Tag: research

  • mRNA Vaccine Research Cuts Blow to Innovation

    mRNA Vaccine Research Cuts Blow to Innovation

    Academic researchers are worried that the government’s plans to stop investing in the development of messenger RNA vaccines, a technology university scientists first used to help develop the COVID-19 vaccines, will undermine the United States’ standing as a global leader in biomedical research and development.

    As promising as mRNA technology may be for treating a range of maladies, including numerous types of cancer and autoimmune diseases, its role in developing the COVID vaccine has thrust it into a political crossfire, fueled by the Trump administration’s smoldering criticisms of the Biden administration’s handling of the pandemic.

    Last week, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., director of the Department of Health and Human Services, who frequently cites misinformation about vaccines and other public health issues, announced that the department is winding down mRNA vaccine research under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and canceling $500 million worth of contracts and grants with numerous biotech companies and Emory University in Atlanta.

    “We reviewed the science, listened to the experts, and acted,” Kennedy, a lawyer by training, said in a statement, claiming that “the data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu. We’re shifting that funding toward safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate.”

    Jeff Coller, director of the RNA Innovation Center at Johns Hopkins University, whose own graduate student helped develop Moderna’s COVID vaccine, said that “mRNA technology is incredibly misunderstood by the public and many of our politicians.”

    Despite that, “the science has always been consistently clear about the powerful medical benefits of the mRNA platform,” he said. “It’s saved millions of lives, is incredibly safe, has huge potential and will revolutionize medicine in the next 100 years. Yet, we’re ceding American leadership in this technology.”

    The half-a-billion-dollar cut comes at the same time that the Trump administration has withdrawn support for federally funded scientific research that doesn’t align with its ideological views, including projects focused on vaccine hesitancy, LGBTQ+ health and climate change.

    According to a report from STAT News, the 181-page document Kennedy cited as his evidence that mRNA vaccines aren’t safe or effective references disputed studies written by other skeptics of COVID mitigation protocols, including stay-at-home orders and vaccines.

    Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health, who criticized the NIH’s pandemic guidance in 2020, has also publicly defended the decision on Fox News, Steven Bannon’s podcast War Room and in an opinion article he published in The Washington Post Tuesday.

    In his op-ed, Bhattacharya acknowledged that mRNA is a “promising technology” that “may yet deliver breakthroughs in treating diseases such as cancer,” but that “as a vaccine intended for broad public use, especially during a public health emergency, the platform has failed a crucial test: earning public trust.”

    “Unfortunately, the Biden administration did not manage public trust in the coronavirus vaccines, largely because it chose a strategy of mandates rather than a risk-based approach and did not properly acknowledge Americans’ growing concerns regarding safety and effectiveness,” he wrote.

    ‘Political Shot Across the Bow’

    The vast majority of scientists agree that the mRNA-based COVID vaccine—which was created in record time as a result of President Donald Trump’s Operation Warp Speed, launched in 2020—is generally safe and effective.

    “I’m concerned about [the cut] weakening our country and putting us at a disadvantage,” said an mRNA researcher who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation. “The promise of mRNA is almost limitless, and I’d like to see those advances being made in this country. But currently it seems those advances are more likely to come from Europe and Asia. I’m also worried about the impact this could have on our economy—this is a growing field of industry.”

    Coller, of Johns Hopkins, said Kennedy’s decision to withdraw funding for mRNA vaccine research has more than financial implications.

    “It was a political shot across the bow of the entire research community, both in industry and academia,” Coller said. “What it says is that the government doesn’t want to support this technology and is going to make sure it doesn’t happen. If you’re an academic thinking about starting a new program in mRNA medicines, don’t waste your time.”

    And now it will be even easier for political whims to drive the government’s scientific research priorities. Last week, Trump issued an executive order that will put political appointees—rather than subject-matter experts—in charge of federal grant-making decisions.

    Heather Pierce, senior director for science policy and regulatory counsel at the Association of American Medical Colleges, said that while Kennedy’s decision won’t end all of the nation’s mRNA research, “the indication that a certain technology or scientific area won’t be pursued regardless of the progress made so far is worrisome as a concept.”

    That’s in part because “when we unilaterally close the door on a specific type of research or technology, we don’t know what would have come from that,” she said. “It’s not to say that every research project using every technology and scientific tool will necessarily lead to a cure or breakthrough, but the initial funding of these projects shows that there was promise that made it worth exploring.”

    Both Kennedy and Bhattacharya have said the government will continue to support research on other uses of mRNA technology unrelated to infectious disease vaccines. But experts say separating those research areas isn’t so simple.

    “They’re all interconnected,” said Florian Krammer, a professor of vaccinology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. “If you take away funding in the infectious disease space and innovation doesn’t happen there, it’s also not happening in other spaces where mRNA technology is used.”

    That will create a “huge problem for researchers,” he added, “because a lot of fields are using this technology, and if it’s not moving forward, it closes doors.”

    Source link

  • Autistic College Students Face Dramatically Higher Rates of Mental Health Challenges, New Research Shows

    Autistic College Students Face Dramatically Higher Rates of Mental Health Challenges, New Research Shows

    Autistic college students are experiencing anxiety and depression at significantly higher rates than their non-autistic peers, according to new research from Binghamton University that analyzed data from nearly 150,000 undergraduate students across 342 institutions nationwide.

    The study, published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, represents one of the most comprehensive examinations to date of mental health challenges facing autistic students in higher education—a population that researchers say has been historically underrepresented in academic research despite growing enrollment numbers.

    “What we found is really staggering—autistic individuals endorse much higher rates of anxiety and depression compared to their non-autistic peers,” said Diego Aragon-Guevara, the study’s lead author and a PhD student in psychology at Binghamton University.

    The research team analyzed data from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), which in 2021 became the first year that autism was included as an endorsable category in the survey. This milestone allowed researchers to conduct the first large-scale comparison of mental health outcomes between autistic and non-autistic college students.

