Podcasts about science funding

2025 was one of the most consequential years for space policy in modern U.S. history. In this special year-in-review episode, Planetary Radio takes a deep dive into what happened behind the scenes in U.S. space policy and advocacy as NASA faced unprecedented proposed cuts to its science programs. With nearly half of NASA’s science budget at risk, dozens of missions threatened, and months of leadership uncertainty at the agency, this year became a defining moment for the future of space science. Sarah Al-Ahmed is joined by Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, Jack Kiraly, director of government relations, and Ari Koeppel, an AAAS science & technology policy fellow, to unpack how this crisis unfolded and how scientists, space advocates, and lawmakers responded. Together, they explore how public advocacy helped shift the conversation in Congress. Plus, in What’s Up, Chief Scientist Bruce Betts explains why stability matters so much for space science and what’s at stake when long-term missions are disrupted. This is the first of two special year-end episodes. Next week, Planetary Radio will look back at what humanity accomplished in space exploration in 2025, from new missions and discoveries to milestones across our Solar System and beyond. Discover more at: https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/2025-looking-back-space-policy-and-advocacySee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

2025 was a hard year for science. The Trump administration upended federal funding for all kinds of scientific pursuits, slashing budgets across agencies like NASA, NIH and NOAA. NPR's Rob Stein and Katia Riddle spoke to scientists and officials who worry that those cuts could cause the United States to lose its competitive edge as a global hub for research and innovation, and steer future generations away from careers in science. For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at considerthis@npr.org.This episode was produced by Michael Levitt, with audio engineering by Zo vanGinhoven. It was edited by Sarah Handel, Scott Hensley and Amina Khan. Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

China's October decision to add five rare earth elements to its export control list confirmed what policymakers have long feared. China controls 60% of global critical mineral production and over 80% of refining capacity for materials that power everything from electric vehicles to fighter jets. AI data center buildouts have only spiked demand further. Add cobalt to the picture—70% of global reserves sit in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and China owns roughly 70% of that production—and you have a supply chain built for peacetime that could collapse in a crisis. The alloys in today's F-35 engines depend on elements Beijing could cut off tomorrow.Joseph Krause argues the problem runs deeper than mining. Materials companies today are 75 to 150 years old. Some aerospace alloys still in use were developed for the Ford Model T. Meanwhile, China has been publishing the lion's share of advanced alloy research and aggressively recruiting metallurgy professors from American universities. China already fields a hypersonic capability using a niobium-based alloy; the US is scrambling to catch up. Krause's company, Radical AI, is building AI-powered labs to compress what typically takes 10 to 20 years and over $100 million in materials discovery into something dramatically faster and cheaper. The goal is inverse design: start with the exact properties the military needs, then work backward to find materials that don't require Chinese-controlled supply chains.The Trump administration has moved aggressively, taking a $400 million stake in MP Materials, putting $2 billion toward stockpiling strategic metals, and working to streamline permitting that currently takes seven to ten years for a single US mine. FAI's Farrell Gregory notes there's no silver bullet across the 60 minerals on the USGS critical minerals list, which ranges from rare earths at $8 billion in global market value to copper at $250 billion. The administration has shifted from blanket tax credits to case-by-case deals, prioritizing materials where Chinese leverage is highest and American action can make the biggest difference. Krause and Gregory join Evan to discuss the challenges facing the U.S. amid Chinese dominance in rare earth minerals and what policymakers can do to make the U.S. more resilient to supply chain shocks, including public-private partnerships and government funding.

