Science Journalism Insights

I've spent 10 years helping scientists communicate their research. I've never once thought that doing so could put their funding at risk. Until now. The US Office of Management and Budget has proposed a rule (Docket OMB-2026-0034) that, if it passes in October 2026, would fundamentally change how science gets funded in America. And I mean fundamentally. Here are the key points: 🔴 Political appointees, not scientists, decide which grants get funded. Peer review becomes advisory only. A political appointee can override the scientific community's judgment with zero explanation. 🔴 Active grants can be cancelled at any time, for any reason. Mid-project. No misconduct required. Just "doesn't align with our priorities anymore." 🔴 International collaboration is severely restricted. Travel, partnerships, joint research with scientists in dozens of countries: presumptively banned or requiring political sign-off. 🔴 Publication fees are unallowable. That means federally funded scientists may not be able to publish their findings Open Access. And then there's the one that hit me hardest as a science communicator: 🔴 Science communication could effectively be banned for federally funded researchers. The proposed rule prohibits using federal grant funds for any public communications that could be labelled "issue advocacy." Given that the rule's own preamble classifies climate science, public health research, and DEI research as "divisive ideology," a researcher speaking publicly about their own federally funded findings on any sensitive topic puts their entire grant at risk. NOTE: this is not yet law. The public comment period is open until approximately 13 July 2026. But this is what's being proposed, right now, for one of the most influential research ecosystems on the planet. At Animate Your Science, our mission is to help researchers communicate their work in ways that reach beyond journal paywalls and conference rooms. That mission only matters if scientists are allowed to communicate. What's being proposed here is a direct threat to that. I'll keep making noise about it. Please read and share the original breakdown by Elizabeth Ginexi. It is detailed and calm. And sadly it is worse than this post makes it look. 👉 https://lnkd.in/gNT2stY6

A big status update report from EFRAG on the ESRS! What does it show? Right now only 55% of companies reporting under CSRD say they have a climate transition plan. Fewer than half include Scope 3 emissions. EFRAG’s new State of Play 2025 report gives us the clearest picture yet of how “wave 1” companies are implementing the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). Here are five things that stood out in our analysis: 1. Climate plans remain incomplete. 70% of firms commit to 1.5°C targets for Scope 1 & 2 emissions—but just 40% extend that ambition to Scope 3. Only 55% disclose a transition plan at all, and most omit key elements such as funding or levers. 2. Materiality is concentrated. Just three topical standards: Climate Change (E1), Own Workforce (S1), and Business Conduct (G1) are considered material by over 90% of companies. Fewer than 10% identified all 10 topical standards as material. 3. Internal carbon pricing remains rare. Only 20% of companies report using an internal carbon price. Uptake is highest in carbon-intensive sectors like mining and electricity, and lowest in services and finance. 4. Biodiversity remains under-reported. Fewer than 30% of preparers include biodiversity metrics. Even when they do, disclosures average just four metrics, often lacking clear connections to targets or outcomes. 5. Stakeholder engagement remains narrow. While 97% engage employees in their double materiality assessment, fewer than one-third consult communities or civil society. Broader societal voices are still marginal in many DMA processes. There’s a lot more detail in the full EFRAG report including examples of good practice and insights into sectoral differences. The full report is below. Are you seeing similar trends in the reports you've been working on or reviewing? Share your views below! #climate #esrs #csrd #climatereporting #sustainabilityreporting #esg #eu #euomnibus #efrag

We are currently witnessing the end of voluntary sustainability reporting. This timeline from IFC visualises over 30 years of ESG evolution, from scattered voluntary initiatives like GRI in the late 90s to the finalised mandatory frameworks projected through 2028. ↳ We have officially moved from a wide array of standards (Kyulo, TCFD, CDP) to the CSRD and ISSB, we are on the way to the era of a shared global language where we can compare companies' actual performance. ↳ Carbon data and climate risk are now standardised, auditable financial metrics integrated directly into reporting standards like IFRS. ↳ With finalised supply chain standards like CSDDD coming into force, your carbon footprint effectively becomes your new commercial passport. ↳ Survival and growth are now entirely dependent on high-quality, verifiable data. Sustainability is now the foundational architecture required for a company to access global capital and remain in the supply chain. In a global market defined by ISSB and CSRD, will any company headquartered in a region without standardised climate reporting be viewed as a high-risk financial liability?

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.