    “We were really excited to see what the data would tell us. It was a big opportunity to be able to do this,” said Dr. Jennifer Gillis Mattson, professor of psychology and co-director of the Institute for Child Development at Binghamton University, who co-authored the study.

    The findings come at a critical time for higher education institutions as autism diagnoses continue to rise nationwide and more autistic students pursue college degrees. The research highlights a significant gap in support services that could impact student success and retention.

    “We know the number of autistic college students continues to increase every single year,” Gillis-Mattson noted. “We really do have an obligation to support these students, and to know how best to support these students, we need to look beyond just autism.”

    The study reveals that campus support systems may be inadvertently overlooking mental health needs while focusing primarily on autism-specific accommodations. Aragon-Guevara, whose research focuses on improving quality of life for autistic adults, said this represents a critical oversight in student services.

    “Support personnel might address an individual’s autism and, in the process, overlook their mental health issues,” he explained. “More care needs to be put into addressing that nuance.”

    The research underscores the need for institutions to develop more comprehensive support frameworks that address both autism-related needs and concurrent mental health challenges. The findings suggest that traditional disability services approaches may need significant enhancement to serve this population effectively.

    “We want to provide the best support for them and to make sure that they have a college experience where they get a lot out of it, but also feel comfortable,” Aragon-Guevara said.

    Dr. Hyejung Kim, an assistant professor in Binghamton’s Department of Teaching, Learning and Educational Leadership, noted that the complexity of factors affecting autistic students requires deeper investigation. 

    “This population often skews male, and interactions between personal factors and conditions such as anxiety and depression may shape overall well-being in college,” she said.

    Kim also pointed to additional considerations that institutions should examine. 

    “Autistic students are also more likely to pursue STEM fields, and many report different experiences with faculty and staff across institutional settings,” she said. “We still have much to learn about how these and other contextual factors relate to mental well-being.”

    The Binghamton team views this study as foundational research that confirms the scope of mental health challenges among autistic college students. Their next phase will investigate specific contributing factors, including social dynamics, faculty support, campus accessibility, and other environmental elements that influence student well-being.

    “There are so many elements that go into being comfortable in the new environment that is college,” Aragon-Guevara explained. “We want to look into that and see if there are any deficits in those areas that autistic college students are experiencing, so that we know where we can help support them, or create institutional things to help improve quality of life as a whole.”

    The research is part of a broader effort at Binghamton to better understand and support autistic students in higher education, with plans to collaborate with campus partners to develop targeted interventions based on their findings.

     

    Source link

  • Community College Research Collateral Damage at Columbia

    Community College Research Collateral Damage at Columbia

    Research on community colleges has taken a hit amid the Trump administration’s ongoing war against the Ivy League.

    The Community College Research Center, an independent organization based at Columbia University’s Teachers College, found out in March that four of its grants totaling at about $12 million were immediately cancelled, despite being multiple years into their grant cycles. The remaining grant money expected from the Institute of Education Sciences amounted to at least $3.5 million. Four half-completed research projects relied on the funding. Now CCRC leaders are scrambling to find ways to continue the work.

    The grants were swept up in the Trump administration’s slashing of $400 million in grants to Columbia University to cow the institution into agreeing to a set of demands. Columbia has since reached an agreement with the administration to restore its federal funding, but the deal only restored grants administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health. Education Department grants, like the CCRC’s, didn’t return.

    The center, now almost 30 years old, conducts rigorous research into community college programs and practices, like guided pathways and dual enrollment, to help institutions improve the student experience and student outcomes.

    The canceled grants funded two efforts focused on pandemic recovery, including a study into a program at Virginia community colleges to support adults earning short-term credentials in high-demand fields. CCRC researchers were also using IES money to evaluate the Federal Work-Study program and for a fellowship that placed doctoral students in apprenticeships at education agencies and nonprofits. Teachers College has agreed to take over funding for the fellowship program for at least the upcoming academic year.

    Thomas Brock, CCRC’s director, worries the field of community college research—and its benefits for students—are at risk at a time when federal funding has grown more tenuous. He spoke with Inside Higher Ed about how the center is moving forward in the absence of these funds. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

    Q: How did you react when you first heard from the Education Department about the nixed IES grants?

    A: It got us completely by surprise. We did not see that coming. The notification came on a Friday morning. We had to be finished with our work by the end of the day that Friday—we could have no further charges beyond that point. So, there was just no time to prepare. And all of our communications with IES until that point had been very positive. We were on track to complete the goals of our grants. We had been in frequent conversation with our program officers. So, there was simply no inkling that this would be coming.

    Q: What was the extent of the funding loss for you?

    A: The overall funding loss amounted to about $3.5 million. Most of the grants that we were working on were pretty far along. The total berth of the grants was well above $3.5 million, but that was about the amount we had remaining. Most of the work that was canceled was in the last year or two. It was all the more disappointing then, because we were so close to having results that we could share with the field. And that is important, of course, not just to CCRC but to the states and colleges that we partner with more broadly to accomplish our mission of informing community colleges, policymakers, practitioners about strategies that work to improve student outcomes.

    Q: Going forward, what’s going to happen to projects funded by the canceled grants?

    A: So, everything had to be put on hold. I will say we’ve been in discussion with some foundations about what they are calling last-mile funding to complete some of the IES-funded work. We don’t have the grants in hand just yet but invited proposals and ones we think have a good chance of funding.

    We should hear news this fall about some of those. With the last-mile funding, we had to narrow the scope. Generally speaking, foundations don’t have the kinds of resources that the federal government does. So, most of these grants are just to really get out the final results and not putting as much emphasis on dissemination as we would have done with the federal funding. But nonetheless, we’re very grateful to have those opportunities.