 If you're a scientist, and you apply for federal research funding, you'll ask for a specific dollar amount. Let's say you're asking for a million-dollar grant. Your grant covers the direct costs, things like the salaries of the researchers that you're paying. If you get that grant, your university might get an extra $500,000. That money is called “indirect costs,” but think of it as overhead: that money goes to lab space, to shared equipment, and so on.This is the system we've used to fund American research infrastructure for more than 60 years. But earlier this year, the Trump administration proposed capping these payments at just 15% of direct costs, way lower than current indirect cost rates. There are legal questions about whether the admin can do that. But if it does, it would force universities to fundamentally rethink how they do science.The indirect costs system is pretty opaque from the outside. Is the admin right to try and slash these indirect costs? Where does all that money go? And if we want to change how we fund research overhead, what are the alternatives? How do you design a research system to incentivize the research you actually wanna see in the world?I'm joined today by Pierre Azoulay from MIT Sloan and Dan Gross from Duke's Fuqua School of Business. Together with Bhaven Sampat at Johns Hopkins, they conducted the first comprehensive empirical study of how indirect costs actually work. Earlier this year, I worked with them to write up that study as a more accessible policy brief for IFP. They've assembled data on over 350 research institutions, and they found some striking results. While negotiated rates often exceed 50-60%, universities actually receive much less, due to built-in caps and exclusions.Moreover, the institutions that would be hit hardest by proposed cuts are those whose research most often leads to new drugs and commercial breakthroughs.Thanks to Katerina Barton, Harry Fletcher-Wood, and Inder Lohla for their help with this episode, and to Beez for her help on the charts.Let's say I'm a researcher at a university and I apply for a federal grant. I'm looking at cancer cells in mice. It will cost me $1 million to do that research — to pay grad students, to buy mice and test tubes. I apply for a grant from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. Where do indirect costs come in?Dan Gross: Research generally incurs two categories of costs, much as business operations do.* Direct or variable costs are typically project-specific; they include salaries and consumable supplies.* Indirect or fixed costs are not as easily assigned to any particular project. [They include] things like lab space, data and computing resources, biosecurity, keeping the lights on and the buildings cooled and heated — even complying with the regulatory requirements the federal government imposes on researchers. They are the overhead costs of doing research.Pierre Azoulay: You will use those grad students, mice, and test tubes, the direct costs. But you're also using the lab space. You may be using a shared facility where the mice are kept and fed. Pieces of large equipment are shared by many other people to conduct experiments. So those are fixed costs from the standpoint of your research project.Dan: Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) is how the federal government has been paying for the fixed cost of research for the past 60 years. This has been done by paying universities institution-specific fixed percentages on top of the direct cost of the research. That's the indirect cost rate. That rate is negotiated by institutions, typically every two to four years, supported by several hundred pages of documentation around its incurred costs over the recent funding cycle.The idea is to compensate federally funded researchers for the investments, infrastructure, and overhead expenses related to the research they perform for the government. Without that funding, universities would have to pay those costs out of pocket and, frankly, many would not be interested or able to do the science the government is funding them to do.Imagine I'm doing my mouse cancer science at MIT, Pierre's parent institution. Some time in the last four years, MIT had this negotiation with the National Institutes of Health to figure out what the MIT reimbursable rate is. But as a researcher, I don't have to worry about what indirect costs are reimbursable. I'm all mouse research, all day.Dan: These rates are as much of a mystery to the researchers as it is to the public. When I was junior faculty, I applied for an external grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) — you can look up awards folks have won in the award search portal. It doesn't break down indirect and direct cost shares of each grant. You see the total and say, “Wow, this person got $300,000.” Then you go to write your own grant and realize you can only budget about 60% of what you thought, because the rest goes to overhead. It comes as a bit of a shock the first time you apply for grant funding.What goes into the overhead rates? Most researchers and institutions don't have clear visibility into that. The process is so complicated that it's hard even for those who are experts to keep track of all the pieces.Pierre: As an individual researcher applying for a project, you think about the direct costs of your research projects. You're not thinking about the indirect rate. When the research administration of your institution sends the application, it's going to apply the right rates.So I've got this $1 million experiment I want to run on mouse cancer. If I get the grant, the total is $1.5 million. The university takes that .5 million for the indirect costs: the building, the massive microscope we bought last year, and a tiny bit for the janitor. Then I get my $1 million. Is that right?Dan: Duke University has a 61% indirect cost rate. If I propose a grant to the NSF for $100,000 of direct costs — it might be for data, OpenAI API credits, research staff salaries — I would need to budget an extra $61,000 on top for ICR, bringing the total grant to $161,000.My impression is that most federal support for research happens through project-specific grants. It's not these massive institutional block grants. Is that right?Pierre: By and large, there aren't infrastructure grants in the science funding system. There are other things, such as center grants that fund groups of investigators. Sometimes those can get pretty large — the NIH grant for a major cancer center like Dana-Farber could be tens of millions of dollars per year.Dan: In the past, US science funding agencies did provide more funding for infrastructure and the instrumentation that you need to perform research through block grants. In the 1960s, the NSF and the Department of Defense were kicking up major programs to establish new data collection efforts — observatories, radio astronomy, or the Deep Sea Drilling project the NSF ran, collecting core samples from the ocean floor around the world. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — back then the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) — was investing in nuclear test detection to monitor adherence to nuclear test ban treaties. Some of these were satellite observation methods for atmospheric testing. Some were seismic measurement methods for underground testing. ARPA supported the installation of a network of seismic monitors around the world. Those monitors are responsible for validating tectonic plate theory. Over the next decade, their readings mapped the tectonic plates of the earth. That large-scale investment in research infrastructure is not as common in the US research policy enterprise today.That's fascinating. I learned last year how modern that validation of tectonic plate theory was. Until well into my grandparents' lifetime, we didn't know if tectonic plates existed.Dan: Santi, when were you born?1997.Dan: So I'm a good decade older than you — I was born in 1985. When we were learning tectonic plate theory in the 1990s, it seemed like something everybody had always known. It turns out that it had only been known for maybe 25 years.So there's this idea of federal funding for science as these massive pieces of infrastructure, like the Hubble Telescope. But although projects like that do happen, the median dollar the Feds spend on science today is for an individual grant, not installing seismic monitors all over the globe.Dan: You applied for a grant to fund a specific project, whose contours you've outlined in advance, and we provided the funding to execute that project.Pierre: You want to do some observations at the observatory in Chile, and you are going to need to buy a plane ticket — not first class, not business class, very much economy.Let's move to current events. In February of this year, the NIH announced it was capping indirect cost reimbursement at 15% on all grants.What's the administration's argument here?Pierre: The argument is there are cases where foundations only charge 15% overhead rate on grants — and universities acquiesce to such low rates — and the federal government is entitled to some sort of “most-favored nation” clause where no one pays less in overhead than they pay. That's the argument in this half-a-page notice. It's not much more elaborate than that.The idea is, the Gates Foundation says, “We will give you a grant to do health research and we're only going to pay 15% indirect costs.” Some universities say, “Thank you. We'll do that.” So clearly the universities don't need the extra indirect cost reimbursement?Pierre: I think so.Dan: Whether you can extrapolate from that to federal research funding is a different question, let alone if federal research was funding less research and including even less overhead. Would foundations make up some of the difference, or even continue funding as much research, if the resources provided by the federal government were lower? Those are open questions. Foundations complement federal funding, as opposed to substitute for it, and may be less interested in funding research if it's less productive.What are some reasons that argument might be misguided?Pierre: First, universities don't always say, “Yes” [to a researcher wishing to accept a grant]. At MIT, getting a grant means getting special authorization from the provost. That special authorization is not always forthcoming. The provost has a special fund, presumably funded out of the endowment, that under certain conditions they will dip into to make up for the missing overhead.So you've got some research that, for whatever reason, the federal government won't fund, and the Gates Foundation is only willing to fund it at this low rate, and the university has budgeted a little bit extra for those grants that it still wants.Pierre: That's my understanding. I know that if you're going to get a grant, you're going to have to sit in many meetings and cajole any number of administrators, and you don't always get your way.Second, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison [between federal and foundation grants] because there are ways to budget an item as a direct cost in a foundation grant that the government would consider an indirect cost. So you might budget some fractional access to a facility…Like the mouse microscope I have to use?Pierre: Yes, or some sort of Cryo-EM machine. You end up getting more overhead through the back door.The more fundamental way in which that approach is misguided is that the government wants its infrastructure — that it has contributed to through [past] indirect costs — to be leveraged by other funders. It's already there, it's been paid for, it's sitting idle, and we can get more bang for our buck if we get those additional funders to piggyback on that investment.Dan: That [other funders] might not be interested in funding otherwise.Why wouldn't they be interested in funding it otherwise? What shouldn't the federal government say, “We're going to pay less. If it's important research, somebody else will pay for it.”Dan: We're talking about an economies-of-scale problem. These are fixed costs. The more they're utilized, the more the costs get spread over individual research projects.For the past several decades, the federal government has funded an order of magnitude more university research than private firms or foundations. If you look at NSF survey data, 55% of university R&D is federally funded; 6% is funded by foundations. That is an order of magnitude difference. The federal government has the scale to support and extract value for whatever its goals are for American science.We haven't even started to get into the administrative costs of research. That is part of the public and political discomfort with indirect-cost recovery. The idea that this is money that's going to fund university bloat.I should lay my cards on the table here for readers. There are a ton of problems with the American scientific enterprise as it currently exists. But when you look at studies from a wide range of folks, it's obvious that R&D in American universities is hugely valuable. Federal R&D dollars more than pay for themselves. I want to leave room for all critiques of the scientific ecosystem, of the universities, of individual research ideas. But at this 30,000-foot level, federal R&D dollars are well spent.Dan: The evidence may suggest that, but that's not where the political and public dialogue around science policy is. Again, I'm going to bring in a long arc here. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was, “We're in a race with the Soviet Union. If we want to win this race, we're going to have to take some risky bets.” And the US did. It was more flexible with its investments in university and industrial science, especially related to defense aims. But over time, with the waning of these political pressures and with new budgetary pressures, the tenor shifted from, “Let's take chances” to “Let's make science and other parts of government more accountable.” The undercurrent of Indirect Cost Recovery policy debates has more of this accountability framing.This comes up in this comparison to foundation rates: “Is the government overpaying?” Clearly universities are willing to accept less from foundations. It comes up in this perception that ICR is funding administrative growth that may not be productive or socially efficient. Accountability seems to be a priority in the current day.Where are we right now [August 2025] on that 15% cap on indirect costs?Dan: Recent changes first kicked off on February 7th, when NIH posted its supplemental guidance, that introduced a policy that the direct cost rates that it paid on its grants would be 15% to institutions of higher education. That policy was then adopted by the NSF, the DOD, and the Department of Energy. All of these have gotten held up in court by litigation from universities. Things are stuck in legal limbo. Congress has presented its point of view that, “At least for now, I'd like to keep things as they are.” But this has been an object of controversy long before the current administration even took office in January. I don't think it's going away.Pierre: If I had to guess, the proposal as it first took shape is not what is going to end up being adopted. But the idea that overhead rates are an object of controversy — are too high, and need to be reformed — is going to stay relevant.Dan: Partly that's because it's a complicated issue. Partly there's not a real benchmark of what an appropriate Indirect Cost Recovery policy should be. Any way you try to fund the cost of research, you're going to run into trade-offs. Those are complicated.ICR does draw criticism. People think it's bloated or lacks transparency. We would agree some of these critiques are well-founded. Yet it's also important to remember that ICR pays for facilities and administration. It doesn't just fund administrative costs, which is what people usually associate it with. The share of ICR that goes to administrative costs is legally capped at 26% of direct costs. That cap has been in place since 1991. Many universities have been at that cap for many years — you can see this in public records. So the idea that indirect costs are going up over time, and that that's because of bloat at US universities, has to be incorrect, because the administrative rate has been capped for three decades.Many of those costs are incurred in service of complying with regulations that govern research, including the cost of administering ICR to begin with. Compiling great proposals every two to four years and a new round of negotiations — all of that takes resources. Those are among the things that indirect cost funding reimburses.Even then, universities appear to under-recover their true indirect costs of federally-sponsored research. We have examples from specific universities which have reported detailed numbers. That under-recovery means less incentive to invest in infrastructure, less capacity for innovation, fewer clinical trials. So there's a case to be made that indirect cost funding is too low.Pierre: The bottom line is we don't know if there is under- or over-recovery of indirect costs. There's an incentive for university administrators to claim there's under-recovery. So I take that with a huge grain of salt.Dan: It's ambiguous what a best policy would look like, but this is all to say that, first, public understanding of this complex issue is sometimes a bit murky. Second, a path forward has to embrace the trade-offs that any particular approach to ICR presents.From reading your paper, I got a much better sense that a ton of the administrative bloat of the modern university is responding to federal regulations on research. The average researcher reports spending almost half of their time on paperwork. Some of that is a consequence of the research or grant process; some is regulatory compliance.The other thing, which I want to hear more on, is that research tools seem to be becoming more expensive and complex. So the microscope I'm using today is an order of magnitude more expensive than the microscope I was using in 1950. And you've got to recoup those costs somehow.Pierre: Everything costs more than it used to. Research is subject to Baumol's cost disease. There are areas where there's been productivity gains — software has had an impact.The stakes are high because, if we get this wrong, we're telling researchers that they should bias the type of research they're going to pursue and training that they're going to undergo, with an eye to what is cheaper. If we reduce the overhead rate, we should expect research that has less fixed cost and more variable costs to gain in favor — and research that is more scale-intensive to lose favor. There's no reason for a benevolent social planner to find that a good development. The government should be neutral with respect to the cost structure of research activities. We don't know in advance what's going to be more productive.Wouldn't a critic respond, “We're going to fund a little bit of indirect costs, but we're not going to subsidize stuff that takes huge amounts of overhead. If universities want to build that fancy new telescope because it's valuable, they'll do it.” Why is that wrong when it comes to science funding?Pierre: There's a grain of truth to it.Dan: With what resources though? Who's incentivized to invest in this infrastructure? There's not a paid market for science. Universities can generate some licensing fees from patents that result from science. But those are meager revenue streams, realistically. There are reasons to believe that commercial firms are under-incentivized to invest in basic scientific research. Prior to 1940, the scientific enterprise was dramatically smaller because there wasn't funding the way that there is today. The exigencies of war drew the federal government into funding research in order to win. Then it was productive enough that folks decided we should keep doing it. History and economic logic tells us that you're not going to see as much science — especially in these fixed-cost heavy endeavors — when those resources aren't provided by the public.Pierre: My one possible answer to the question is, “The endowment is going to pay for it.” MIT has an endowment, but many other universities do not. What does that mean for them? The administration also wants to tax the heck out of the endowment.This is a good opportunity to look at the empirical work you guys did in this great paper. As far as I can tell, this was one of the first real looks at what indirect costs rates look like in real life. What did you guys find?Dan: Two decades ago, Pierre and Bhaven began collecting information on universities' historical indirect cost rates. This is a resource that was quietly sitting on the shelf waiting for its day. That day came this past February. Bhaven and Pierre collected information on negotiated ICR rates for the past 60 years. During this project, we also collected the most recent versions of those agreements from university websites to bring the numbers up to the current day.We pulled together data for around 350 universities and other research institutions. Together, they account for around 85% of all NIH research funding over the last 20 years.We looked at their:* Negotiated indirect cost rates, from institutional indirect cost agreements with the government, and their;* Effective rates [how much they actually get when you look at grant payments], using NIH grant funding data.Negotiated cost rates have gone up. That has led to concerns that the overhead cost of research is going up — these claims that it's funding administrative bloat. But our most important finding is that there's a large gap between the sticker rates — the negotiated ICR rates that are visible to the public, and get floated on Twitter as examples of university exorbitance — and the rates that universities are paid in practice, at least on NIH grants; we think it's likely the case for NSF and other agency grants too.An institution's effective ICR funding rates are much, much lower than their negotiated rates and they haven't changed much for 40 years. If you look at NIH's annual budget, the share of grant funding that goes to indirect costs has been roughly constant at 27-28% for a long time. That implies an effective rate of around 40% over direct costs. Even though many institutions have negotiated rates of 50-70%, they usually receive 30-50%.The difference between those negotiated rates and the effective rates seems to be due to limits and exceptions built into NIH grant rules. Those rules exclude some grants, such as training grants, from full indirect cost funding. They also exclude some direct costs from the figure used to calculate ICR rates. The implication is that institutions receive ICR payments based on a smaller portion of their incurred direct costs than typically assumed. As the negotiated direct cost falls, you see a university being paid a higher indirect cost rate off a smaller — modified — direct cost base, to recover the same amount of overhead.Is it that the federal government is saying for more parts of the grant, “We're not going to reimburse that as an indirect cost.”?Dan: This is where we shift a little bit from assessment to speculation. What's excluded from total direct costs? One thing is researcher salaries above a certain level.What is that level? Can you give me a dollar amount?Dan: It's a $225,700 annual salary. There aren't enough people being paid that on these grants for that to explain the difference, especially when you consider that research salaries are being paid to postdocs and grad students.You're looking around the scientists in your institution and thinking, “That's not where the money is”?Dan: It's not, even if you consider Principal Investigators. If you consider postdocs and grad students, it certainly isn't.Dan: My best hunch is that research projects have become more capital-intensive, and only a certain level of expenditure on equipment can be included in the modified total direct cost base. I don't have smoking gun evidence, it's my intuition.In the paper, there's this fascinating chart where you show the institutions that would get hit hardest by a 15% cap tend to be those that do the most valuable medical research. Explain that on this framework. Is it that doing high-quality medical research is capital-intensive?Pierre: We look at all the private-sector patents that build on NIH research. The more a university stands to lose under the administration policy, the more it has contributed over the past 25 years — in research the private sector found relevant in terms of pharmaceutical patents.This is counterintuitive if your whole model of funding for science is, “Let's cut subsidies for the stuff the private sector doesn't care about — all this big equipment.” When you cut those subsidies, what suffers most is the stuff that the private sector likes.Pierre: To me it makes perfect sense. This is the stuff that the private sector would not be willing to invest in on its own. But that research, having come into being, is now a very valuable input into activities that profit-minded investors find interesting and worth taking a risk on.This is the argument for the government to fund basic research?Pierre: That argument has been made at the macro-level forever, but the bibliometric revolution of the past 15 years allows you to look at this at the nano-level. Recently I've been able to look at the history of Ozempic. The main patent cites zero publicly-funded research, but it cites a bunch of patents, including patents taken up by academics. Those cite the foundational research performed by Joel Habener and his team at Massachusetts General Hospital in the early 1980s that elucidated the role of GLP-1 as a potential target. This grant was first awarded to Habener in 1979, was renewed every four or five years, and finally died in 2008, when he moved on to other things. Those chains are complex, but we can now validate the macro picture at this more granular level.Dan: I do want to add one qualification which also suggests some directions for the future. There are things we still can't see — despite Pierre's zeal. Our projections of the consequence of a 15% rate cap are still pretty coarse. We don't know what research might not take place. We don't know what indirect cost categories are exposed, or how universities would reallocate. All those things are going to be difficult to project without a proper experiment.One thing that I would've loved to have more visibility into is, “What is the structure of indirect costs at universities across the country? What share of paid indirect costs are going to administrative expenses? What direct cost categories are being excluded?” We would need a more transparency into the system to know the answers.Does that information have to be proprietary? It's part of negotiations with the federal government about how much the taxpayer will pay for overhead on these grants. Which piece is so special that it can't be shared?Pierre: You are talking to the wrong people here because we're meta-scientists, so our answer is none of it should be private.Dan: But now you have to ask the university lawyers.What would the case from the universities be? “We can't tell the public what we spend subsidy on”?Pierre: My sense is that there are institutions of academia that strike most lay people as completely bizarre.Hard to explain without context?Pierre: People haven't thought about it. They will find it so bizarre that they will typically jump from the odd aspect to, “That must be corruption.” University administrators are hugely attuned to that. So the natural defensive approach is to shroud it in secrecy. This way we don't see how the sausage is made.Dan: Transparency can be a blessing and a curse. More information supports more considered decision-making. It also opens the door to misrepresentation by critics who have their own agendas. Pierre's right: there are some practices that to the public might look unusual — or might be familiar, but one might say, “How is that useful expense?” Even a simple thing like having an administrator who manages a faculty's calendar might seem excessive. Many people manage their own calendars. At the same time, when you think about how someone's time is best used, given their expertise, and heavy investment in specialized human capital, are emails, calendaring, and note-taking the right things for scientists [to be doing]? Scientists spend a large chunk of their time now administering grants. Does it make sense to outsource that and preserve the scientist's time for more science?When you put forward data that shows some share of federal research funding is going to fund administrative costs, at first glance it might look wasteful, yet it might still be productive. But I would be able to make a more considered judgment on a path forward if I had access to more facts, including what indirect costs look like under the hood.One last question: in a world where you guys have the ear of the Senate, political leadership at the NIH, and maybe the universities, what would you be pushing for on indirect costs?Pierre: I've come to think that this indirect cost rate is a second-best institution: terrible and yet superior to many of the alternatives. My favorite alternative would be one where there would be a flat rate applied to direct costs. That would be the average effective rate currently observed — on the order of 40%.You're swapping out this complicated system to — in the end — reimburse universities the same 40%.Pierre: We know there are fixed costs. Those fixed costs need to be paid. We could have an elaborate bureaucratic apparatus to try to get it exactly right, but it's mission impossible. So why don't we give up on that and set a rate that's unlikely to lead to large errors in under- or over-recovery. I'm not particularly attached to 40%. But the 15% that was contemplated seems absurdly low.Dan: In the work we've done, we do lay out different approaches. The 15% rate wouldn't fully cut out the negotiation process: to receive that, you have to document your overhead costs and demonstrate that they reached that level. In any case, it's simplifying. It forces more cost-sharing and maybe more judicious investments by universities. But it's also so low that it's likely to make a significant amount of high-value, life-improving research economically unattractive.The current system is complicated and burdensome. It might encourage investment in less productive things, particularly because universities can get it paid back through future ICR. At the same time, it provides pretty good incentives to take on expensive, high-value research on behalf of the public.I would land on one of two alternatives. One of those is close to what Pierre said, with fixed rates, but varied by institution types: one for universities, one for medical schools, one for independent research institutions — because we do see some variation in their cost structures. We might set those rates around their historical average effective rates, since those haven't changed for quite a long time. If you set different rates for different categories of institution, the more finely you slice the pie, the closer you end up to the current system. So that's why I said maybe, at a very high level, four categories.The other I could imagine is to shift more of these costs “above the line” — to adapt the system to enable more of these indirect costs to be budgeted as direct costs in grants. This isn't always easy, but presumably some things we currently call indirect costs could be accounted for in a direct cost manner. Foundations do it a bit more than the federal government does, so that could be another path forward.There's no silver bullet. Our goal was to try to bring some understanding to this long-running policy debate over how to fund the indirect cost of research and what appropriate rates should be. It's been a recurring question for several decades and now is in the hot seat again. Hopefully through this work, we've been able to help push that dialogue along. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

