Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Out of the Lab and Into the Streets, Researchers and Doctors Rally for Science Against Trump Cuts

News Feed
Friday, March 7, 2025

WASHINGTON (AP) — Researchers, doctors, their patients and supporters ventured out of labs, hospitals and offices Friday to stand up to what they call a blitz on life-saving science by the Trump administration.In the nation's capital, several hundred people gathered at the Stand Up for Science rally. Organizers said similar rallies were planned in more than 30 U.S. cities. Politicians, scientists, musicians, doctors and their patients were expected to make the case that firings, budget and grant cuts in health, climate, science and other research government agencies in the Trump administration's first 47 days in office are endangering not just the future but the present.“Science is under attack in the United States,” said rally co-organizer Colette Delawalla, a doctoral student in clinical psychology. “We're not just going to stand here and take it.”“American scientific progress and forward movement is a public good and public good is coming to a screeching halt right now,” Delawalla said. “It's a very bad time with all the promise and momentum," said Collins. Friday's rally in Washington was at the Lincoln Memorial, in the shadow of a statue of the president who created the National Academy of Sciences in 1863. Some of the expected speakers study giant colliding galaxies, the tiny genetic blueprint of life inside humans and the warming atmosphere.Nobel Prize winning biologist Victor Ambros, Bill Nye The Science Guy, former NASA chief Bill Nelson and a host of other politicians, and patients — some with rare diseases — were expected to take the stage to talk about their work and the importance of scientific research. The rallies were organized mostly by graduate students and early career scientists. Dozens of other protests were also planned around the world, including more than 30 in France, Delawalla said.“The cuts in science funding affects the world,” she said.She said the administration’s campaign to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion have delayed and threatened her grant because the National Institutes of Health is scrubbing proposals with words such as “female” or “woman.” Her research focuses on compulsive alcohol use in people, which is different for men and women.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Researchers, doctors, their patients and supporters are venturing out of labs, hospitals and offices across the country to stand up to what they call an attack on life-saving science by the Trump administration

WASHINGTON (AP) — Researchers, doctors, their patients and supporters ventured out of labs, hospitals and offices Friday to stand up to what they call a blitz on life-saving science by the Trump administration.

In the nation's capital, several hundred people gathered at the Stand Up for Science rally. Organizers said similar rallies were planned in more than 30 U.S. cities.

Politicians, scientists, musicians, doctors and their patients were expected to make the case that firings, budget and grant cuts in health, climate, science and other research government agencies in the Trump administration's first 47 days in office are endangering not just the future but the present.

“Science is under attack in the United States,” said rally co-organizer Colette Delawalla, a doctoral student in clinical psychology. “We're not just going to stand here and take it.”

“American scientific progress and forward movement is a public good and public good is coming to a screeching halt right now,” Delawalla said.

“It's a very bad time with all the promise and momentum," said Collins.

Friday's rally in Washington was at the Lincoln Memorial, in the shadow of a statue of the president who created the National Academy of Sciences in 1863. Some of the expected speakers study giant colliding galaxies, the tiny genetic blueprint of life inside humans and the warming atmosphere.

Nobel Prize winning biologist Victor Ambros, Bill Nye The Science Guy, former NASA chief Bill Nelson and a host of other politicians, and patients — some with rare diseases — were expected to take the stage to talk about their work and the importance of scientific research.

The rallies were organized mostly by graduate students and early career scientists. Dozens of other protests were also planned around the world, including more than 30 in France, Delawalla said.

“The cuts in science funding affects the world,” she said.

She said the administration’s campaign to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion have delayed and threatened her grant because the National Institutes of Health is scrubbing proposals with words such as “female” or “woman.” Her research focuses on compulsive alcohol use in people, which is different for men and women.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

New study reveals how cleft lip and cleft palate can arise

MIT biologists have found that defects in some transfer RNA molecules can lead to the formation of these common conditions.