    We were lucky at CCRC. We’ve been around for a while. So, over many years, we’ve built up a reserve fund for rainy days, and we decided if this wasn’t a rainy day, we didn’t know what was. So, we have dipped into those reserves to keep many of our staff fully employed while they work on these proposals and to continue to have the ability to do the work if we get refunded. Those funds won’t last forever. We will have to make some tough decisions later this year about just what size of organization we can continue to support with foundation funds. And, I should note, we have already made a few layoffs and have had a couple of voluntary departures. So we are already smaller than we were, but we hope to maintain a critical core.

    Q: Columbia recently reached an agreement with the Trump administration to have some of its research funds restored. Were you hopeful that your funds would be restored as well in that agreement?

    A: We were, yes. We were not part of the negotiations. That was handled by Columbia University. And one of the complications here—really, going all the way back to the initial cancellation of our grants—was a misunderstanding, honestly, by the current administration of Teachers College’s relationship to Columbia. We are an affiliated institution, but we are independent—legally, financially, administratively. We have our own president, our own Board of Directors. We are a separate nonprofit organization, a separate 501(c)(3), so the affiliation we have is a loose one. It allows our students to cross-register and take courses at Columbia. But we do not benefit in any way from Columbia’s endowment or its wealth as an institution. Teachers College is a relatively poor stepchild within the Columbia University constellation.

    So, when we first lost our grants, we appealed as we were instructed to do if we had an issue with the cancellation. The beginning of our appeal was just that we are a separate institution. Whatever complaints the administration may have about Columbia University and how it handled the student protests last year, that had no bearing on what happened at Teachers College. And indeed, we had no student protests. We had no actions that were of concern to the administration or to anyone. So, we hope, just on that basis, we might win on appeal.

    Our appeals were acknowledged, but they have not ever been acted upon as the university went forward with its negotiations. We were hopeful that perhaps [the agreement] would benefit us as well. And when the settlement was reached, I had maybe 24 hours when I was I was really holding my breath. But unfortunately, as we looked at the details of the settlement, it only applied to grants made to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health. Department of Education grants were not included.

    Q: You touched on this, but what comes next for the CCRC? How are you thinking about moving forward and how you might have to pivot?

    A: In the near term, we will have to depend on foundation funding exclusively or primarily. We are fortunate in that we have a long history of foundation funding, so that’s not new, but our model has always involved a blending of federal and foundation resources. And that’s just very important to an organization like ours, because foundations and the federal government have typically funded different kinds of things. They both are really critical to advancing a research agenda.

    What is the most important about the federal funding is, No. 1, the strong emphasis on scientific rigor. So, things like the randomized controlled trials that we’re doing on Federal Work-Study, it’s possible you could get a foundation to pick up a project like that, but that is much more in the bailiwick, or at least traditionally has been in the bailiwick of the U.S. Department of Education and its Institute of Education Sciences—not just randomized controlled trials but rigor in all ways, the emphasis on nationally representative samples on longitudinal research. IES funding has been really important for that.

    A second way IES has been so critical is this emphasis on dissemination. IES has been criticized, and justifiably so, for the What Works Clearinghouse, for instance, being a bit indecipherable at first and having too much in it that really wasn’t showing effectiveness. But it’s come a long way in improving that resource and also really in encouraging grantees to get their findings out into the field. We depended heavily on federal funding for our website, for our social media efforts, for attending practitioner conferences. It was really vital support for those purposes. So, that is largely what concerns us. Perhaps some new foundation supporters will be interested in that kind of work. [It’s] not likely we will find the level of funding that was available through the federal government, but we hope at least enough to keep our essential communications and outreach efforts intact.

    Our agenda will probably have to shift a little bit. This is also what’s disappointing about the Department of Education and IES stepping back—we could count on them to really help set the national agenda and things that were of importance to all 50 states and students in all parts of the country. It’s not to say foundations don’t have that interest, but it is much more typical with foundations to find that they are investing in particular places. There simply are not that many foundations with the resources to kind of take the national view, and that is a concern moving forward. So, it’s something that we’re addressing or trying to think about strategically, but it will be a challenge.

    Q: How does the uncertainty with federal funding affect the broader field of community college research?

    A: Well, obviously I am biased here. I think research matters, or I would not have entered this profession.

    There have been major advances in how community colleges think about developmental education, for example. The models that were in place 20 years ago just turned out to be fundamentally wrong. Most community college students coming in were assessed and placed into developmental education courses that actually did them more harm than good. It was years of careful research that documented that fact and that then supported partnerships with community colleges interested in trying different strategies.

    And thanks to all of that work, we now have multiple-measures assessment, where students’ high school grades and other indicators are used. It’s resulting in far fewer students being placed in developmental courses. We also have corequisite remediation, where students are placed in college-level work right away with extra support, as opposed to requiring them to do what was known as prerequisite remediation before starting college-level work. So, those are strategies that we would not have known about, but for this kind of investment, and strategies that have been widely picked up now by the field that are demonstrably leading to improve student outcomes.

    So, I guess what I worry about is the cessation, or near cessation, of those kinds of research and development efforts that lead to new insights, that lead to new ways of doing business that really could be transformative for students. And if you think about today’s challenges, they are no different or less concerning.

    Artificial intelligence is transforming education. What will it mean for community college students? How could institutions best harness those tools to really ensure students are learning and moving forward? That’s a big, big area that I think cries out for deeper investigation. Another big area of interest is short-term training. Congress is prepared to make Pell Grants available for short-term training. Past evidence has shown not much effectiveness there. But what are the program areas that do lend themselves to short-term training? How might community colleges focus these efforts so that they really do lead to a payoff for students and for taxpayers?

    These are big questions that, if we don’t have some of the foundational work in place, we’re not going to have answers five or 10 years from now. And the field as a whole, students specifically, will suffer as a result.

    Source link

  • Speech is Protected, But Is It This Simple? LSE Research Delves Into Student Experiences of Free Speech

    Speech is Protected, But Is It This Simple? LSE Research Delves Into Student Experiences of Free Speech

    This blog was kindly authored by Lauren Amdor, who graduated from LSE with a BSc in History and International Relations and has recently finished her post as the Activities and Communities Sabbatical Officer at LSE’s Students’ Union.

