Last August, the Trump administration issued an executive order intended to fundamentally alter how grant funding is handled by the US government. Under the system that had made the US a scientific superpower, peer reviewers rated the scientific quality and feasibility of grant applications, and subject-matter experts within the funding agencies used these ratings to determine which grants got funded. Under the proposed rules, political appointees would have the final say, and they were specifically instructed not to "routinely defer" to peer reviewers.

In the interim, the administration has lost many court cases because it turns out that issuing executive orders doesn't circumvent legal requirements, and the orders can be vacated if they lack strong justification. To avoid that same fate, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has decided to merge the executive order with other administration priorities and send it through the formal federal rulemaking process.

The result is a horror show for US science research. Not only is peer review made a secondary consideration, but the new rules would allow any federal agency to cancel any grant at any time based on the vague assertion that it isn't in the "national interest." The document would also ban any grants on a number of culture war topics, limit international collaborations, and block spending on things like publishing papers and attending conferences.

Read full article

Comments

© Getty | Al Drago

The regulation would have required all publicly traded companies to disclose whether they faced significant risks from climate change and its effects.

© Loren Elliott for The New York Times

Aviation start-ups and the Trump administration want to replace helicopters with electric aircraft, but the new vehicles still have to pass arduous tests before the public can use them.

One super PAC is allied with Anthropic. The other is tied to OpenAI. They’re both spending millions to influence this year’s elections.

Last August, the Trump administration issued an executive order intended to fundamentally alter how grant funding is handled by the US government. Under the system that had made the US a scientific superpower, peer reviewers rated the scientific quality and feasibility of grant applications, and subject-matter experts within the funding agencies used these ratings to determine which grants got funded. Under the proposed rules, political appointees would have the final say, and they were specifically instructed not to "routinely defer" to peer reviewers.

In the interim, the administration has lost many court cases because it turns out that issuing executive orders doesn't circumvent legal requirements, and the orders can be vacated if they lack strong justification. To avoid that same fate, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has decided to merge the executive order with other administration priorities and send it through the formal federal rulemaking process.

The result is a horror show for US science research. Not only is peer review made a secondary consideration, but the new rules would allow any federal agency to cancel any grant at any time based on the vague assertion that it isn't in the "national interest." The document would also ban any grants on a number of culture war topics, limit international collaborations, and block spending on things like publishing papers and attending conferences.

Read full article

Comments

© Getty | Al Drago

Last August, the Trump administration issued an executive order intended to fundamentally alter how grant funding is handled by the US government. Under the system that had made the US a scientific superpower, peer reviewers rated the scientific quality and feasibility of grant applications, and subject-matter experts within the funding agencies used these ratings to determine which grants got funded. Under the proposed rules, political appointees would have the final say, and they were specifically instructed not to "routinely defer" to peer reviewers.

In the interim, the administration has lost many court cases because it turns out that issuing executive orders doesn't circumvent legal requirements, and the orders can be vacated if they lack strong justification. To avoid that same fate, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has decided to merge the executive order with other administration priorities and send it through the formal federal rulemaking process.

The result is a horror show for US science research. Not only is peer review made a secondary consideration, but the new rules would allow any federal agency to cancel any grant at any time based on the vague assertion that it isn't in the "national interest." The document would also ban any grants on a number of culture war topics, limit international collaborations, and block spending on things like publishing papers and attending conferences.

Read full article

Comments

© Getty | Al Drago

Last August, the Trump administration issued an executive order intended to fundamentally alter how grant funding is handled by the US government. Under the system that had made the US a scientific superpower, peer reviewers rated the scientific quality and feasibility of grant applications, and subject-matter experts within the funding agencies used these ratings to determine which grants got funded. Under the proposed rules, political appointees would have the final say, and they were specifically instructed not to "routinely defer" to peer reviewers.

In the interim, the administration has lost many court cases because it turns out that issuing executive orders doesn't circumvent legal requirements, and the orders can be vacated if they lack strong justification. To avoid that same fate, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has decided to merge the executive order with other administration priorities and send it through the formal federal rulemaking process.

The result is a horror show for US science research. Not only is peer review made a secondary consideration, but the new rules would allow any federal agency to cancel any grant at any time based on the vague assertion that it isn't in the "national interest." The document would also ban any grants on a number of culture war topics, limit international collaborations, and block spending on things like publishing papers and attending conferences.

Read full article

Comments

© Getty | Al Drago

NextEra, which is seeking to buy Dominion Energy, has often butted heads with consumer groups, residents and journalists in its home state.

© Ulysse Bellier/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

A PAC representing wind and solar energy interests spent $1.1 million to boost the Republican primary opponent of Chip Roy, an opponent of renewables. Now they are trying to save a Republican ally in Iowa.

A PAC representing wind and solar energy interests spent $1.1 million to boost the Republican primary opponent of Chip Roy, an opponent of renewables. Now they are trying to save a Republican ally in Iowa.

© Michael A. McCoy for The New York Times

This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read.

The billionaire’s new roots in Argentina are said to be partly motivated by concerns about the future of the United States and shared beliefs with Argentina’s right-wing leader.

Innovative systems to keep ships from hitting North Atlantic right whales are coming into use. The Trump administration is weighing whether they can replace a bedrock protection.

Innovative systems to keep ships from hitting North Atlantic right whales are coming into use. The Trump administration is weighing whether they can replace a bedrock protection.

© Sophie Park for The New York Times

The rules were established by the Biden administration after research linked the compounds to a range of serious health problems.

© Haiyun Jiang/The New York Times

Companies say it’s a better way to dispose of the Cold War-era material — and fix a shortage of nuclear fuel. But the plan has also faced criticism from nonproliferation experts.

© Science Source

Last week, the US government announced $2 billion in investments in quantum computing companies, allocating $100 million each to a range of startups in exchange for equity in the companies. Those could be make-or-break investments for many companies that are likely years away from a product that could see widespread use. But a member of the US Congress is now arguing that those deals are illegal, as Congress did not allocate the money for this purpose—instead, it was meant to support public research in semiconductors.

But the biggest chunk of money would go to a company that likely wouldn't exist if it weren't for the government's backing. Anderon will be set up with a billion dollars each from IBM and the government and will inherit personnel and IP from IBM. It will serve as a foundry for fabricating quantum processing units and will contract its services out to IBM and any other company that wants access to cutting-edge hardware.

Is any of this legal?

Zoe Lofgren (D–Calif.), the ranking member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, made it clear that she is not happy with how the government is using its money to support this technology.

Read full article

Comments

© IBM

The administration is delaying a phaseout of hydrofluorocarbons, potent planet-warming chemicals used in air-conditioning and refrigeration.

© Gene J. Puskar/Associated Press

A new wave of start-ups are trying to harvest emissions-free energy from inside the Earth, but the industry still faces significant challenges.

© Eduardo Munoz/Reuters