Cleft lip and cleft palate are among the most common birth defects, occurring in about one in 1,050 births in the United States. These defects, which appear when the tissues that form the lip or the roof of the mouth do not join completely, are believed to be caused by a mix of genetic and environmental factors.In a new study, MIT biologists have discovered how a genetic variant often found in people with these facial malformations leads to the development of cleft lip and cleft palate.Their findings suggest that the variant diminishes cells’ supply of transfer RNA, a molecule that is critical for assembling proteins. When this happens, embryonic face cells are unable to fuse to form the lip and roof of the mouth.“Until now, no one had made the connection that we made. This particular gene was known to be part of the complex involved in the splicing of transfer RNA, but it wasn’t clear that it played such a crucial role for this process and for facial development. Without the gene, known as DDX1, certain transfer RNA can no longer bring amino acids to the ribosome to make new proteins. If the cells can’t process these tRNAs properly, then the ribosomes can’t make protein anymore,” says Michaela Bartusel, an MIT research scientist and the lead author of the study.Eliezer Calo, an associate professor of biology at MIT, is the senior author of the paper, which appears today in the American Journal of Human Genetics.Genetic variantsCleft lip and cleft palate, also known as orofacial clefts, can be caused by genetic mutations, but in many cases, there is no known genetic cause.“The mechanism for the development of these orofacial clefts is unclear, mostly because they are known to be impacted by both genetic and environmental factors,” Calo says. “Trying to pinpoint what might be affected has been very challenging in this context.”To discover genetic factors that influence a particular disease, scientists often perform genome-wide association studies (GWAS), which can reveal variants that are found more often in people who have a particular disease than in people who don’t.For orofacial clefts, some of the genetic variants that have regularly turned up in GWAS appeared to be in a region of DNA that doesn’t code for proteins. In this study, the MIT team set out to figure out how variants in this region might influence the development of facial malformations.Their studies revealed that these variants are located in an enhancer region called e2p24.2. Enhancers are segments of DNA that interact with protein-coding genes, helping to activate them by binding to transcription factors that turn on gene expression.The researchers found that this region is in close proximity to three genes, suggesting that it may control the expression of those genes. One of those genes had already been ruled out as contributing to facial malformations, and another had already been shown to have a connection. In this study, the researchers focused on the third gene, which is known as DDX1.DDX1, it turned out, is necessary for splicing transfer RNA (tRNA) molecules, which play a critical role in protein synthesis. Each transfer RNA molecule transports a specific amino acid to the ribosome — a cell structure that strings amino acids together to form proteins, based on the instructions carried by messenger RNA.While there are about 400 different tRNAs found in the human genome, only a fraction of those tRNAs require splicing, and those are the tRNAs most affected by the loss of DDX1. These tRNAs transport four different amino acids, and the researchers hypothesize that these four amino acids may be particularly abundant in proteins that embryonic cells that form the face need to develop properly.When the ribosomes need one of those four amino acids, but none of them are available, the ribosome can stall, and the protein doesn’t get made.The researchers are now exploring which proteins might be most affected by the loss of those amino acids. They also plan to investigate what happens inside cells when the ribosomes stall, in hopes of identifying a stress signal that could potentially be blocked and help cells survive.Malfunctioning tRNAWhile this is the first study to link tRNA to craniofacial malformations, previous studies have shown that mutations that impair ribosome formation can also lead to similar defects. Studies have also shown that disruptions of tRNA synthesis — caused by mutations in the enzymes that attach amino acids to tRNA, or in proteins involved in an earlier step in tRNA splicing — can lead to neurodevelopmental disorders.“Defects in other components of the tRNA pathway have been shown to be associated with neurodevelopmental disease,” Calo says. “One interesting parallel between these two is that the cells that form the face are coming from the same place as the cells that form the neurons, so it seems that these particular cells are very susceptible to tRNA defects.”The researchers now hope to explore whether environmental factors linked to orofacial birth defects also influence tRNA function. Some of their preliminary work has found that oxidative stress — a buildup of harmful free radicals — can lead to fragmentation of tRNA molecules. Oxidative stress can occur in embryonic cells upon exposure to ethanol, as in fetal alcohol syndrome, or if the mother develops gestational diabetes.“I think it is worth looking for mutations that might be causing this on the genetic side of things, but then also in the future, we would expand this into which environmental factors have the same effects on tRNA function, and then see which precautions might be able to prevent any effects on tRNAs,” Bartusel says.The research was funded by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Program, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Science
Health

The Real Reason Autism Rates Are Rising

Autism rates are rising, but RFK, Jr. is wrong about the reasons. Here’s what the science says