    The 2023 Higher Education (HE) Freedom of Speech Act (the Act) has long been one to watch, especially after Labour paused its implementation last July. As an LSE Students’ Union (LSESU) Sabbatical Officer, the Act raised broader questions around how students’ education would be affected, which I explored in the research project Power to Speak and subsequent focus groups.

    With 592 responses across LSE Departments, modes of study and domiciles, students were asked nine quantitative questions in the Power to Speak survey measured on a Likert scale which found that:

    • One-in-four respondents did not feel comfortable speaking up in class.
    • 75% of respondents agreed that the teacher defines what speech is accepted in the classroom.
    • 45% of respondents felt ill-equipped to encounter/respond to ‘damaging speech’ protected by free speech laws.
    • Half of the respondents agreed that campus lacked opportunities for groups with opposing views to engage in dialogue.

    The tenth qualitative question asked students what they thought ‘promoting freedom of speech should look like’, given the upcoming duty on universities to promote this under the Act.

    Student responses were coded into five thematic categories:

    • A safe environment to express or not express views (26.8%)
    • Freedom to express views without retaliation or consequences (23.6%)
    • Promoting and welcoming free speech (22.2%)
    • Students’ rights to protest (15.3%)
    • A zero tolerance to hate speech and violence (12.1%)

    Two key points emerged, which universities and students’ unions should pay particular attention to:

    1. Why did students report feeling unable to express their views?
    2. Where do students think the line is with free (but offensive) speech, and why?

    Institutional ramifications, not strictly legal ones, recurred throughout responses. This included fearing academic repercussions for articulating a converging perspective to their teachers, visa revocation and the social consequences of adopting minority viewpoints including being ‘judged’, ‘ostracised’ or ‘persecuted’. The most cited fear, however, was disciplinary action against students by the University which was also central in the Right to Protest theme. Here, students specifically referenced disciplinaries against those protesting for Palestine across higher education institutions. These various fears contributed to what students considered as ‘a chilling effect on free speech’ despite the high legal threshold for unlawful speech.

    Inadequate tools and support systems to engage with conflicting perspectives was a significant issue. Students highlighted difficulties navigating emotionally charged topics, especially as university was the first time many had encountered diametrically opposing views. Shying away from these discussions was partly down to ‘the fear of the first time’ and accidentally causing offense, particularly appearing Islamophobic or Antisemitic. Limited experience in having these conversations exacerbated the individual burden felt and reported by students, as universities had seemingly not supported necessary skill development. Fluctuating stress across the academic year also elevated anxiety around difficult conversations or debates, further reducing the capacity to cope adequately. The demographic breakdown of Question 27 of the National Student Survey (NSS) suggested that minority-group students felt less free to express their views during their studies. A focus group discussing Faith in the Classroom further explored this trend, finding that practising students wanted to avoid dealing with possible arguments around personal beliefs. Departmental colleagues additionally identified how cultural norms regarding debate contributed to an uneven baseline from which students engage (discussed in the case of Chinese international students). Universities should be aware that certain student groups feel less equipped to navigate free speech and should therefore take a tailored approach to upholding it.

    Although academic freedom laws ensure academic staff can express their views as they choose, this was considered a barrier to students participating in debate. Students consistently maintained that teachers should not necessarily ‘engineer neutrality for the sake of it’ but should be trained to foster a culture of academic disagreement without discrimination and manage conflicting views constructively and skilfully. Building trust and a positive rapport between students and academics was significant in empowering students to contest presented arguments and approach academic staff to discuss related issues.

    Students expressed concern around speech which might harm and negatively impact minority student groups, and how a hostile campus environment impacted their overall education. How potentially harmful (but legal) views were presented was of equal concern, with most students accepting such speech if it was respectful and considerate to diverse and underrepresented experiences. This is effectively the debate around balancing free speech rights with the right to privacy and protection from discrimination under the European Commission of Human Rights. While institutions consult the OfS guidance on interpreting the Act and related questions, institutions also contend with the apparent lack of clarity amongst students, reiterated by consistent calls to draw a clear line and articulate ‘what free speech is not’.

    Recommendations Arising from the Research Findings

    • Clarify how free speech, rights against discrimination and to privacy are practically balanced, and what speech or action might result in institutional disciplinaries, in an understandable way for students.
    • Create a baseline level of soft skills for respectful disagreement and debate as part of a university education, regardless of a student’s course of study.
    • Facilitate dialogue spaces ‘across religious, ethnic and ideological boundaries’, to counter polarisation, model respectful discussion of ‘controversial issues’ and assist students with this responsibility.
    • Equip teachers to facilitate debate across challenging topics while upholding Academic Freedom.

    Where Do Students’ Unions Sit?

    Students’ Unions (SU) are uniquely positioned to support students and institutions with the realities of the Act. As a student-led organisation, there is a clear opportunity to create student-led dialogue spaces for interested students, as the LSESU Campus Relations Group has done. Working with individual student societies additionally offers a chance to carve out pockets of safety for those encountering especially difficult perspectives at university. As a key liaison between institutions and students, SUs have an explanatory role to ensure students understand their rights related to the Act and university policy. And finally, as an acknowledged student voice mechanism, SUs can lobby their institutions on issues pertaining to students’ free speech or work with larger organising bodies (e.g. the National Union of Students) to lead national policy change.

    Source link

  • The Growing Problem of Scientific Research Fraud

    The Growing Problem of Scientific Research Fraud

    When a group of researchers at Northwestern University uncovered evidence of widespread—and growing—research fraud in scientific publishing, editors at some academic journals weren’t exactly rushing to publish the findings.

    “Some journals did not even want to send it for review because they didn’t want to call attention to these issues in science, especially in the U.S. right now with the Trump administration’s attacks on science,” said Luís A. Nunes Amaral, an engineering professor at Northwestern and one of the researchers on the project. “But if we don’t, we’ll end up with a corrupt system.”

