To everyone in the U.S. standing up for science today, calling for policies that support science, not suppress it: we’re with you! Cutting science doesn’t just harm scientists – it harms society as a whole. #StandUpForScience

Merci!

R.I.P. free speech. Columbia just had $400M in grants canceled for allowing protests on campus. My heart goes out to all the research labs, many of them friends of mine, who will suffer as collateral damage. Several of them are Jewish and leaders in the field. The irony...

gsa.gov/about-us/newsr…

Love the 2nd poster!

Missed stand up for science because my daughter was getting her 2nd ACL surgery. She's an awesome soccer player. So hard to see her go through this again.

Much will be written about how 4 PhD students and a PhD – Colette Delawalla, Sam Goldstein, Emma Courtney, Leslie Berntsen & JP Flores – organized Stand Up For Science to unite scientists in the US and worldwide. Now let's keep it going to defend science!

Catastrophic research funding cuts continue - this time w/ the DoD’s proposed reduction of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs by $859 million (57%). These programs are critical for rare cancers,TBI, spinal cord injuries & disorders affecting service members.

"Congressionally Directed" is a key word to pay attention to. These funds were set aside by Congress directly for diseases they care most about, largely bypassing to more traditional bureaucracy. Still, even this science is not immune to reckless chopping.

NIH funding today.

In fiscal year 2024, the report found, NIH awarded more than $36.9 billion to researchers, supporting more than 408,000 jobs and generating over $94.5 billion in new economic activity nationwide.

Just published Science Magazine On fixing the NIH 15% cap "The consequences of failing to do so—reduced research capacity, weakened scientific competitiveness, and increased financial strain on institutions—are simply too dire to ignore." science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…

Could not agree more.

Now is not the time to complain about peer review. Peer review is the quality filter that ensures the best science is being done. It is not perfect. We all have varying opinions. But review by experts is infinitely better than whatever alternative we might soon be presented with.

This is not unique to UMass. Several others have done the same. Most are reducing class size. Devastating to aspiring young scientists eager to start their PhD journey. Curious what % we lose across the board this year. Tragic.

RFK Jr. has long called for a ban on drug ads entirely. That seems unlikely — but reform is possible. trib.al/Ro90oF7

We need more of this. Fareed Zakaria also did a great segment explaining impact of 15% IDCs this weekend. The public needs to be aware of how they are destroying NIH and science education in general. We will pay a major price for these. Big news networks need to step up.

Stay strong colleagues at NIH! We all appreciate you and the incredible work you do- especially right now. 💪

I'm all for replication, but 20% of NIH budget seems too much... -replication already happens by the field through other papers (or not) -who decides which findings to replicate, and why? -would this be a wasteful giveaway to CROs? -what happens when it fails? Who is punished?

Free speech needs to apply to everyone in the U.S. not just citizens, otherwise we ALL lose.