peatlands. Their measurements of ash and carbon and their calculations of hectares lost have given judges a way to translate ecological ruin into the dry language of liability. For that service to the public, they have been repaid with lawsuits, harassment, and danger, reports Rendy Tisna. Last October a court in Bogor, west of Jakarta, offered a rare reversal: it dismissed a civil suit brought by PT Kalimantan Lestari Mandiri, a palm-oil firm once fined for fires that scorched more than 800 hectares of Borneo peat. The company had sought billions of rupiah in damages from the very experts whose testimony helped convict it years earlier. The judges ruled for the scientists. “Hopefully this will set a good precedent to protect environmental defenders,” Bambang told Mongabay-Indonesia Indonesia after the verdict. It was the fourth such case he has endured. Each time, the aim has been less to win than to exhaust—one more strategic lawsuit against public participation, designed to make truth-telling unbearably costly. “If we keep getting sued like this,” he warned, “the environment will become increasingly neglected.” Their victory was cheered by activists and the environment minister alike, who called the suit a “form of SLAPP” and praised the decision as proof that Indonesia’s judiciary could still defend its defenders. Yet it is a fragile shield. Dozens of scientists, journalists, and campaigners have faced similar tactics, and enforcement of environmental judgments remains weak. The fires continue to burn. Both men might have chosen easier paths. Their expertise in forestry and soil science could have earned them corporate consultancies or quiet academic lives. Instead they have lent credibility to the state’s most controversial prosecutions—often at personal cost, under threat, sometimes alone. In 2019 Bambang received the John Maddox Prize for standing up for science; the honor did little to stop the attacks. What sustains them is a conviction that evidence matters, even when power denies it. They keep returning to court, peat samples in hand, as if proof itself were an act of faith. “The environment,” Bambang once said, “is the lifeblood of the planet, and we must protect it together.” 📰 Story: https://lnkd.in/gP3cHi_4

As part of the #Q-Shift project with support of the interdisciplinary initiative CHANSE, Collaboration of Humanities and Social Sciences in Europe, Viktor Suter, Charles Ma, Gina P., Dr. Léa Steinacker and I conducted an in-depth study exploring how #Quantum Technology (#QT) is portrayed across media, business, and government narratives. Our goal? To understand how these #narratives shape public #perception and influence the #adoption of this groundbreaking technology. 📊 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀: 𝗗𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗲 𝗡𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀: We analyzed 36 government documents, 165 business reports, and 2,331 media articles, revealing that QT is often framed within themes like technical innovation, global conflicts, and societal impact. 𝗧𝗲𝗰𝗵 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱: Business narratives tend to emphasize the technical aspects and market potential of QT, often overlooking the broader societal implications. 𝗠𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝗕𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲: Media coverage provides a more balanced view, but still heavily focuses on the technology’s potential without fully addressing social consequences. 𝗣𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗗𝘆𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗰𝘀: Government narratives are largely driven by national strategies and geopolitical competition, especially between the U.S. and China. 💡 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗠𝗲𝗮𝗻? The way QT is discussed today will influence how it is integrated into society tomorrow. As we advance, it's crucial to foster well-rounded narratives that not only highlight QT's potential but also consider its societal implications. This balanced approach can help build public trust and guide responsible innovation. You can currently find the full paper “An integrated view of Quantum Technology? Mapping Media, Business, and Policy Narratives“ at 🔗 https://lnkd.in/gh5XKwqk. A German version of the results can also be found in the NZZ: https://lnkd.in/eRutjcYe #QuantumTechnology #Innovation #Research #TechnologyAdoption #PublicPerception