    Last week Amaral and his colleagues published their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. They estimate that they were able to detect anywhere between 1 and 10 percent of fraudulent papers circulating in the literature and that the actual rate of fraud may be 10 to 100 times more. Some subfields, such as those related to the study of microRNA in cancer, have particularly high rates of fraud.

    While dishonest scientists may be driven by pressure to publish, their actions have broad implications for the scientific research enterprise.

    “Scientists build on each other’s work. Other people are not going to repeat my study. They are going to believe that I was very responsible and careful and that my findings were verified,” Amaral said. “But If I cannot trust anything, I cannot build on others’ work. So, if this trend goes unchecked, science will be ruined and misinformation is going to dominate the literature.”

    Luís A. Nunes Amaral

    Numerous media outlets, including The New York Times, have already written about the study. And Amaral said he’s heard that some members of the scientific community have reacted by downplaying the findings, which is why he wants to draw as much public attention to the issue of research fraud as possible.

    “Sometimes it gets detected, but instead of the matter being publicized, these things can get hidden. The person involved in fraud at one journal may get kicked out of one journal but then goes to do the same thing on another journal,” he said. “We need to take a serious look at ourselves as scientists and the structures under which we work and avoid this kind of corruption. We need to face these problems and tackle them with the seriousness that they deserve.”

    Inside Higher Ed interviewed Amaral about how research fraud became such a big problem and what he believes the academic community can do to address it.

    (This interview has been edited for length and clarity.)

    Q: It’s no secret that research fraud has been happening to some degree for decades, but what inspired you and your colleagues to investigate the scale of it?

    A: The work started about three years ago, and it was something that a few of my co-authors who work in my lab started doing without me. One of them, Jennifer Byrne, had done a study that showed that in some papers there were reports of using chemical reagents that would have made the reported results impossible, so the information had to be incorrect. She recognized that there was fraud going on and it was likely the work of paper mills.

    So, she started working with other people in my lab to find other ways to identify fraud at scale that would make it easier to uncover these problematic papers. Then, I wanted to know how big this problem is. With all of the information that my colleagues had already gathered, it was relatively straightforward to plot it out and try to measure the rate at which problematic publications are growing over time.

    It’s been an exponential increase. Every one and a half years, the number of paper mill products that have been discovered is doubling. And if you extrapolate these lines into the future, it shows that in the not-so-distant future these kinds of fraudulent papers would be the overwhelming majority within the scientific literature.

    A line graph showing all scientific articles, paper mill products, PubPeer-commented, and retracted papers. The Y axis is number of articles and the X axis is year of publication. All the lines are going up, but the red line for paper mill products is rising fastest.

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

    Q: What are the mechanisms that have allowed—and incentivized—such widespread research fraud?

    A: There are paper mills that produce large amounts of fake papers by reusing language and figures in different papers that then get published. There are people who act as brokers between those that create these fake papers, people who are putting their name on the paper and those who ensure that the paper gets published in some journal.

    Our paper showed that there are editors—even for legitimate scientific journals—that help to get fraudulent papers through the publishing process. A lot of papers that end up being retracted were handled and accepted by a small number of individuals responsible for allowing this fraud. It’s enough to have just a few editors—around 30 out of thousands—who accept fraudulent papers to create this widespread problem. A lot of those papers were being supplied to these editors by these corrupt paper mill networks. The editors were making money from it, receiving citations to their own papers and getting their own papers accepted by their collaborators. It’s a machine.

    Science has become a numbers game, where people are paying more attention to metrics than the actual work. So, if a researcher can appear to be this incredibly productive person that publishes 100 papers a year, edits 100 papers a year and reviews 100 papers a year, academia seems to accept this as natural as opposed to recognizing that there aren’t enough hours in the day to actually do all of these things properly.

    If these defectors don’t get detected, they have a huge advantage because they get the benefits of being productive scientists—tenure, prestige and grants—without putting in any of the effort. If the number of defectors starts growing, at some point everybody has to become a defector, because otherwise they are not going to survive.

    Q: [Your] paper found a surge in the number of fraudulent research papers produced by paper mills that started around 2010. What are the conditions of the past 15 years that have made this trend possible?

    A: There were two things that happened. One of them is that journals started worrying about their presence online. It used to be that people would read physical copies of a journal. But then, only looking at the paper online—and not printing it—became acceptable. The other thing that became acceptable is that instead of subscribing to a journal, researchers can pay to make their article accessible to everyone.

    These two trends enabled organizations that were already selling essays to college students or theses to Ph.D. students to start selling papers. They could create their own journals and just post the papers there; fraudulent scientists pay them and the organizations make nice money from that. But then these organizations realized that they could make more money by infiltrating legitimate journals, which is what’s happening now.

    It’s hard for legitimate publishers to put an end to it. On the one hand, they want to publish good research to maintain their reputation, but every paper they publish makes them money.

    Q: Could the rise of generative AI accelerate research fraud even more?

    A: Yes. Generative AI is going to make all of these problems worse. The data we analyzed was before generative AI became a concern. If we repeat this analysis in one year, I would imagine that we’ll see an even greater acceleration of these problematic papers.

    With generative AI in the picture, you don’t actually need another person to make fake papers—you can just ask ChatGPT or another large language model. And it will enable many more people to defect from doing actual science.

    Q: How can the academic community address this problem?

    A: We need collective action to resist this trend. We need to prevent these things from even getting into the system, and we need to punish the people that are contributing to it.

    We need to make people accountable for the papers that they claim to be authors of, and if someone is bound to engage in unethical behavior, they should be forbidden from publishing for a period of time commensurate with the seriousness of what they did. We need to enable detection, consequences and implementation of those consequences. Universities, funding agencies and journals should not hide, saying they can’t do anything about this.