RFK, Jr. Is Wrong about Cause of Rising Autism Rates, Scientists SayAutism rates are rising, but RFK, Jr. is wrong about the reasons. Here’s what the science saysBy Stephanie Pappas edited by Jeanna BrynerResearch suggests that autism is between 60 and 90 percent heritable. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., head of the Department of Health and Human Services, struck an alarmist tone about new findings that one in 31 eight-year-olds in the U.S. have an autism diagnosis at a press conference today.Kennedy called autism a “tragedy” that “destroys families.” And his statements also included assertations that autism experts say are out of date, such as the idea that autistic kids “regress” around their second birthday. In fact, while autism is often diagnosed at this age, researchers have found brain differences as early as six months of age among kids who were later diagnosed as autistic. Some studies have also found subtle differences in motor behavior and social behavior, such as looking less at people than typically developing kids do, in babies who were later diagnosed as autistic.But Kennedy’s greatest breach with the scientific consensus was likely his insistence that autism is an “epidemic” that must be caused by an environmental exposure that has been introduced within the past several decades. In fact, researchers say, autism is between 60 and 90 percent heritable. And in up to 40% percent of cases, doctors can find a specific set of genetic mutations to explain the condition. While there are environmental risk factors for autism, such as air pollution, rising rates are mostly attributable to broadened diagnostic categories and more comprehensive screening.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.“The problem from a science communication standpoint is that the causes are complex,” says Annette Estes, director of the University of Washington Autism Center. “It’s not like Down syndrome, where we can say, ‘There is one genetic change that leads to this syndrome, and everybody with this syndrome has these characteristics.’ Even though the amount we’ve learned is unbelievable, it’s also not a simple story.”The new finding that one in 31 kids born in 2014 are autistic comes from a newly released report from the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network (ADDM), which started tracking data in 2000. That year one in 150 eight-year-olds were diagnosed as autistic, and the number has been steadily rising since. Kennedy also cited numbers from the 1970s and 1980s that showed rates of autism that represented around one to three in 10,000 people.This period saw a number of changes in how autism was diagnosed, however. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), which has lays out criteria for psychiatric diagnoses in the U.S., called autism “schizophrenic reaction, childhood type” in its first edition and subsequently referred to it as “schizophrenia, childhood type” until 1980, when the diagnosis changed to “infantile autism.” The criteria then focused on external symptoms such as delays in language development, resistance to change and attachments to objects. In 1987 the criteria widened and encompassed three categories related to social interaction, communication and restrictions in activities. In 1994 the diagnosis of Asperger’s disorder appeared, only to be subsumed into a broadened “autism spectrum disorder” in the DSM’s fifth edition (DSM-5) in 2013. That year was also the first in which autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder could be diagnosed in the same child at the same time, Estes says. Prior to that time, an ADHD diagnosis would preclude a child from getting an autism diagnosis, even though researchers currently estimate that half or more of autistic people also have ADHD.Kennedy downplayed diagnostic shift as a minor explanation for the increase in autism cases, but researchers have found that changes in diagnosis probably explain a majority of the increase. A 2015 study on children diagnosed as autistic in Denmark, for example, found that 60 percent of the rise of autism among children born between 1980 and 1991 was caused by changes in diagnostic criteria and reporting practices. Another 2015 study examined students in U.S. special education programs between 2000 and 2010. The number of autistic children who enrolled in special education tripled from 93,624 to 419,647. In the same time frame, however, the number of children labeled as having an “intellectual disability” declined from 637,270 to 457,478. The shift of children from one diagnostic category to another explained two thirds of the increase in autism in this population, researchers say.Another piece of evidence for changes in diagnosis explaining a large difference in the prevalence of autism is that autism rates vary widely from state to state in the U.S. The state with the highest prevalence of autism is California, with a rate of 53.1 per 1,000 eight-year-olds, while the one with the lowest prevalence is Texas, with a rate of 9.7 per 1,000 eight-year-olds. That’s a huge difference. But according to the CDC’s own report, it’s likely linked to California’s intense push for early screening and assessment.“Because of all the hard work that everyone has done to come up with good approaches for supporting and teaching autistic kids, there are benefits of getting an autism diagnosis,” Estes says. “So people seek it out. And that, coupled with less stigma around autism, means more people want to understand their kids in this way.”Some portion of the rise in autism rates may be unrelated to better diagnosis. The likelihood of having an autistic child increases for older parents, and there is a societal trend toward delaying childbirth across developed countries. Children who are born prematurely are also at a heightened risk of autism, and improved neonatal care means many more of these children are surviving to childhood and beyond.There are also known environmental risk factors for autism. Among pregnant people, for example, infections that are accompanied by fever in the second trimester raise the risk of autism for their eventual baby. So does exposure to fine particulate matter pollution in the third trimester of development and the first year of life, according to a 2019 study. Laura McGuinn, an epidemiologist at the University of Chicago, who led a study that made the latter finding, says that particulate matter is inflammatory, and work is ongoing to understand how it might trigger the maternal immune system and potentially affect brain development.As Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kennedy promised “some” of the answers to the causes of autism by September. But his “start from scratch” approach largely ignores research that has already been done. For example, Kennedy told reporters the initiative would look at ultrasounds during pregnancy as a possible risk factor. But a comprehensive multisite study of more than 1,500 pregnancies that found no link between autism and ultrasound use was published as recently as 2023. And scientists definitively ruled out the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine as a cause of autism a decade ago (and again in 2019). In addition, the primary study that had suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism was found to have falsified data. Despite this, federal officials said in March that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will conduct a study to investigate a link between vaccines and autism. The study will be led by a vaccine skeptic who was previously disciplined for practicing medicine without a license.Work on untangling the complex environmental risk factors was ongoing prior to Kennedy’s tenure, including at federal agencies such as the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which is developing a Web-based tool to help scientists make sense of the existing data on environmental studies and autism.“As scientists, I wish there was a way we could talk about this and really explain how amazing it is, how much taxpayer money has gone to creating this understanding of this complex developmental disorder and how to help kids and parents,” Estes says. “This idea that there needs to be one single cause, and it needs to be really scary—it’s just really taking us backward.”