For three decades, conservatives abandoned science policy. Now they have a chance to rebuild it.That rebuilding effort comes with political challenges. Republicans' trust in science dropped thirty points over those decades. DOGE recently  slashed budgets at the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health. And HHS Sec RFK jr. is casting doubt on the efficacy of vaccines to the alarm of many Republicans in Congress. But beyond the politics, American science is also facing a competitive threat from China. The Middle Kingdom invests tens of billions in biotech and quantum computing, and outpaces the U.S. in PhD STEM grads.Meanwhile, American research became a system that rewards process over results. Researchers spend 42% of their time on paperwork. Only 46% of cancer studies could be replicated. And our guest today argues that perverse incentives and bureaucracy led to decades wasted on Alzheimer's research that turned out to be fraudulent—among other misfires.Ian Banks is Director of Science Policy at the Foundation for American Innovation, which recently established the science program he leads at the organization. He and Evan discuss his vision for a renewed conservative approach to science—one that learns from diversified investment portfolios that maintain safe bets while also making room for moonshots. They get into the political challenges created by hot button issues like climate change and COVID response, how to properly fund science in the era of DOGE, and what the proper role for politics in science should be.Previously, Banks served in research roles at the Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions, the American Enterprise Institute and as a legislative aide to Rep. Bill Posey, where he focused on science, energy, and health policy. His Oxford master's thesis examined the replication crisis, and he brings firsthand experience navigating these questions during COVID from his time working on the Hill.

The new science funding body has been announced - pooling what was previously three separate funds.