    This is about demonstrating integrity and honesty and looking at how we are failing with clear eyes and deciding to take action. I’m hoping that the scientific enterprise and scientific stakeholders rise to that challenge.

    Source link

  • Trump issues directives on college admissions data and research grants

    Trump issues directives on college admissions data and research grants

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    President Donald Trump issued two sweeping directives Thursday — one that orders colleges to hand over additional data about their applicants and another mandating that political appointees approve federal grant funding. 

    Colleges will now be required to report additional admissions data to the National Center for Education Statistics, including data on the race and sex of their applicants, their admitted students and those who chose to enroll, per a memo from Trump to the U.S. Department of Education. Previously, institutions were only required to provide racial data for enrolled students. 

    Institutions must provide the data for undergraduate students and for certain graduate and professional programs, the Education Department said. 

    Separately, Trump signed an executive order directing his political appointees to review both grant awards and funding opportunity announcements. These appointees, along with subject matter experts, will evaluate grant decisions to align with the Trump administration’s policy priorities, according to a White House fact sheet.   

    Together, the two orders take aim at areas the Trump administration is attempting to tightly control — who colleges and universities enroll, and which research projects get federal funding. 

    In an announcement Thursday, the Education Department said the additional admissions data is needed “to ensure race-based preferences are not used in university admissions processes.” 

    Along with data on applicants’ race and gender, colleges must also include the prospective students’ standardized test scores, GPAs and other academic qualifications. This data will also be collected about admitted and enrolled students. 

    At the same time, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon is ordering the National Center for Education Statistics to develop a process to audit the data to ensure its accuracy. 

    “We will not allow institutions to blight the dreams of students by presuming that their skin color matters more than their hard work and accomplishments,” McMahon said. “The Trump Administration will ensure that meritocracy and excellence once again characterize American higher education.”

    The order comes two years after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down race-conscious college admissions in a landmark case involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Since then, colleges have overhauled their admissions practices, and many selective institutions enrolled lower shares of Black and Hispanic students in the aftermath, according to an analysis from The New York Times. 

    A new landscape for grants

    Trump’s executive order on grant funding castigated much of the current research landscape, decrying awards that went to projects such as developing transgender sexual education programs and training graduate students in critical race theory. 

    The directive accused other grants of promoting “Marxism, class warfare propaganda, and other anti-American ideologies in the classroom, masked as rigorous and thoughtful investigation.”

    Researchers and other groups have sued over past Trump administration attempts to control grant funding, including the cancellation of vast swaths of National Institutes of Health awards to comply with the president’s orders against diversity, equity and inclusion. A federal judge has ruled against the NIH’s grant cancellations, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office has likewise determined they were illegal. 

    Still, Thursday’s order directs agency heads to revise the terms of existing discretionary grants, “to the maximum extent permitted by law,” to allow them to be immediately terminated, including if an award “no longer advances agency priorities or the national interest.” 

    When assessing grant applications, senior appointees should weigh if they advance Trump’s policy priorities, according to the directive. 

    The order says grants should not be used to deny that sex is binary — a view at odds with scientific understanding — or promote “anti-American values.” They also should not be used to promote racial discrimination by awardees, including by using race or proxies to select employees or program participants, the order stated. 

    In addition, the order says preference for discretionary grants should be given to institutions “with lower indirect cost rates” — all things being equal. 

    Source link

  • Harnessing AI to advance translational research and impact

    Harnessing AI to advance translational research and impact

    In July, HEPI, with support from the publisher Taylor & Francis, hosted a roundtable dinner to discuss harnessing AI to advance translational research and impact. This blog considers some of the themes that emerged from the discussion

    Travel through a major railway station in the near future and you may see, alongside the boards giving train times, a video of someone using British sign language. This could be an AI-generated signer, turning the often difficult-to-hear station announcements into sign language so that deaf people can understand what is being said. It is just one example of how artificial intelligence is increasingly being used in the real world.

    The question this roundtable focused on was how AI could be used to advance translational research. That is, taking curiosity-driven research and turning it into a real-world application. What role can academic leaders and publishers play in shaping ethical, inclusive and innovative uses of AI in such research? How can AI enhance collaboration across disciplines, and what are the potential barriers, ethical dilemmas and risks involved in the process?

    The discussion, attended by senior university and research leaders, publishers and funders, was held under the Chatham House rule, by which speakers express views on the understanding they will be unattributed.

    Advantages and risks

    Speakers agreed that AI has huge potential to allow researchers to analyse large datasets cheaply, quickly, and accurately, turning research into real-world applications, as well as improving accessibility to scientific knowledge. They noted that AI can help provide plain language summaries of research and present them in different formats, including multilingual or multimedia content, while also opening useful ways for learned societies to disseminate research findings among their member practitioners.

    But risks were identified too. How could the use of AI affect creativity and critical thinking among researchers? How can academics guard against bias and ensure transparency in the data on which AI tools are based? And what about environmental concerns – in terms of maintaining the energy-guzzling AI system and managing electronic waste?  Most worryingly, when AI is involved in research and its application, who is ultimately accountable if something goes wrong?

    Such concerns were addressed in a guide for researchers on Embracing AI with integrity, published by the research integrity office UKRIO in June. https://ukrio.org/wp-content/uploads/Embracing-AI-with-integrity.pdf.

    Delegates at the roundtable were told that one message to draw from this guide was that researchers using AI should be asking themselves three essential questions:

    1. Who owns the information being inputted into the AI?
    2. Who owns the information once it is in the AI?
    3. Who owns the output?

    Working together

    Collaboration is key, said one speaker. That means breaking down existing academic silos and inviting in the experts who will be responsible for applying AI-driven research. It is also crucial to consider the broader picture and the kind of future society we want to be.

    One concern the roundtable identified was that power over AI systems is concentrated in the hands of just a few people, which means that rather than addressing societal problems, it is creating divides in terms of access to information and resources.

    ‘We are not in the age of AI we actually want’, said one speaker. ‘We are in the age of the AI that has been given to us by Big Tech.’