Science
Education
Pollution

Length of a Day on Uranus Revised, Pour Height Influences Coffee Quality, and Plastics Recycling Falls Short.

A fluid study homes in on the best method to make a cup of coffee, scientists use the Hubble Telescope to reassess the length of a day on Uranus, and we discuss more of the latest in science in this news roundup.

A Long Day on Uranus, a Better Method of Making Coffee and Disputed Dino DeclineA fluid study homes in on the best method to make a cup of coffee, scientists use the Hubble Telescope to reassess the length of a day on Uranus, and we discuss more of the latest in science in this news roundup.By Rachel Feltman, Fonda Mwangi & Alex Sugiura Anaissa Ruiz Tejada/Scientific AmericanRachel Feltman: Happy Monday, listeners! For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman. Let’s catch up on some of the science news you might have missed last week.We’ll ease into things with a new study on a subject that’s bound to perk you up: coffee. Up until now the best way to learn more than you ever wanted to know about pour-over coffee was to ask literally any guy at a party in Brooklyn. But a study published last week in the journal Physics of Fluids brings some actual science into debates over how to brew the perfect pot of joe.Using transparent silica gel particles in place of coffee grounds, researchers captured high-speed footage showing exactly how water flows through a pour-over setup under different conditions. They determined that the best way to brew a strong cup of coffee was to maximize the contact time between water and coffee grounds while also allowing for plenty of mixing so as much coffee as possible was extracted. The team says the key is to pour slowly—to maximize contact—and from a greater height to increase the water velocity. A slim stream of water from a gooseneck kettle can help optimize this process. As those dudes from parties in Brooklyn have probably already told you. If you get it right, the researchers say, you can actually get a stronger cup of coffee using a smaller quantity of grounds. They recommend experimenting by subtracting a small amount from your usual bean count—maybe a couple of grams per serving—and then trying cups brewed at different pour heights until you find a strength you like.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Now that we’re all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, let’s move on to another troubling story of cuts in federal funding for research. Last Tuesday the U.S. Department of Commerce announced that the Trump administration will pull around $4 million in research grants for climate change-related projects from Princeton University. According to a press release from the Department of Commerce, the projects funded by these grants “are no longer aligned with the program objectives” of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and “are no longer in keeping with the Trump Administration’s priorities.”One of the targeted projects focuses on how water supplies might fluctuate as global warming progresses. The Department of Commerce stated that “using federal funds to perpetuate these narratives does not align with the priorities of this Administration,” which is, frankly, chilling language to use when talking about climate change research. The press release also accused some of the slashed projects of increasing “climate anxiety,” which is a phrase that’s increasingly being used to cast folks’ concerns over very real evidence about the climate crisis in a hysterical light.Speaking of environmental threats: a study published last Thursday in the journal Communications Earth & Environment found that less than 10 percent of the plastic made worldwide in 2022 contained recycled materials. The world produced more than 400 million tons of plastic that year. And some estimates say that amount will more than double by 2050. The new study also found that just around 28 percent of all plastic waste made it to the sorting stage and only half of that plastic was actually recycled. While China had the highest plastic consumption overall in 2022, the U.S. had the highest amount of usage per person, according to the researchers. On average, each individual