CSRD Nature Metrics Compared with TNFD, CDP, and GRI 🌎 Nature is becoming a central pillar of sustainability reporting, reflecting its critical role in global environmental and economic systems. Companies are increasingly expected to disclose their impacts and dependencies on nature with greater precision and alignment to evolving standards. A recent comparative analysis highlights how CSRD’s nature-related metrics overlap with TNFD, CDP, and GRI standards, showcasing a growing convergence across frameworks. Pollution, water, biodiversity, and waste emerge as key thematic areas where disclosure expectations are sharpening. Pollution metrics, including emissions, microplastics, and expenditures related to incidents, demonstrate strong alignment across frameworks, signaling a heightened need for transparent reporting on pollution-related risks and costs. Water-related disclosures, such as consumption, withdrawals, and discharges, show close alignment, especially in stress-prone areas. This reinforces the critical role of water stewardship as a material topic across industries. Biodiversity metrics reveal a more fragmented alignment, yet the direction of travel is clear: the use of land, protection of nature-oriented areas, and ecosystem impact assessments are gaining prominence in corporate reporting expectations. Waste management metrics, particularly on secondary material use, total waste generated, and breakdowns by type and treatment, are highly aligned. Circular economy principles are becoming embedded in nature-related disclosures. Financial information about the risks and opportunities linked to environmental impacts is increasingly demanded across all categories. Forward-looking disclosures are no longer optional—they are becoming a regulatory and market expectation. Nature reporting is evolving rapidly. Businesses that proactively integrate nature-related metrics into sustainability strategies will be better positioned to navigate regulatory shifts, meet stakeholder expectations, and build long-term resilience. #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #nature #biodiversity

🔍 #TeachMeTuesday | Bridging the Science–Policy Gap—What May Require Change The European Commission’s just-published its final report on Bridging the Gap Between Science & Policy - https://lnkd.in/eavm9NYy - a deep look at how to fix the chronic dysfunctions in science-for-policy (S4P) systems. The report highlights a growing mismatch between research incentives and policy needs. Some takeaways that deserve attention: 📉 Researchers are not rewarded for engaging in policy work. In some systems, it’s even seen as a career risk. 🔄 Science advice is often delivered with no clear delivery paths, disconnected from the rhythms of policy. ❌ Most countries still rely on fragmented, ad hoc, and linear models of evidence transfer. ⚠️ AI produced content, a general paper overload, and low-quality journals - but also uncertain science funding sources with conflicts of interest at stake - complicate the integrity of the evidence base itself. The report proposes various solutions (all in the report), but, in my humble experience, one is key: Reward structures and academic excellence metrics -such as publication number or citations - by far - are widely disconnected from any measure of real-world economic or social impact; and the situation has not much improved over the last two to three decades. 📘 Some obvious links to - Upcoming exciting work of of TUM TransforM https://lnkd.in/eHzEjKsQ Hanna Hottenrott Sebastian Pfotenhauer Urs Gasser Thomas F. Hofmann 👉 WIPO work on Tech Transfer https://lnkd.in/eWWVn6Nb and earlier WIPO work “Harnessing Public Research for Innovation in the 21st Century”, Cambridge University Press: 👉 https://lnkd.in/gbnd4WJ8 👏 Hats off to lead editor Ilkka Tuomi and contributors Alessandro Allegra, Eva-Maria Szavuj, Annamaria Zonno, René von Schomberg, Kathryn Oliver. #SciencePolicy #S4P #PolicyImpact #Foresight #TrustInScience

Sustainability reporting has matured beyond standalone frameworks. In practice, organisations are now operating within an interconnected disclosure architecture — where climate risk, investor materiality, industry exposure, broader societal impact, and data transparency increasingly need to work together. That shift matters because most real-world decisions do not happen in silos. A transition plan affects capital allocation. A supply chain issue becomes a resilience issue. A biodiversity dependency becomes a financial exposure. A disclosure gap becomes a governance question. And increasingly, the quality of sustainability reporting is being judged not by the volume of disclosures produced — but by whether the information helps management, investors, lenders, regulators, and stakeholders make better decisions. That is where the different frameworks begin to make more sense collectively. TCFD established a common language around climate-related risk and governance. IFRS S1 & S2 pushed sustainability disclosure further into the domain of enterprise value and investor-useful information. GRI broadened the lens toward impacts on the economy, environment, and society. SASB sharpened focus on financially material industry-specific issues. CDP helped operationalise disclosure through structured data collection and comparability. Each serves a different purpose. But together, they form something more important than a reporting exercise: an information system for understanding risk, resilience, performance, and long-term value creation. The organisations that are navigating this well are usually not treating frameworks as competing checklists. They are building internal coherence across strategy, finance, risk, operations, and sustainability teams — so disclosures reflect how decisions are actually being made inside the business. That tends to be where reporting becomes more useful, more credible, and ultimately more strategic. #Sustainability #ESG #CorporateReporting #IFRS #TCFD #GRI #SASB #CDP #SustainableFinance #ClimateRisk