On October 6, 2025, hundreds of space advocates from across the United States joined The Planetary Society and 20 partner organizations on Capitol Hill to deliver one clear message: protect NASA’s science budget. We begin with Ari Koeppel, AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow and Space Policy Intern at The Planetary Society, who shares why this moment matters for scientists facing uncertainty about their future. Then Britney Schmidt, planetary scientist at Cornell University and member of The Planetary Society’s Board of Directors, calls in from Washington, D.C., to share what it’s like on the ground as hundreds of advocates come together to defend the future of space science. Next, we take you to the press conference on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, featuring Bill Nye, CEO of The Planetary Society, Representative Glenn Ivey of Maryland’s 4th District, Marcel Agüeros, president-elect of the American Astronomical Society, and Brandon Jones, President of the American Geophysical Union. Together, they urge Congress to restore NASA’s science funding and maintain the United States' leadership in discovery. We close with Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, reflecting on the power of grassroots advocacy and what comes next for the Save NASA Science campaign. Finally, in What’s Up, Bruce Betts, The Planetary Society’s chief scientist, joins host Sarah Al-Ahmed to look ahead, exploring the great mysteries we could solve in the coming years if we continue to invest in space science. Discover more at: https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/2025-day-of-action-for-nasa-scienceSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Philanthropy faces a “Sputnik moment” in science funding. Ari Simon, President of Tambourine Philanthropies, shares why the U.S. research system is under existential threat — and how foundations can step up now. In this episode, you'll learn: Why labs, postdocs, and decades of data are at risk from sudden funding cuts Four immediate philanthropic responses to keep research alive How tools like recoverable grants, guarantees, and IP-based financing can bridge gaps Why supporting early-career scientists and researcher well-being is urgent Visit our Knowledge Hub at Lidji.org for information on 300 case studies and interviews with remarkable leaders in philanthropy, sustainability and social entrepreneurship.  

Trump's Whitehouse is at war with national funding institutions, pausing hundreds of research projects both nationally and internationally. How are Canadian researchers coping with widespread funding cuts, and who pays the price when science is under attack? Featuring: • Bradly Wouters, executive vice-president science and research, University Health Network • Adam Bjorndahl, associate professor, Department of Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University

This week, we have Prof. John Beckett Wallingford to discuss the current landscape of federal science funding, and the importance of science in American industry and society. We set the scene with a reading of The Polio Vaccine, Chatham, Virginia, 1964, by Claudia Emerson. John Beckett Wallingford is a developmental biologist with three decades of experience.  He is the Mr. and Mrs. Robert P. Doherty Jr. Regents Chair in Molecular Biology and a Professor in the Dept. of Molecular Biosciences at the University of Texas at Austin.  Since 2003, his laboratory has sought to understand how form and function arise in embryos using advanced microscopy, systems biology, and biomechanics. Wallingford's research explores animal models and collaborates with human geneticists to understand human birth defects. He is writing a forthcoming book about embryos:  In the Beginning.

Busting some myths about how science funding works and why cutting will have devastating detrimental effects for decades to come. Save Science. It saved you at one point. Stand Up for Science.  -o-www.everythingispublichealth.comBluesky Social: @everythingisPHMastodon: @everythingispublichealth Email: EverythingIsPublicHealth@gmail.com  Photo Credit:Photo by National Cancer Institute on UnsplashSupport the show

If you crunched the asteroid belt into one object, would it make a planet? Neil deGrasse Tyson and cohost Chuck Nice answer fan questions about the shape of the universe, the origin of matter, the Casimir Force, pizza toppings, and more!NOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can listen to this entire episode commercial-free here:https://startalkmedia.com/show/cosmic-queries-flat-universe/Thanks to our Patrons Keith Edwards James Murphy, River Harlan, Dashing Design Diva, Zach Ross, Federico Varano, Mark Ballard, Andres Franco-Osorio, Pascal, Emmanuel Cooper, Silvester Dimitrov, Ryan Eldridge, Ricky Isbell, David Hall, Angela Johnson, Demetrius Goosbey II, Morris Griffing, Cole Carter, Adam Huber, J B, Don Bailey, Tom Reed, Aaron Palmer, Odin Drengr, Demba Mdoye, Clay Mattson, Jason aka asmrpeople, Sage, Angel Garcia, Richard Swenson, Rich Elkerton, Kirby Sorensen, Mike Kakeeh, Kodi, John Kremer, Dwayne Boychuk, Jordan Burnam, Brittany Johnson, Aidan M, jared higbee, Theo Chambers, Levi Furber, Kelly, Hubert Dąbrowski, Julio Cataño, StellarScout, Margot Lane, Joudi Saadeh, David Foy, Jacob Sopko, Dell Rabinowitz, and Dominic Strong for supporting us this week. Subscribe to SiriusXM Podcasts+ to listen to new episodes of StarTalk Radio ad-free and a whole week early.Start a free trial now on Apple Podcasts or by visiting siriusxm.com/podcastsplus.

Decision Options ® by Gill Eapen: Dr. Ian Williams on Science Funding OptionsPlease subscribe to this channel:https://www.youtube.com/c/ScientificSense?sub_confirmation=1

Quick recapThe meeting focused on challenges in science funding and peer review processes, with discussions about budget cuts, public pushback, and the need for advocacy and reform. The group explored issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion policies in scientific research and academia, including their impact on merit-based evaluations and graduate admissions. The conversation concluded with discussions about the role of private versus public funding in scientific research, the potential risks and benefits of AI in proposal evaluation, and the importance of maintaining funding for NASA and NSF research.Discussion Summary from Space Show program Friday, July 2 5, 2025:David, Michael, and Anna discussed the challenges and uncertainties in science funding due to proposed budget cuts, noting significant public pushback and the need for further advocacy. Anna shared her success in renewing an NSF proposal but highlighted ongoing issues in science funding and peer review processes. They agreed to explore potential reforms, including implementing anonymous proposals and restoring a gold standard in science, as topics for future discussions.Anna discussed the challenges in science funding. She explained that science funding involves significant public money allocated through competitive grants, with large budgets for agencies like NSF and NASA. Anna also addressed issues with bureaucracies in science funding, noting that they have become ideologically captured, prioritizing diversity and equity over merit and excellence. David raised concerns about the restoration of funding for projects, questioning whether there is a process to ensure valid and non-wasteful projects are funded.Michael expressed concerns about the excessive push towards DEI and woke policies in scientific funding, noting that while workforce development is important, the current low funding rates and bureaucratic requirements could have devastating impacts on future scientists. He emphasized the need to maintain a merit-based system in science, as it drives innovation and economic growth. Listener Phil raised questions about restoring faith in the grant application process, highlighting the labor-intensive nature of proposals and the low success rate, while seeking ways to ensure transparency and fairness in the selection process.Michael explained the challenges of graduate student fellowships funded by NSF and NASA, noting that while these programs aim to support individual students, the success rates are low, and funding often runs out after three years, which can impact students' training periods. He highlighted the competitive nature of these grants, with only about one in five proposals being funded, and the pressure on faculty to assist students in proposal writing. Phil raised concerns about the lack of transparency in the proposal evaluation process and suggested improvements, such as allowing PIs to review other proposals to ensure fair decisions.Our guests discussed the impact of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies on scientific research and academia. David shared his experience interviewing scientists, noting that DEI is often treated as a normal part of scientific discourse with an obvious bias towards DEI proponents. Michael agreed, highlighting how DEI policies have influenced graduate admissions and faculty hiring processes, potentially compromising merit-based evaluations. The conversation touched on the legislative aspect, with a mention of a bill introduced by Rep. Cory Mills that aims to end DEI in government, though it hasn't passed yet according to listener John Jossy.Anna and Michael talked about the challenges and potential overreach of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, with Michael expressing concerns about how these efforts might undermine meritocracy and lead to a "corrupted culture" that masks DEI goals. Listener Jossy shared updates on legislative efforts to reverse DEI trends, including a bill introduced in the House, while Michael and Anna debated the merits of identity politics and its impact on science and education, with Michael arguing that most scientists prioritize meritocracy over identity politics. The discussion concluded with Michael presenting evidence of declining student performance in reading and math skills, which he attributed to an overemphasis on DEI in education.Anna and Michael also discussed challenges in funding scientific proposals, particularly focusing on the balance between risk and reward. Phil and Michael highlighted how low funding rates lead to increased risk aversion, with scientists tending to join larger teams to mitigate risks, which can stifle innovation. Anna and Michael also touched on the difficulties in evaluating proposals with large teams, where it becomes challenging to assess individual contributions. The discussion concluded with a brief mention of NASA's small explorer missions as an example of high-risk, high-reward proposals, and the need for a balanced approach to funding that supports both established and innovative research.The two guests discussed the role of private versus public funding in scientific research, with Michael arguing that federal funding has helped democratize science and enabled smaller universities to compete with elite institutions. They explored the potential risks and benefits of private sector funding, with Listener John Hunt noting that companies might fund research for prestige rather than practical outcomes. The conversation also touched on the need for a balanced approach between fundamental and applied science, with Michael citing examples from various fields. Finally, Phil asked about the potential use of AI in reviewing research proposals, raising questions about the trade-off between quality and quantity in proposal evaluation.The meeting focused on the impact of AI in scientific research, with Michael expressing skepticism about AI's role in proposal writing and data analysis, citing concerns about its potential to replace scientists. Anna discussed various topics related to AI and its applications, including its use in medicine and media. The participants also touched on the importance of maintaining funding for NASA and NSF research, with Michael expressing relief over recent budgetary decisions that have restored some of the proposed cuts. The conversation ended with a reminder about an upcoming Advisory Board discussion on NASA's budget and mission costs.Listeners, The Space Show understands that many of the comments and conclusions in this program on DEI may be upsetting to some. As you know, or should know, The Space Show is willing and does air all sides of an argument. If you are a qualified proponent of DEI with numbers and facts to support your position, or if you suggest such a guest to The Space Show, I'm certainly willing to invite you or your suggested guest to the show. The only requirements are civility and you must bring supporting data to share with us to back up your position. Just have a strong opinion, while fine, is insufficient for a quality Space Show program. You can reach me at drspace@thespaceshow.com. Thank you.Special thanks to our sponsors:Northrup Grumman, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Helix Space in Luxembourg, Celestis Memorial Spaceflights, Astrox Corporation, Dr. Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University, The Space Settlement Progress Blog by John Jossy, The Atlantis Project, and Artless EntertainmentOur Toll Free Line for Live Broadcasts: 1-866-687-7223For real time program participation, email Dr. Space at: drspace@thespaceshow.comThe Space Show is a non-profit 501C3 through its parent, One Giant Leap Foundation, Inc. To donate via Pay Pal, use:To donate with Zelle, use the email address: david@onegiantleapfoundation.org.If you prefer donating with a check, please make the check payable to One Giant Leap Foundation and mail to:One Giant Leap Foundation, 11035 Lavender Hill Drive Ste. 160-306 Las Vegas, NV 89135Upcoming Programs:Broadcast 4406: ZOOM: Space Show Advisory Board NASA & Science Funding Discussion | Friday 25 Jul 2025 1200PM PTGuests: Dr. David Livingston, member of The Space Show Advisory BoardBroadcast 4406: ZOOM: Space Show Advisory Board NASA & Science Funding DiscussionLive Streaming is at https://www.thespaceshow.com/content/listen-live with the following live streaming sites:Stream Guys https://player.streamguys.com/thespaceshow/sgplayer3/player.php#FastServhttps://ic2646c302.fastserv.com/stream Get full access to The Space Show-One Giant Leap Foundation at doctorspace.substack.com/subscribe