in the U.S. consumed about 476 pounds [216 kilograms] of plastic that year.Now, obviously plastic usage is a massive, complex, systemic problem that high income countries around the world need to address, so this isn’t me trying to make you feel guilty about your ever-growing pile of old takeout containers. But if you’ve been looking for something to motivate you to start making some slightly less convenient choices in the name of using less plastic—carrying reusable straws and silverware with you, finding a local bulk grocery store that lets you use your own containers—maybe these new findings can fire you up to make a change.Now let’s check in with a cosmic neighbor. The Small Magellanic Cloud is a galaxy not far from our own, and a new study published in the Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series suggests that things might be getting a little hectic over there. Within the SMC, researchers tracked the motion of roughly 7,000 stars, each one more than eight times the mass of our own sun. The team found that the stars were moving in different directions on the galaxy’s respective sides. The scientists think that the gravitational pull of the nearby Large Magellanic Cloud—which, to state the obvious, is the bigger of the two galaxies—might be pulling the SMC apart. The researchers say that studying how the SMC and LMC interact with both each other and with the Milky Way will help us understand how galaxies form and behave.In other space news, it turns out that a day on Uranus lasts slightly longer than we thought. A study published last Monday in Nature Astronomyused data from the Hubble Space Telescope to estimate the ice giant’s rotation rate with unprecedented accuracy. Our prior estimate of 17 hours, 14 minutes and 24 seconds came from Voyager 2’s 1986 flyby of Uranus. That figure relied on measurements of the planet’s magnetic field and radio signals emitted by its auroras. For a better estimate scientists used more than a decade’s worth of Hubble data to track the movement of Uranus’s auroras, which helped them zero in on the actual location of the planet’s magnetic poles. The researchers’ findings added a whopping 28 seconds to Uranus’s previously estimated rotational period. And hey, every second on Uranus is precious.We’ll wrap up with some new findings on the demise of the dinosaurs. Some earlier research has suggested that dinosaurs were already on the outs before that infamous asteroid struck the killing blow. But a study published last Tuesday in Current Biologyargues that the dinosaurs were doing just fine before that pesky space rock came along, thank you very much.Researchers analyzed the North American fossil record for the 18 million years preceding the mass extinction event in question—about 8,000 fossil specimens in total. That fossil record does indeed seem to show that dinosaur populations started declining millions of years before the asteroid hit. But the new study suggests it’s not the dinosaurs themselves that declined but simply their mark on the fossil record. The researchers argue that geological changes made dinosaur fossils less likely to be preserved in places where archaeologists could one day access them. It’s certainly not the end of this debate, but it’s now a little more plausible to imagine that, had things gone down a little differently, we might still have dinosaurs roaming the Earth today—other than birds, of course.That’s all for this week’s news roundup. We’ll be back on Wednesday to talk about a trendy disinfectant that sounds almost too good to be true: hypochlorous acid. Tune in to get the full scoop on this so-called miracle molecule.Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Naeem Amarsy and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was edited by Alex Sugiura. Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck fact-check our show. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.For Scientific American, this is Rachel Feltman. Have a great week!

Science
Climate
Extinction

As Happened in Texas, Ignoring EPA Science Will Allow Pollution and Cancer to Fester

Trump administration plans to destroy EPA science will leave the air we breathe and the water we drink more polluted