    Tackling this issue is likely to involve the development of new regulatory and legal frameworks, particularly to establish accountability. Medical practitioners are particularly concerned about ‘where the buck stops’ and how, for example, potentially transformative AI diagnosis tools can be used in a safe manner.

    Others at the roundtable were concerned that placing the bulk of ethical responsibility for AI on researchers might discourage them from testing boundaries.

    ‘When you do research, you can never have that control completely or you will never do novel things’, said one. Responsibility must therefore be shared between the researcher, implementer and user. That means everyone needs education in AI so they understand the tools they have been given and how to use them effectively.

    Reliable data

    Being able to rely on the underlying datasets used in AI is essential, said one speaker,  who welcomed the government’s decision to open up public datasets through the AI Opportunities Action Plan https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai-opportunities-action-plan/ai-opportunities-action-plan and to curate a national data library https://datalibrary.uk/. 

    There was a difference, it was agreed, between research driven by commercially available AI tools when it was not possible to see ‘inside the black box’ and research based on AI tools in which the datasets and algorithms were reliable and transparent. The former was like presenting a research paper that provided the introduction, results, and analysis without explaining the methodology; it was suggested.

    Educating users

    Yet AI is not just about the data on which it is based but also about the competence of the people using it. How can higher education institutions ensure that students and researchers, particularly early career researchers, have the know-how they need to use AI correctly? (The Taylor and Francis AI Policy may be of interest here.)

    It was pointed out that the independent review of the curriculum and assessment system in schools in England, due to publish its recommendations later this year, is likely to be a missed opportunity when it comes to ensuring that pupils enter university with AI skills.

    Meanwhile, politicians are struggling to establish the right framework for AI research, as they often lack expertise in this field.

    This is a problem since the field is moving so fast. It was suggested that rather than wait for action from policymakers and a regulatory framework, researchers should get on with using AI or risk the UK being left behind.

    Social vision

    The roundtable agreed that making decisions on all this was not just the responsibility of academia. But where academic research could be useful was in filling the gaps in AI development that big commercial companies neglected because they prioritised business models.

    Here, researchers, including in the arts and humanities, could be important in deciding what society ultimately wants AI to achieve. Otherwise, one speaker suggested, it would be driven by the ‘art of the possible’.

    Meanwhile, what skills do universities want researchers to have? Some raised the fear that outsourcing work to AI could mean researchers being deskilled. Evidence already suggests that the use of AI can reduce students’ metacognition – the understanding of their own thought processes.

    ‘If we think it’s important for researchers to be able to translate their findings, don’t let a machine do it’, said one speaker. Another questioned whether researchers should ever be using tools they do not understand.

    Artificial colleagues

    One suggestion was that rather than outsourcing their work to AI, researchers should be using it to enhance their existing practices.

    And while some were concerned about the effect AI could have on creativity, one speaker suggested that, by calibrating AI tools to investigate concepts at the edge of scientific consensus, they could be used to spark more original approaches than a human group would achieve alone.

    Another positive identified was that while biases in AI can be a problem, they can also be easier to identify than human biases.

    The roundtable heard that successfully accommodating AI should be about teamwork, with AI seen as another colleague – there to advise and reason but not do all the work.

    ‘The AI will be the thing that detects your biases, it will be the thing that reviews your work, and it will support that process, but it shouldn’t do the thinking, ’ was the message from one speaker. ‘Ultimately, that should come back to humans. ’

    Taylor & Francis are a partner of HEPI. Taylor & Francis supports diverse communities of experts, researchers and knowledge makers around the world to accelerate and maximize the impact of their work. We are a leader in our field, publish across all disciplines and have one of the largest Humanities and Social Sciences portfolios. Our expertise, built on an academic publishing heritage of over 200 years, advances trusted knowledge that fosters human progress. Under the Taylor & Francis, Routledge and F1000 imprints, we publish 2,700 journals, 8,000 new books each year and partner with more than 700 scholarly societies.

    We will be working together to develop a HEPI Policy Note on the use of AI in advancing translational research. If you have a fantastic case study or AI-related translational approach at your institution, we would love to hear from you. To tell us more about your work, please email [email protected].

    Source link

  • Massachusetts governor pitches $400M to support research funding

    Massachusetts governor pitches $400M to support research funding

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief: 

    • Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey has announced plans to propose legislation that would devote $400 million to support research across the state amid federal funding uncertainty. 
    • The money would be split evenly across two funds: a multiyear research funding pool to support projects at universities, hospitals and research institutions, and an additional funding reserve to support research and jobs at the state’s public colleges. 
    • “In the face of uncertainty from the federal government, this is about protecting one of the things that makes Massachusetts so special — our global leadership in health care and helping families across the world,” Healey said in the Thursday announcement. 

    Dive Insight: 

    Healey’s proposal comes as the Trump administration freezes and terminates research grants at universities in its crosshairs to pressure them into making policy changes, along with cutting funding more broadly across major scientific agencies. 

    In Massachusetts alone, the Trump administration has terminated research grants valued at nearly $583 million, according to a recent analysis from the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. When they were canceled, the grants had $252 million left to be paid out. 

    Overall, the Trump administration has terminated research awards valued at roughly $6.9 billion across the U.S., the analysis found. Of that, $3.3 billion of the canceled funding hadn’t yet been disbursed. The analysis did not account for frozen research grants, suggesting the level of hampered research funding across the nation may rise even higher. 

    Healey’s announcement pointed to the state’s economic reliance on federal research funding. The state received nearly $8.6 billion in federal research funding in fiscal year 2024, which supported roughly 81,000 jobs and $7.8 billion in household income, recent findings from the University of Massachusetts Amherst found. 

    Moreover, Massachusetts accounts for 1 in 10 research and development jobs in the U.S., according to the announcement. 