At the 2025 ATS International Conference, Joshua Fessel, MD, PhD, ATSF, formerly of the NIH, and Shade Afolabi, MD, a pediatric pulmonologist practicing in Texas, sat down to discuss the extensive ramifications the cuts to the NIH caused researchers, clinicians, and patients. With host Erika Moseson, MD, MA, they explore the effects of losing funding on critical research projects, how patient families have been dealing with pauses on disease research, and how the field can help retain and support early career professionals affected by these policy decisions. Did you miss the ATS 2025 International Conference? Or were you unable to attend some key sessions? Go to conference.thoracic.org/program/conference-highlights/ to purchase your ATS Conference Highlight Package. Be sure to check out the Out of the Blue podcast from the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, which takes you out of the pages of the Blue Journal and into the minds of the most brilliant researchers in the fields of respiratory, critical care, and sleep medicine. Tune in wherever you listen to podcasts! 

In the months since taking office, President Trump has made billions of dollars in cuts to scientific research, essentially saying science has become too woke.Emily Anthes, a science reporter at The New York Times, explains what is being cut and how much the world of science is about to change.Guest: Emily Anthes, a science reporter at The New York Times.Background reading: Nearly 2,500 National Institutes of Health grants have been ended or delayed.A N.I.H. memo paused the cancellations of medical research grants.For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Photo: Lydia Polimeni/NIH, via Associated Press Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

The U.S. production base has slipped: China passed America in manufacturing output in 2011 and last year ran a surplus roughly equal to Britain's entire GDP; at current capacity, it would take the United States about eight years to replace key munitions at wartime production rates.The urgency has propelled an alliance of think tanks — the Foundation for American Innovation, American Compass, Institute for Progress, and  New American Industrial Alliance — to publish the Techno-Industrial Policy Playbook. Their proposals span three critical pillars: Industrial Power, Frontier Science and Technology, and National Security. They range from ambitious initiatives like "Project Paperclip 2.0" to fast-track foreign-born STEM PhDs, to establishing twenty “X-Labs” at $50 million each for transformative science funding. They also advocate for "Special Compute Zones" that would waive certain environmental requirements to rapidly scale up AI computing infrastructure, treating computational capacity with the same urgency America once reserved for World War II shipyards.As the United States finds itself at a techno-industrial crossroads, is America capable of marshaling the political will and institutional capacity needed to reverse decades of industrial decline? Can these ambitious proposals navigate the complex realities of American governance while delivering meaningful results? Or is this comprehensive vision destined to join countless other policy recommendations in Washington's archive of unfulfilled potential?Evan is joined by the architects behind this effort: Kelvin Yu, lead author and a non-resident fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation; Chris Griswold, Policy Director at American Compass; Santi Ruiz, Senior Editor at the Institute for Progress; and Robert Bellafiore, Managing Director for Policy at FAI.

In this episode, Logan is joined by Zach Weinberg (Co-Founder/CEO @ Curie.Bio) and Derek Thompson (writer at The Atlantic) for a candid discussion on the state of U.S. healthcare and scientific progress. They unpack what went right, and wrong, with COVID vaccine policy, the public backlash against mRNA technology, and the ripple effects on trust in science. The conversation also dives into the real reasons behind NIH budget cuts, the economics of drug discovery, and the business incentives in medical R&D. It's a sharp, thought-provoking look at the intersection of policy, innovation, and public perception. (00:00) Introduction to Drug Pricing in the US (00:23) Broad Healthcare Topics and Open-Ended Discussion (02:37) COVID-19 Vaccines: Successes and Public Perception (06:21) The Evolution of COVID-19 and Vaccine Efficacy (07:59) Public Policy and Vaccine Mandates (13:10) Impact of School Closures and Public Sentiment (19:23) NIH Funding and the Importance of Basic Research (25:04) Challenges in Science Funding and Public Perception (35:19) Government vs. Private Investment in Science (36:40) Operation Warp Speed: A Case Study (39:07) Antibiotic Resistance Crisis (43:22) The Drug Pricing Debate (44:05) Challenges in Drug Discovery (54:06) Regulatory Hurdles in Medical R&D (58:06) The Future of Drug Development (01:04:19) Concluding Thoughts Executive Producer: Rashad Assir Producer: Leah Clapper Mixing and editing: Justin Hrabovsky Check out Unsupervised Learning, Redpoint's AI Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/@UCUl-s_Vp-Kkk_XVyDylNwLA

Kathleen Sebelius has led a career defined by public impact—first as Governor of Kansas and then as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, where she helped steer one of the most significant healthcare reforms in American history. In this episode of Lab Rats to Unicorns, Sebelius unpacks the leadership lessons she's learned across government and health systems, including the rollout of the Affordable Care Act and her efforts to accelerate translational research through federal agencies like the NIH, FDA, and CMS. At a time when NIH funding is under political pressure, Sebelius offers a powerful defense of continued public investment in biomedical science. She argues that undermining NIH not only risks slowing innovation but jeopardizes America's global leadership in medicine, biotechnology, and economic competitiveness. Whether you're a policymaker, entrepreneur, or scientist, this conversation reveals why bipartisan support for public health infrastructure and regulatory expertise is more important than ever—and how real progress depends on collaboration across sectors.

Nobody denies that science is plagued by an epidemic of fraudulent and politicized research, nor that it wastes billions of taxpayer dollars. But is the problem severe enough to justify completely eliminating public funding for scientific research? Let's take a look.

Send us a textToday we sit down with Dr. James Alwine who is a virologist, a professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Academy for Microbiology and a member of the coordinating committee of the public health movement Defend Public Health.  We discuss his oped ed Trump is Killing Life Saving Health Research where he highlights the need for our scientific, medical and public health communities to fight back at this moment of our current administration and the impact of federal decisions on local day to day experiences.  We need to be loud.  We need to get out of our labs and clinics and from behind our desks and let our communities know how important this work is to their day to day lives, their babies, their spouses, their neighbors.  It is a short but powerful discussion about the magic of science and how scientists dont have secrets we will talk you to death about our love of the work and how we actually cured cancer!Please see the link to his oped here https://progressive.org/op-eds/trump-is-killing-life-saving-health-research-alwine-20250416/Please see the link to the oped from Elizabeth Jacobs https://tucson.com/opinion/column/local-opinion-robert-f-kennedy-jr-is-dangerous-for-the-health-and-economy-of-arizona/article_6bc1d020-e2f9-11ef-b359-6732f13f6300.htmlPlease see link to Dr. Aimee's oped The Critical Need for Science Funding https://frontporchne.com/opinion-the-critical-need-for-science-funding/Join Defend Public Health by emailing defendingpublichealth@gmail.comSend us your questions and comments at drtonianddraimee@gmail.com.

Dr. Niki updates us on the latest plus, why the new Siri is delayed, and the Pixel 4a got the battery-killing update.Starring Tom Merritt and Robb Dunewood.Show notes can be found here.