ICLR'26 has decided to 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗸-𝗿𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 papers with 𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘂𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 generated by LLMs. That raises a practical question for every author: How do we verify citations reliably? We’re excited to share our new paper, 𝗕𝗶𝗯𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁, an agentic citation verification framework designed to make reference checking auditable BibAgent traces where a claim is supported, surfaces evidence spans, and reports confidence rather than guessing. When a cited paper is behind a paywall, it can switch to a community-based “evidence committee” approach: collect downstream open-access citers, distill what they attribute to the paywalled work, and decide with consensus—or abstain if evidence is insufficient. We also propose a unified miscitation error-code taxonomy and release 𝗠𝗜𝗦𝗖𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗕𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗛, a large cross-disciplinary benchmark of miscitation cases. If you’re building LLM writing assistants, submission pipelines, or research integrity tooling, this is meant to be a step toward: draft fast → verify rigorously → publish faithfully. Ultimately, we hope this research helps 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵𝘆 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀—so that emerging agents for scientific discovery can build on literature that’s genuinely grounded, not citation-shaped. Paper link: arxiv.org/abs/2601.16993 #AI #LLMs #ResearchIntegrity #OpenScience #NLP #ScientificDiscovery #TrustworthyAI

Case #19: Going to the Dogs? For pet parents, caring for a dog is as intense as caring for their kids. Pet food is a growing industry and we have recently seen a spate of advertisements talking about some really powerful benefits. But are they credible? Recently, ASCI reviewed claims made on the packaging of a popular brand’s adult dog food. The advertiser claimed that the pet food was *Formulated with the finest natural ingredients to help your dog live a long and healthy life*, that the *Crunchy kibble helps reduce plaque build-up, whiten teeth, and freshen breath*, and that the product *improved immunity*. On being contacted by ASCI, the advertiser submitted certifications regarding registration with authority and process controls. They cited general veterinary literature and nutritional benefits of ingredients like fish oil, flaxseed, antioxidants, Vitamins C & E. They also explained mechanisms like crunchy kibble reducing plaque and antioxidants supporting immunity. However, when ASCI’s jury (CCC) and the expert reviewed the evidence they noted there was no clinical evidence that this specific product could extend life, whiten teeth, freshen breath, or improve immunity. While some ingredients may contribute generally to health, claims on the packaging overstated benefits and were deemed misleading by exaggeration. Even with good intentions and some scientific references, strong claims without product-specific evidence can mislead consumers. Certifications about processes don’t substitute for proof of efficacy. The lesson is clear: Claims must stop where evidence ends. ========================== Each week, I’ll spotlight a real case from ASCI’s extensive archives — a look at how brands, creatives, and consumers navigate the complex world of advertising. The idea is to share and learn what works, what doesn’t, and what must be done to keep consumer trust intact. Whether you’re a marketer, legal professional, student, or just someone who enjoys decoding the messages behind the ads you see every day, I hope this will be of interest and value The Advertising Standards Council of India

Science communication in the TikTok era: are we ready? This week, Nature Portfolio published an editorial urging researchers and science publishers to embrace the profound shifts underway in how people consume information and news. The journal itself joined TikTok just a few months ago. The evidence is clear, and many of us have witnessed it firsthand since the COVID-19 pandemic. Increasingly, especially among younger audiences, news is consumed through social media rather than traditional outlets. Short-form video is now a dominant format, but this shift started long before TikTok. During the pandemic, we saw news organizations rapidly adapt their storytelling for platforms like Instagram, even before Reels took off. I was pleased to see the World Health Organization’s presence on TikTok mentioned in the editorial. At the height of the pandemic, there were too few credible, evidence-based voices on the platform. TikTok approached us to help establish a trusted source of health information. At the time, we didn't have the capacity to produce daily TikTok-native content, so we adapted what we had. In a moment of global crisis, that was enough to make a difference. Six years later, we've learned a great deal about working with creators, video editors and new formats to communicate science and health information in ways that meet audiences where they are. But this post isn't about WHO. It's about a broader shift that is finally gaining momentum: science publishers, researchers and institutions are recognizing that if evidence-based information is to remain visible and relevant, it must evolve with changing digital media habits. This is also why I am working with Nature Medicine Commission on Quality Health Information for All to gather evidence from communication practice and expertise in the past decade and develop recommendations for the health sector. Our goal is not simply to adapt to TikTok, but to help health communication evolve for whatever comes next. The future of science communication may not look like a journal article. The challenge is ensuring that scientific rigor, accuracy and trust make the journey with it.