As Happened in Texas, Ignoring EPA Science Will Allow Pollution and Cancer to FesterTrump administration plans to destroy EPA science will leave the air we breathe and the water we drink more pollutedBy Jennifer Sass Cows graze near the Oak Grove Power Plant in Robertson County, Texas, subject to EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) rules to reduce carbon emissions and mercury pollution under the Biden administration. Brandon Bell/Getty ImagesI’ve spent my scientific career asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to set stronger, lawful public-health protections from toxic chemicals. I do not always agree with EPA’s final decisions, but I respect the scientific process and am always grateful for the agency’s scientists—our public brain trust.In one of the most dangerous acts against facts and science, the Trump administration announced in March that it will shutter the EPA’s independent research office. This will cut more than 1,000 scientists and technical experts who help the agency determine if, for example, a chemical poses a cancer risk, or a factory is polluting a nearby river. At the same time, Trump’s EPA has installed former oil and chemical industry lobbyists to write the rules to regulate those industries.There’s a lot of empty talk about making us healthy coming from this administration. Future generations will be even worse off.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.What is left unsaid by the Trump EPA is this: eliminating scientists from the EPA is kneecapping environmental safeguards. Every major environmental statute—the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Superfund law governing cleanup requirements—relies on EPA scientists to calculate how hazardous chemicals are, how people and wildlife may be exposed and what health and ecological harms may occur. Questions critical to environmental and community protections are researched, such as: Will exposure to this chemical in my workplace increase my risk of breast cancer? Is the air quality from power plant emissions safe for the neighboring community? What is an acceptable standard for PFAS forever chemicals in our drinking water?A drone view of the Sulphur Bank mercury mine Superfund site in Clearlake Oaks, Calif., on Tuesday, Jan. 30, 2024.Jane Tyska/Digital First Media/East Bay Times via Getty ImagesInstead, the Trump team is yet again swinging its chainsaw, this time against independent science to favor polluting industries. Consequent to gutting scientific inquiries by the government and decimating academic scientific research, only one type of scientific research will be available for setting environmental standards: polluter research. And that’s trouble. The public is right to distrust polluter-sponsored science; see “tobacco science” and the myth of safe nuclear waste for starters.Just ask Texas. The state of Texas’s vigorous defense of ethylene oxide, a well-known carcinogen, provides an ongoing example of the perils to public health from science done by a polluting industry with a financial interest in the outcome and the support of a state government hell-bent on rewriting scientific facts about a cancer-causing chemical.In 2016, after nearly 10 years of research and analysis, the EPA determined ethylene oxide, a chemical widely used in facilities in Texas and Louisiana to sterilize medical equipment, was linked to cancer—with a 30 times greater risk than the EPA had previously found. EPA’s new risk evaluation included a study of over 300 breast cancer cases in women working with the chemical and adjusted for added risks where children may be exposed.EPA’s report was finalized after multiple internal reviews, and reviews from other government agencies, with public input including from Texas and the industry on many occasions. There were also two rounds of public review by the agency’s science advisory board.Rather than accept that finding, the chemical industry and Texas’ regulatory agency issued its own alternative report in 2020 on ethylene oxide. In stark contrast with EPA’s evaluation, the Texas assessment is a contractor product sponsored by the ethylene oxide industry with limited public review. It fails to account for the risk of breast cancer and could allow over 3,000 times more air pollution to be emitted, which would drastically increase illnesses and deaths—including from cancer—for workers and nearby communities.In an effort to compel EPA to adopt Texas’ cancer-friendly risk estimates nationally, Texas requested a review of its findings by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the nation’s top source of high-quality trusted science and health advice.In March, the National Academies issued its final report, rebuking the foundations of the Texas analysis, finding it repeatedly deviated from best scientific practices and failed to offer a “credible basis” for its findings, specifically its determination that ethylene oxide was not associated with breast cancer.Texas’ efforts to rewrite the history of cancer-causing ethylene oxide as a benign, no-big-deal chemical, is just the beginning of the toxic mayhem and misinformation we can expect from the Trump team to support the financial interests of toxic polluters.Erasing cancer evidence, fudging data, and pretending wild claims are the truth will become the norm, undermining every environmental law and regulation in the nation, and compromising our right to health.All of us will suffer for it.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Science
Pollution
Water

MIT affiliates named 2024 AAAS Fellows

The American Association for the Advancement of Science recognizes six current affiliates and 27 additional MIT alumni for their efforts to advance science and related fields.