Chris and Matt confront their inner demons, manifest their personal deities, and dive into the Onto-Logos.Supplementary Material 2400:00 Introduction02:32 Matt's Surprise Shaming06:39 Jordan Peterson's Inner Monologue Revealed10:04 Trump on Ukraine15:22 Sean Carroll explains US cuts to science funding16:47 Bleak Prospects for the US24:14 Aella vs. Arrogant Red Pill Man37:22 Be wary of Overcorrecting43:11 John Vervaeke meets Hermes52:59 False Dichotomies of the Spirit01:03:38 Entering into Dialogos with Matt's Inner Darwin01:07:39  Perspectival and participatory phenomenological identity transformation.01:09:20 Other ways of knowing spirits01:13:45 Materialists and their Monological Mindsets01:18:37 Welcome to the Onto-Logos01:24:06 Bad Faith Commenters01:29:35 Pageau and the Metaphysics of Pepe the Frog01:36:32 Next Book Review: Other MindsThe full episode is available for Patreon subscribers (1hr 41 mins).Join us at: https://www.patreon.com/DecodingTheGurusSourcesThird Eye Drops: Encountering Higher Consciousness, The Daimon & The Paradox of Reality | Dr. John VervaekeDave Rubin's video of Peterson's speech at the ARC conferenceWhatever podcast: She Did 100 Men In 1 DAY?! 1,000 NEXT?! Lily Phillips, Eva Lovia, Aella, Andrew! | Dating Talk#227Aella's SubstackSean Carroll: Bonus Episode | Cuts to Science Funding and Why They MatterSabine Hossenfelder: Trump and Musk Take On AcademiaHuberman tweeting excitedly about the funding cutsJonathan Pageau: Supplement to the Metaphysics of Pepe Interview with Jordan Peterson

Katherine Wu, staff writer for The Atlantic, explains how the Trump administration's cuts to research grants has already — and will continue to — impact scientific progress in the United States.=>"The Breaking of American Science" (The Atlantic, Feb. 14, 2025)

#205 Jam and Melissa discuss the complexities and consequences of recent executive orders surrounding science funding. Melissa provides insight into how these changes impact university research, faculty positions, and broader society. The duo also highlights the historical context and importance of DEI in academia, emphasizing the broader implications of funding uncertainties on current and future science initiatives. 00:00 Introduction and Special Occasions 00:20 Current Issues in Science Funding 01:10 Host Background and Experience 02:19 Impact of Executive Orders on Science 04:21 Broader Impacts and DEI in Grants 14:03 Indirect Costs and University Funding 16:44 Trickle-Down Effects on Academia 27:03 Importance of DEI Initiatives 40:16 Conclusion and Further Reading   References from this episode: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00365-z https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:42%20section:1862p-14%20edition:prelim) https://cen.acs.org/education/Racial-ethnic-diversity-US-chemistry/98/i43 Thanks to our monthly supporters Julie S Heather R Autoclave Chelsea M Dorien V Scott B Jessie R Ciara L J0HNTR0Y Jeannette N Cullyn R Erica B Elizabeth P Sarah M Rachel R Letila Katrina B Suzanne P Venus R Lyn S Jacob T Brian K Emerson W Kristina G Timothy P Steven B Chris and Claire S Chelsea B Avishai B Hunter R ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★ ★ Buy Podcast Merch and Apparel ★ Check out our website at chemforyourlife.com Watch our episodes on YouTube Find us on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook @ChemForYourLife

In this episode, we explore the alarming assault on science happening within the U.S. government, specifically targeting NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Discover how these essential organizations are being undermined, why it matters for our planet, and what we can do to support evidence-based decision-making in environmental policies. Join us as we unpack the critical role of NOAA and the EPA in protecting our environment and why their work is more vital than ever.

The Trump administration, led by Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency, has proposed sweeping cuts to spending on science research here in the US, in particular at the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. I explain a little about what is being cut and why these funds are important to scientific progress. I try, for what it's worth, to provide these explanations in a way that would be informative to those who generally favor cutting government waste in dramatic fashion.Blog post with transcript: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2025/02/12/bonus-cuts-to-science-funding-and-why-they-matter/Support Mindscape on Patreon.Indirect costs primerCuts to NIH indirect costsAppropriated funds are mandated by statuteProposed NSF cutsElon Musk doesn't understand indirect costsBribing foreign officialsDeleting NSA web pagesExecutive Orders are not lawsHistory of impoundmentsSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

“It's hard to know what's real,” says neuroscientist Josh Dubnau after a dizzying week in which diversity-related grant applications were pulled from study sections only to be reinstated five days later, among other reversals.

This is yet another special edition of Undercurrents - instead of sharing and discussing recent science news, articles or studies here, Julia & Ross discuss important recent events regarding funding and the state of science in the US after the first week of the new presidency. Undercurrents is a podcast series from Nerdy About Nature where we discuss recent studies, reports and news from the world of environment, ecology and climate which all impact our understanding of the world and the way we relate to it.  In other words, it's all the unseen things that happen without much notice that impact the direction or flow of our society and the world we all share. Produced by Ross Reid Hosted by Ross Reid & Julia Huggins Nerdy About Nature is a passion project whose primary goal is to provide free access for all to education about this world so that people can enjoy it more, build connection and fall in love with it, and ultimately work in ways to steward it for future generations to enjoy.  We do this through short and long form videos all over social media @NerdyAboutNature, as well as this podcast you're listening to now, and it's all made possible thanks to support from folks like yourself.  If you're enjoying the content we're creating, you can help keep it going by supporting us at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/nerdyaboutnature⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, or at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠nerdyaboutnature.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. 

Can the ideological emphasis on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) slow down the progress of science? Our guest today is Anna Krylov, professor of chemistry at the University of Southern California and an advocate for maintaining meritocracy in scientific funding and evaluation. She joins John Tomasi to discuss critical tensions in today's scientific landscape. Krylov addresses the potential social costs of slower scientific progress due to ideological influences, particularly DEI, which she argues undermines public trust in scientific institutions. This episode delves into the fraught terrain of funding in academia and the impact of DEI mandates, examining how these changes may contribute to public mistrust and the erosion of merit-based systems. In This Episode:The effects of DEI mandates on scientific fundingThe importance of merit-based funding in academiaThe rise of "citation justice" and its impact on scholarly recognitionGender quotas and their potential implications for scientific standardsCritical social justice influences on scientific practices Censorship in the Sciences Conference: https://dornsife.usc.edu/cesr/censorship-in-the-sciences-interdisciplinary-perspectives/ About Anna:Anna Krylov is a Professor of Chemistry at USC and a leading figure in theoretical and computational quantum chemistry. Born in Ukraine, she earned her degrees from Moscow State University and the Hebrew University. Krylov's research focuses on methods for electronic excited species and has led to over 300 publications. She has received numerous awards, including the Dirac Medal, and is a Fellow of various scientific societies. An advocate for gender equality in STEM, she also promotes academic freedom and authored the impactful paper "The Peril of Politicizing Science." Follow Heterodox Academy on:Twitter: https://bit.ly/3Fax5DyFacebook: https://bit.ly/3PMYxfwLinkedIn: https://bit.ly/48IYeuJInstagram: https://bit.ly/46HKfUgSubstack: https://bit.ly/48IhjNF

In a desperate attempt to be relevant given the US Election, Tom and Stuart dedicate this episode of The Studies Show to talking about government investment in science. How bad is it if politicians cut the science budget? Exactly how much do you get back for every pound or dollar spent on science—and how is that even calculated in the first place?The Studies Show is brought to you by Works in Progress magazine—a journal of science, history, and technology that discusses the secrets behind human progress. You can read their published essays at worksinprogress.co, or their shorter pieces on their Substack at worksinprogress.news.Show notes* Nature's editorial: “The world needs a President who respects evidence”* Trump's science budget cuts: NIH/EPA, CDC* Nature's editorial on the “surge in far-right parties” in Europe cutting the science budget* Tom's 2015 BuzzFeed News article on science budget cuts in the UK* Article on Argentinian science budget cuts under Javier Milei* Andre Geim and Nancy Rothwell's 2024 Guardian article on how £1 of science funding gets you £12 back* Jonathan Haskel and Stian Westlake's book, Capitalism Without Capital* Haskel's 2014 paper finding a £4 return on investment for every £1 spent on science* 2024 UK National Centre for Universities and Business report finding that £1 of science investment leads to £3-4 of private investmentCreditsThe Studies Show is produced by Julian Mayers at Yada Yada Productions. We're grateful to Jonathan Haskel for talking to us for this episode; as always, any mistakes are our own. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thestudiesshowpod.com/subscribe

Jamie Shaw on lotteries, biases, and affirmative action Read the essay here: www.thebsps.org/short-reads/science-funding-shaw/

Senior reporter Richard Rennie takes a look at science funding – cuts to the public service have senior scientists worried about the future of agricultural research and development.He also discusses issues at the Environmental Protection Authority, which is taking longer and longer to approve vital innovations.

Researchers warn they are facing falling off the edge of a cliff when more than half a billion dollars of science funding comes to an end with no replacement in sight. They say they can't wait until the May Budget to find out what comes next. RNZ education correspondent John Gerritsen reports.

More than half a billion dollars of science funding is coming to an end with no more in sight. Researchers are warning that's going to leave scientific research in a perilous state, with many scientists jumping to overseas opportunities or leaving the field all together. Joanne Todd from the University of Auckland's Liggins Institute spoke to Corin Dann.

In this episode of ATP, Saurabh Todi and Shambhavi Naik discuss the state of research and development funding in India, what ails it and what can be done to improve the situation. Do check out Takshashila's public policy courses: https://school.takshashila.org.in/courses We are @‌IVMPodcasts on Facebook, Twitter, & Instagram. https://twitter.com/IVMPodcasts https://www.instagram.com/ivmpodcasts/?hl=en https://www.facebook.com/ivmpodcasts/ You can check out our website at https://shows.ivmpodcasts.com/featured Follow the show across platforms: Spotify, Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, JioSaavn, Gaana, Amazon Music Do share the word with your fSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Longitude fellow Louis Noel speaks with Rowland Pettit, physician-scientist focused on biotech and healthcare, about how science is funded and his approach to increasing efficiency with the help of AI.See transcript at https://longitude.site/working-with-chatgpt-and-other-tips/We hope you enjoy our episodes and share them with friends.This podcast is a production of Longitude.site, a 501(c)3 charitable organization, enabling cross-generational conversations that bring scientific and creative endeavors to broad audiences. College students are engaged in leading informational interviews and presenting highlights in our episodes. If you would like to explore a partnership for our programming, contact us at podcast@longitude.site. Support the show

The UK has announced it's rejoining the European Union's flagship science funding programme, Horizon. In the wake of Brexit, London had been blocked from re-associating with the scheme, which is the world's biggest civil research and innovation programme. The UK government says the new deal gives local scientists "unrivalled opportunities" at a good price for taxpayers. We take a closer look.

In a two-part Perspective, Reed Scherer takes a look at the president's latest funding proposals and what that could mean for a project that provides key information about climate change.

Welcome to Don't Be Scared, the podcast that helps you overcome imposter syndrome in life and careers. In part two of our conversation with Dr. Kristy McDowell, a scientist with an extensive background in oncology, molecular biology, genetics, and infectious diseases. In this episode, Dr. McDowell shares her experiences in inspiring the next generation to pursue careers in STEM.Dr. McDowell is the proud founder and CEO of BabyScientist, Inc., a nonprofit organization established in 2018 to educate, motivate, and inspire children from underserved communities and underrepresented populations to pursue careers in STEM. Through BabyScientist, Dr. McDowell has reached over 8000 students and established partnerships with the DEA, DEA Educational Foundation, and DMV NSBE Jr. to inspire children from underserved communities.In this episode, Dr. McDowell discusses the importance of representation in STEM and the role of mentorship in helping young people overcome imposter syndrome and succeed in their careers. She also shares insights on building community partnerships and the challenges and rewards of running a nonprofit organization.To learn more about Dr. McDowell please visit https://www.babyscientist.org/Visit the website to learn more about Don't Be Scared the organization. www.Dontbescaredok.orgWatch the video on our YouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/@dontbescaredokayDiscover your hidden imposter syndrome tendencies and gain valuable insights into your personal growth potential. Take our insightful quiz now and uncover the key to unlocking your true capabilities. Use the link below to get started!https://www.tryinteract.com/share/quiz/643db21264cc910014447b2d

The Government has announced they will boost science funding to protect New Zealand from extreme weather events. Research, Science and Innovation Minister Ayesha Verrall confirmed $10.8 million will be put into urgent research.  Ayesha Verrall explained that good science will inform people where roads need to go and where it is safest to rebuild. EQC Chief Resilience and Research Officer Dr Jo Horrocks says this proposed urgent research fund is incredibly essential. "It's terrible when we have these big events, but it's a really great opportunity to find out what went wrong in a few places and what we can do better for next time." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The government is putting money into science to tell it how many billions of dollars the country is going to have to spend to protect against the next weather event. Research, Science and Innovation Minister, Dr Ayesha Verrall was in cyclone-devastated Hawke's Bay today to announce the $10.8 million fund. Ruth Hill reports.

Science funding of 1.7% in Australia compared with similar countries spending 3%.

Science funding of 1.7% in Australia compared with similar countries spending 3%.

Join our resident Business Ninja Kelsey together with Isaac Acquah, Vice President of the Wentworth Institute for Science and Health (WISH), a non-profit organization dedicated to funding scientific basic & translational research and the development of current and future scientists. Wentworth Institute for Science and Health (WISH) fund scholarships for up and coming STEM students. They provide travel grants to help with the countless expenses involved with furthering an education in STEM. They provide access to a growing networking of qualified mentors excited to support ambitious STEM students. Their goal is to supply the scientific community privately-based basic and translational research funding. Their leadership team bring years of experience from a variety of both scientific and non-scientific backgrounds to help realize their mission of funding scientific basic & translational research and the development of current and future scientists. Learn more about them and visit their website https://www.wentworthscihealth.org/-----Do you want to be interviewed for your business?  Schedule time with us, and we'll create a podcast like this for your business:  https://www.WriteForMe.io/-----https://www.facebook.com/writeforme.iohttps://www.instagram.com/writeforme.io/https://twitter.com/writeformeiohttps://www.linkedin.com/company/writeforme/https://www.pinterest.com/andysteuer/Want to be interviewed on our Business Ninjas podcast? Schedule time with us now, and we'll make it happen right away! Check out WriteForMe, more than just a Content Agency! See the Faces Behind The Voices on our YouTube Channel!

The UK has the opportunity to access European science funding. However disagreements over the Northern Ireland protocol are preventing the UK from joining the multi billion pound Horizon Europe project which funds scientific partnerships between European institutions. BBC Science correspondent Pallab Ghosh has been following developments. Spending time in green spaces has been linked to mental and physical health benefits. But just how green is your nearest city centre? New research has ranked urban centres in the UK based on their ‘greenness' and Jake Robinson, from Flinders University in Australia, revealed who came out on top. We hear about initiatives to enhance ‘greenness' including the citizen-science led GroundsWell programme with Elly King, from the University of Liverpool, and living walls with Brenda Parker, at UCL. And from the Royal Society science book prize, we're talking sex and gender with primatologist Frans De Waal whose new book is entitled Different: What Apes Can Teach Us About Gender.

How do you spend £16 billion to improve the world's health? That is the job of Sir Jeremy Farrar, the Director of the Wellcome Trust. In 1936, British pharmaceutical magnate Sir Henry Wellcome left his fortune to improve the world's health. Now Sir Jeremy must work out what to do with £16 billion over the next decade — and where to most effectively spend it. 0:00 Intro 0:47 The Third Role of Philanthropy 2:53 Appetite for Risk 5:38 What's Broken in Science Funding 8:16 Generalism vs Specialism 10:12 Why Are You Slow? 14:49 Sexy vs Incremental 17:04 How Much of Your Job Is Not Messing Things Up? 19:35 Metrics for Philanthropy 22:10 Playing the Long Game 23:20 How Do You Know You're Doing a Good Job? 28:05 First Become a King, Then a Philosopher (?) 30:00 Habits That Have Helped In Your Career 31:52 What's It Like Being Famous? 33:28 Book Recommendations By background he is a medical doctor and researcher, he has been named 12th in Fortune's list of the world's 50 greatest leaders, served in the UK's SAGE group and was knighted in 2019 for his services to Global Health. I ask him about how he spends that money, how to measure philanthropic impact, problems and opportunities within research funding and just how much of his job is just not messing things up. You can find me on Twitter @MustafaSultan and subscribe to my newsletter on www.musty.io

In this episode of the McKinsey Global Institute's Forward Thinking podcast, co-host Michael Chui talks with Alec Stapp, co-CEO of the Institute for Progress, a Washington, DC, think tank he co-founded in January 2022. Progress is a policy choice, its founders say, and they have chosen to focus initially on three topics—meta-science, high-skill immigration, and biosecurity. Why those three? Their view is that each one is important, neglected by other researchers, and potentially tractable politically. This conversation was recorded in July 2022. To read a transcript of this episode, visit: https://mck.co/AlecStapp Follow @McKinsey_MGI on Twitter and the McKinsey Global Institute on LinkedIn for more.See www.mckinsey.com/privacy-policy for privacy information

In this episode of the McKinsey Global Institute's Forward Thinking podcast, co-host Michael Chui talks with Alec Stapp, co-CEO of the Institute for Progress, a Washington, DC, think tank he co-founded in January 2022. Progress is a policy choice, its founders say, and they have chosen to focus initially on three topics—meta-science, high-skill immigration, and biosecurity. Why those three? Their view is that each one is important, neglected by other researchers, and potentially tractable politically. This conversation was recorded in July 2022. To read a transcript of this episode, visit: https://mck.co/AlecStapp Follow @McKinsey_MGI on Twitter and the McKinsey Global Institute on LinkedIn for more. Read more > Listen to the podcast (duration: 42:31) >

Nadia Asparouhova (previously writing under Nadia Eghbal) is an independent researcher with widely read essays on a range of topics most recently philanthropic funding including effective altruism and ideas machines, and recent ideas in funding science. She's written books about the open source community. She has worked in start ups and venture. She set up and ran Helium grants, a microgrant programme. She is an Emergent Ventures fellow. We speak about what she learned from microgranting and reviewing thousands of applications. We discuss what she thinks about EA influenced philanthropy, and why she is personally pro-pluralism. Nadia talks about why doesn't consider herself a creator and the downsides and upsides on he creator economy as currently formed. We discuss parallels with the open source community. We chat about Nadia's work as an independent researcher versus her work at start-ups and how they are fulfilling in different ways. Nadia examines what faith means to her now. We chat on the importance of intuition and the messiness of creative science and learning. We talk about science funding and how we might be the cusp of something new. Nadia expresses optimism about the future as we discuss possible progress stagnation. On a more personal note, we chat about how Nadia was a vegetarian and how and why she changed her mind. But also that she could not be a complete only carnivore either. We discuss the importance of family stories that shape us and the role the stories of her grandmother played in her life. We play over-rated under-rated: -Effective Altruism -Miami -Crowdfunding -Toulouse -Newsletters -Katy Perry Nadia talks briefly about a seed of an idea around anti-memetics. Nadia ends with her advice to others. Follow your curiosities. Transcript is available here. How are crypto billionaires most likely to change charitable giving Effective Altruism (EA) aside? “Broadly my worldview or thesis around how we think about philanthropy is that it moves in these sorts of wealth generations. And so, right now we're kind of seeing the dawn of the people who made a lot of money in the 2010s with startups. It's the “ trad tech” or startup kind of cohort. Before then you had people who made a lot of money in investment banking and finance and the early tech pioneers, they all formed their own cohort. And then you might say crypto is the next generation after that, which will eventually break down into smaller sub components for sure but we don't really know what those things are yet, I think, because crypto is still so early and they've sort of made money in their own way. ...When you have a group of people that have made money in a certain way that is almost by definition it's because it's a new wealth boom. They made their money in a way that's distinctly different from previous generations. And so, that becomes sort of like a defining theory of change or worldview. All the work that they are doing in this sort of philanthropic sense is finding a way to impose that worldview. …what will crypto's contribution to that be? ...I think in the crypto kind of generation you might see instead of thinking about the power of top talent, I think they're more about giving people tools to kind of build their own worlds..."