Six current MIT affiliates and 27 additional MIT alumni have been elected as fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The 2024 class of AAAS Fellows includes 471 scientists, engineers, and innovators, spanning all 24 of AAAS disciplinary sections, who are being recognized for their scientifically and socially distinguished achievements.Noubar Afeyan PhD ’87, life member of the MIT Corporation, was named a AAAS Fellow “for outstanding leadership in biotechnology, in particular mRNA therapeutics, and for advocacy for recognition of the contributions of immigrants to economic and scientific progress.” Afeyan is the founder and CEO of the venture creation company Flagship Pioneering, which has built over 100 science-based companies to transform human health and sustainability. He is also the chairman and cofounder of Moderna, which was awarded a 2024 National Medal of Technology and Innovation for the development of its Covid-19 vaccine. Afeyan earned his PhD in biochemical engineering at MIT in 1987 and was a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management for 16 years, starting in 2000. Among other activities at the Institute, he serves on the advisory board of the MIT Abdul Latif Jameel Clinic for Machine Learning and delivered MIT’s 2024 Commencement address.Cynthia Breazeal SM ’93, ScD ’00 is a professor of media arts and sciences at MIT, where she founded and directs the Personal Robots group in the MIT Media Lab. At MIT Open Learning, she is the MIT dean for digital learning, and in this role, she leverages her experience in emerging digital technologies and business, research, and strategic initiatives to lead Open Learning’s business and research and engagement units. She is also the director of the MIT-wide Initiative on Responsible AI for Social Empowerment and Education (raise.mit.edu). She co-founded the consumer social robotics company, Jibo, Inc., where she served as chief scientist and chief experience officer. She is recognized for distinguished contributions in the field of artificial intelligence education, particularly around the use of social robots, and learning at scale.Alan Edelman PhD ’89 is an applied mathematics professor for the Department of Mathematics and leads the Applied Computing Group of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, the MIT Julia Lab. He is recognized as a 2024 AAAS fellow for distinguished contributions and outstanding breakthroughs in high-performance computing, linear algebra, random matrix theory, computational science, and in particular for the development of the Julia programming language. Edelman has been elected a fellow of five different societies — AMS, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the Association for Computing Machinery, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and AAAS.Robert B. Millard '73, life member and chairman emeritus of the MIT Corporation, was named a 2024 AAAS Fellow for outstanding contributions to the scientific community and U.S. higher education "through exemplary leadership service to such storied institutions as AAAS and MIT." Millard joined the MIT Corporation as a term member in 2003 and was elected a life member in 2013. He served on the Executive Committee for 10 years and on the Investment Company Management Board for seven years, including serving as its chair for the last four years. He served as a member of the Visiting Committees for Physics, Architecture, and Chemistry. In addition, Millard has served as a member of the Linguistics and Philosophy Visiting Committee, the Corporation Development Committee, and the Advisory Council for the Council for the Arts. In 2011, Millard received the Bronze Beaver Award, the MIT Alumni Association’s highest honor for distinguished service.Jagadeesh S. Moodera is a senior research scientist in the Department of Physics. His research interests include experimental condensed matter physics: spin polarized tunneling and nano spintronics; exchange coupled ferromagnet/superconductor interface, triplet pairing, nonreciprocal current transport and memory toward superconducting spintronics for quantum technology; and topological insulators/superconductors, including Majorana bound state studies in metallic systems. His research in the area of spin polarized tunneling led to a breakthrough in observing tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR) at room temperature in magnetic tunnel junctions. This resulted in a huge surge in this area of research, currently one of the most active areas. TMR effect is used in all ultra-high-density magnetic data storage, as well as for the development of nonvolatile magnetic random access memory (MRAM) that is currently being advanced further in various electronic devices, including for neuromorphic computing architecture. For his leadership in spintronics, the discovery of TMR, the development of MRAM, and for mentoring the next generation of scientists, Moodera was named a 2024 AAAS Fellow. For his TMR discovery he was awarded the Oliver Buckley Prize (2009) by the American Physical Society (APS), named an American National Science Foundation Competitiveness and Innovation Fellow (2008-10), won IBM and TDK Research Awards (1995-98), and became a Fellow of APS (2000).Noelle Eckley Selin, the director of the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy and a professor in the Institute for Data, Systems and Society and the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, uses atmospheric chemistry modeling to inform decision-making strategies on air pollution, climate change, and toxic substances, including mercury and persistent organic pollutants. She has also published articles and book chapters on the interactions between science and policy in international environmental negotiations, in particular focusing on global efforts to regulate hazardous chemicals and persistent organic pollutants. She is named a 2024 AAAS Fellow for world-recognized leadership in modeling the impacts of air pollution on human health, in assessing the costs and benefits of related policies, and in integrating technology dynamics into sustainability science.Additional MIT alumni honored as 2024 AAAS Fellows include: Danah Boyd SM ’02 (Media Arts and Sciences); Michael S. Branicky ScD ’95 (EECS); Jane P. Chang SM ’95, PhD ’98 (Chemical Engineering); Yong Chen SM '99 (Mathematics); Roger Nelson Clark PhD '80 (EAPS); Mark Stephen Daskin ’74, PhD ’78 (Civil and Environmental Engineering); Marla L. Dowell PhD ’94 (Physics); Raissa M. D’Souza PhD ’99 (Physics); Cynthia Joan Ebinger SM '86, PhD '88 (EAPS/WHOI); Thomas Henry Epps III ’98, SM ’99 (Chemical Engineering); Daniel Goldman ’94 (Physics); Kenneth Keiler PhD ’96 (Biology); Karen Jean Meech PhD '87 (EAPS); Christopher B. Murray PhD ’95 (Chemistry); Jason Nieh '89 (EECS); William Nordhaus PhD ’67 (Economics); Milica Radisic PhD '04 (Chemical Engineering); James G. Rheinwald PhD ’76 (Biology); Adina L. Roskies PhD ’04 (Philosophy); Linda Rothschild (Preiss) PhD '70 (Mathematics); Soni Lacefield Shimoda PhD '03 (Biology); Dawn Y. Sumner PhD ’95 (EAPS); Tina L. Tootle PhD ’04 (Biology); Karen Viskupic PhD '03 (EAPS); Brant M. Weinstein PhD ’92 (Biology); Chee Wei Wong SM ’01, ScD ’03 (Mechanical Engineering; and Fei Xu PhD ’95 (Brain and Cognitive Sciences). 