Two Nobel Laureates discuss the pandemic, climate change and the need to boost science research funding to meet the many challenges we face. Professor Brian Schmidt and Professor Peter Doherty also share personal stories of what it's like to win the Nobel prize and why they engage in debates on social media.

Two Nobel Laureates discuss the pandemic, climate change and the need to boost science research funding to meet the many challenges we face. Professor Brian Schmidt and Professor Peter Doherty also share personal stories of what it's like to win the Nobel prize and why they engage in debates on social media.

Stuart Buck is the Executive Director of the Good Science Project, a new initiative to make science funding more effective, innovative, and robust. This mission has been the major theme of Stuart's career; he was previously Vice President of Research at Arnold Ventures, a large philanthropic foundation. In this conversation, we discuss the twin problems of reproducibility and innovation in science, and whether they're in tension. We talk about whether and why most published research findings are false; how to fix career incentives in science; and why science should embrace red teaming, among many other things.I recommend this essay by Stuart, which I reference during the conversation. The book I reference, The Enigma of Reason, is here and the review Stuart mentions is here.-----------------Thanks to Cofruition for consulting on and producing the show. You can learn more about Entrepreneur First at www.joinef.com and subscribe to my weekly newsletter at tib.matthewclifford.com

Riva Tez wants to fund epistemological anarchy in science. Former VC, Former Director at Intel, former store owner, Riva does whatever she wants.We talked about how Riva built a unique career doing whatever she wants, what she's learned from the philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend, why the brain might be an antenna, why she moved away from Transhumanism, why Rationalism is cringe, how she thinks Urbit will win, and how she's planning to introduce epistemological anarchism to contemporary science funding.✦ Riva is on Twitter at https://twitter.com/rivatez✦ Riva's writings: hardtowrite.comOther Life✦ Subscribe to the Other Life newsletter at OtherLife.co✦ We're building a new country at Imperceptible.Country

The funding of science is one of the most important leverage points for growth in the global economy. Yet, we've barely experimented with how science gets funded or tried to evolve financing models that were invented decades ago. Now, dozens of new organizations have been started to explore novel models for funding scientists to do their best work. Danny Crichton is joined by Lux Capital's scientist-in-residence Sam Arbesman to talk about why this trend has accelerated and what all these new experimental models might mean for the future of science.

Three scientists (Anna Marie Pyle from Yale, Yogesh Surendranath from MIT and Forest Rohwer  from San Diego State University) join hosts Judy Muller and George Lewis to discuss the amazing advances in science that will soon upend our world.  This was recorded during a live "Town Talk" at the Transfer Warehouse in Telluride, CO.  The talks are sponsored by the Telluride Science Research Center (TSRC).

Scientists were delighted earlier this year to find they would still have access to the EU Horizon 2020 funding and collaborations. Now, it has been revealed that membership of this group, which was previously paid for through fees to the European Union, may come directly from the science budget, at a cost of about £15 billion over the next 7 years. That’s £1-2 billion a year. Marnie Chesterton speaks with Beth Thompson, head of policy at the Wellcome Trust about the implications, and Roland Pease asks scientists working around the world how the previously announced ODA cuts are affecting their work. Native oysters help to filter coastal waters of the UK of pollutants including nitrates, while also providing habitat for other species. But their numbers have declined by 95% throughout their British range. Now, the Zoological Society of London is placing thousands of mature oysters under pontoons in marinas across the UK to let them breed, and encourage the return of the species to their former numbers. And the new coronavirus mutations that are worrying us all have been found to affect mice in experimental studies at the Pasteur Institute in France. Marnie asks if this change to the infectivity of the new variants has implications for human health and our ability to combat the virus. Presented by Marnie Chesterton Produced by Rory Galloway

Episode 3 of the Alderley Park Discovery Podcast covers how to successfully access life science funding and investment, highlighting a range of ways companies can attract investors. In this instalment, Dominic Tyer is joined by Kinomica CEO Jane Theaker, BioCity investment director Claire Brown, Redx Pharma CEO Lisa Anson and Dr Kath Mackay, managing director at Bruntwood SciTech - Alderley Park.

Matt Hourihan is perhaps the world's most knowledgeable expert in how the U.S. government funds basic science and development activities. He joins the show to talk about the big picture of where the money goes, how the focus has changed over time, and the consequences of budget cuts to critical science investments. Discover more here:  https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/0205-2021-spe-matt-hourihan See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Matt Hourihan of the American Association for the Advancement of Science joins Casey Dreier for a deep dive into the U.S. government’s funding of science research and development.

With questionable coronavirus content flooding airwaves and online channels, what’s being done to limit its impact? In this episode: 00:57 The epidemiology of misinformationAs the pandemic spreads, so does a tidal wave of misinformation and conspiracy theories. We discuss how researchers' are tracking the spread of questionable content, and ways to limit its impact.News: Anti-vaccine movement could undermine efforts to end coronavirus pandemic, researchers warnNature Video: Infodemic: Coronavirus and the fake news pandemic 17:55 One good thingOur hosts pick out things that have made them smile in the last week, including walks in new places, an update on the Isolation Choir, and a very long music playlist.Video: The Isolation Choir sing What a Wonderful WorldSpotify: Beastie Boys Book Complete Songs22:30 Funding fears for researchersScientists around the world are concerned about the impacts that the pandemic will have on their funding and research projects. We hear from two who face uncertainty, and get an update on the plans put in place by funding organisations to support their researchers.Subscribe to Nature Briefing, an unmissable daily round-up of science news, opinion and analysis free in your inbox every weekday. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On my own today. I discuss how we could all build a time machine for our kids and future generations as well as why it's more important than ever for us all to understand how science if funded in Canada and how we might be able to encourage more people to go into science.

This week's podcast features a former television star who is a fusion entrepreneur

Episode 3. Science Funding and Policy: We Asked George JonesGeorge Jones, ORCA Government / NGO Representative and policy advisor walks us through the complexities of state funding for science and how the results of that science are used to drive local environmental policy. Support the show (https://www.teamorca.org/donate.html)

Jack and Marc illuminate the trials and tribulations of getting proper funding for science.

Can we put a price on scientific innovation? And who should be picking up the tab? We explore how science gets funded with our expert guest, Jenny Rohn of Science Is Vital.

Back massages for rats and binge watching Desperate Housewives. The Defense Department studies some weird things. But are they worth it? Senator Jeff Flake wants to know. Hes added an amendment to the 2018 defense authorization bill to add more accountability to science funding. Flake joined Federal News Radio's Scott Maucione with more.

Politics and batsWhere does each major Australian party sit on science policy?Manisha continues her story about bats, pollination and climate change

New Zealand's chief science adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, and Australia's newly-appointed chief scientist Alan Finkel discuss how their countries could work together for the good of science and innovation.

New Zealand's chief science adviser, Sir Peter Gluckman, and Australia's newly-appointed chief scientist Alan Finkel discuss how their countries could work together for the good of science and innovation.

Science Funding Review In the Comprehensive Spending Review last week, the Government announced its commitment to protect the science budget in 'real terms'. After five years of declining spending on science, this has been welcomed by many in the research community. But a lot of the detail is still to emerge. Adam asks Minister for Universities and Science, Jo Johnson where the extra funds are coming from? Is it a case of money being moved around, between departments or is there really an extra £1.5 billion, over the next 5 years, in the science research pot? Carbon Capture Storage Five years ago, amid much fanfare, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, committed £1 billion to the development of carbon capture and storage - the technology to extract carbon dioxide from the exhaust streams of power stations, and bury it underground. This technology is one strategy for reducing our impact on the climate while keeping coal, oil and gas as options for generating energy. Given the discussions going on right now over in Paris at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP 21, this might seem like a suitable commitment for the UK's plans to address global warming. But in the recent Comprehensive Spending Review, the Government have withdrawn the money, effectively ending the current CCS research in the UK. Graphene In contrast, one of the many recent success stories in UK science, graphene, is set to be a focus of research in the Government's plans. Graphene is the world's first truly two dimensional material; incredibly strong, very light and extremely flexible. It is also capable of conducting heat and electricity, so it is a material exciting scientists and industry alike. Since the isolation of graphene in Manchester in 2004 the UK has been at the forefront in graphene research. This year the National Graphene Institute in Manchester was opened, with a remit to link basic, fundamental research to graphene commerce and industry. Producer: Fiona Roberts.

In our latest two part episode, Nina and colleagues from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health Kyle McLean and Dr. Beth Linas discuss science funding. In part 1, we give an overview of funding history and how politics can skew the facts about the importance of basic science funding. We also review how the grant application process works. In part 2, we continue the discussion about peer review, issues with the system, and possible long term solutions.

In our latest two part episode, Nina and colleagues from Johns Hopkins School of Public Health Kyle McLean and Dr. Beth Linas discuss science funding. In part 1, we give an overview of funding history and how politics can skew the facts about the importance of basic science funding. We also review how the grant application process works. In part 2, we continue the discussion about peer review, issues with the system, and possible long term solutions.

NIH opts to back researchers rather than research; roundup of daily news with David Grimm.

NIH opts to back researchers rather than research; roundup of daily news with David Grimm.

Sixth episode of the fourth season of S@Y: Science at Yale on WYBCX Yale radio: Inadequacy of Science Funding in US

Includes author interview about a trial comparing sentinal-lymph-node biopsy with axillary-lymph-node dissection in breast cancer treatment.

Argonne National Laboratory director Robert Rosner talks about the role of science in keeping America an economic leader. Plus, we'll test your knowledge of some recent science in the news. Web sites mentioned on this episode include www.anl.gov