Science
Business
Climate

Suggested Viewing

Allergy Alert: Paranoia in Our Immune System

From peanuts and pollen to cats and dust mites, allergy rates are soaring dramatically all over the globe, with inoffensive substances triggering life-threatening physical responses. Experts are predicting that by 2050, one in two will suffer from an allergy. Why are our immune systems overreacting in this way? To stem the tide of the epidemic, scientists are investigating the interface between genetics, environmental factors and our modern lifestyle, and developing revolutionary new approaches to prevention and treatment.

Science
Crisis
Health

One Day We Will Dance With You

One Day We Will Dance with You tells the story of two women creating a dance to celebrate water. They imagine dance moves, and argue about science and whether a celebration can still be sad. As the community around them comes together to dance, they begin to imagine a future where the Water Molecule Dance and the celebration of water becomes a part of all our lives.

Dance
Science
Water

Sprayed

An exploration of what happens when whole communities get exposed to toxins: Naled sprayed on Miami residents to fight Zika virus, Agent Orange sprayed on the Vietcong, and release of GMO mosquitoes in Brazil with pyriproxyfen added to drinking water to fight dengue. What are the results for nature and humanity? We meet Agent Orange survivors at Vietnamese detoxification and rehabilitation centers, parents of babies born with microcephaly from Zika virus, and Florida residents dealing with efforts to kill mosquitoes carrying Zika virus. Perspectives of doctors, scientists, and politicians are balanced with voices of ordinary citizens and victims to explore concerns about the potential impact on current and future generations.

Chemicals
Health
Science

The Connection Between Bats and Coronavirus: Wildlife is not to blame

What exactly is the connection between bats and coronavirus? And how has sheltering-in-place disrupted field research in California and beyond? State and local governments have set restrictions on bat research and rescue in an effort to curtail the spread of the coronavirus. Dr. Winifred Frick, chief scientist of Bat Conservation International, describes how the new restrictions have affected conservation efforts.

Animals
Science
Health

Planet Earth - A Brief History

Planet Earth - a brief history - depicting the evolution of the planet from the Hadean period to the Anthropocene period. An evolutionary history of life on Earth. The Earth has undergone constant change in its 4.54 Billion year history with life evolving in response to those changes - in particular to the changing atmospheric compositions of carbon dioxide and oxygen. Species extinction has been a natural part of the evolutionary process of the planet however there are now thought to have been at least 8 mass extinction events in the history of the Earth - each of major consequence to life on the planet and of import to our modern understandings of climate change. This 6 minute animation has been created by paleoartist Bruce Currie and has been commissioned by the Australian Fossil and Mineral Museum – Bathurst.

Animation
Science
Cosmos

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.