    Half of the $400 million would go toward a one-time funding pool to help pay for projects at universities, hospitals and research institutions. This pool would also support a one-year fellowship program for early-career researchers, the announcement said. 

    That pot of money would be housed at MassDevelopment, the state’s development finance agency, and Massachusetts would use interest from its state stabilization fund to finance it. 

    The other half of the $400 million would be housed in a bridge funding reserve for the state’s public colleges. That funding would support research costs, partnerships and jobs, including positions for graduate and postdoctorate students. 

    That fund would be paid for from revenue from Massachusetts’ Fair Share, which adds a 4% tax on those with incomes above $1 million. 

    Several university leaders in the state praised the proposal. They include the president of the University of Massachusetts, the state’s public university system, as well as leaders of private institutions including Boston University, Northeastern University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

    “Advances that spring from our universities, hospitals and laboratories benefit all Americans; if we see these institutions diminished or compromised, all Americans stand to lose,” MIT President Sally Kornbluth said in a statement on Thursday. 

    However, Kornbluth noted that “no other source can replace federal funding for sheer scale.”

    MIT has seen over $6 million worth of federal grants terminated, according to Center for American Progress data. 

    Massachusetts is also home to Harvard University, which the Trump administration has cut off from all future federal research funding. Earlier this month, Harvard officials said the Trump administration’s actions combined with recent congressional moves, such as raising the endowment tax wealthy institutions pay, could cost the university $1 billion a year.

    Source link

  • Research Funding Starts to Flow Back to Columbia, Brown

    Research Funding Starts to Flow Back to Columbia, Brown

    Much of the money funds medical research, including time-sensitive clinical trials.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Wolterk/iStock/Getty Images | Alex Kent/Getty Images

    Days after reaching deals with the Trump administration, Columbia and Brown Universities say the government has already initiated the process of restoring hundreds of millions in federal research dollars it terminated earlier this year in retaliation for their alleged failures to address antisemitism on campus. 

    Many of those grants came from the National Institutes of Health, which is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, and funded medical research, including time-sensitive clinical trials.  

    “The agreement finalized this week restored all National Institutes of Health grants to Brown researchers that had been terminated,” Brian Clark, a Brown spokesperson, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed Thursday evening. “We started to see that formalized in award letters today and expect in the coming days and weeks to see this across all of these grants.” 

    In April, the administration blocked $510 million in federal grants and contracts for Brown. But under the terms of the agreement the government and university finalized Wednesday, Clark said, “Any payments should resume within 30 days,” which applies to both “the restoration of specific grants that had been terminated, and also to active (non-terminated) grants for which Brown had not been reimbursed.”

    If you had a grant frozen because of the Trump administration’s investigations, we want to hear about your experience and whether you’ve received your funding. Email [email protected] to share more.

    The Brown deal came about a week after Columbia agreed to pay the government $221 million in addition to changing its admissions policies, disciplinary processes and academic programs in order to restore about $400 million in federal funding the administration canceled in March.

    According to Columbia’s website, “Funding and reimbursement payments have already begun to flow.”

    “One week later, more than half of the terminated grants have been restored, and we expect the others to be reinstated promptly,” the website says. “Renewals and continuations that were frozen are also coming in on non-terminated grants.”

    The university wrote that it’s “reviewing all grants that were terminated or suspended over the last months to identify those that were specifically directed at Columbia” and expects “the fair treatment of Columbia grants and ability to compete to be honored by all federal agencies.”

    The university noted that the agreement only applies to HHS and NIH grants that the administration canceled as part of its targeted pressure campaign on Columbia. 

    Faculty who asked to remain anonymous told Inside Higher Ed that either the university or NIH has told them that some grants are being reinstated or renewed. But it was unclear to them whether actual dollars have resumed flowing, and how many.

    Since Trump took office in January, numerous federal agencies, including the NIH, the National Science Foundation and Education Department, have terminated thousands of other research grants at institutions across the country that don’t align with their ideological priorities. In particular, many grants that focused on transgender health, vaccine hesitancy, climate change and racial disparities have been canceled. 

    Columbia researchers whose grants were terminated as part of that sweep should not expect to see their funding restored as part of this deal, the university wrote on its website. 

    “Some of these grants were terminated or suspended across the board for all institutions, and have nothing specific to do with Columbia,” the webpage said. “To the extent that the federal government has made the decision not to fund certain types of projects at any institution, those grants will not be coming back to Columbia.”

    Columbia and Brown are just two of numerous Ivy League Institutions that the Trump administration has targeted by threatening federal funding. 

    The administration was also holding up $175 million at the University of Pennsylvania in retaliation for the university allowing a transgender athlete to compete on its swim team. Last month, the university reached a deal with the government, which has said it will restore the funding. 

    The administration is also blocking $2.2 billion at Harvard University,  $202 million at Princeton University and $1 billion at Cornell University. However, those institutions have yet to reach agreements with the government that could result in restoration of their federal funding.

    So far, the administration has frozen nearly $5.9 billion across eight universities, including Brown, Columbia and Penn. Most of the funding freezes started in March, but in the last week, the administration resumed blocking funds at institutions under investigation. First, it put about $108 million on hold at Duke University, and then officials suspended an unspecified number of grants at the University of California, Los Angeles.

    Ryan Quinn contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Mass. Governor Proposes $400M in State Funding for Research

    Mass. Governor Proposes $400M in State Funding for Research

    Massachusetts governor Maura Healey introduced legislation Thursday that would provide $400 million in state funding for research and development, including projects conducted by colleges and universities, The Boston Globe reported. The move appears to be an attempt to alleviate some of the pain caused by the Trump administration’s drastic federal funding cuts to higher ed institutions.

    Introducing the legislation at the State House yesterday, Healey cited Massachusetts’ prowess as a research leader, noting that it has the highest percentage of STEM graduates and hosts 10 percent of all research and development jobs in the country. It is also home to Harvard University, which has had roughly $2.6 billion in funding frozen by the Trump administration.

    “In the face of uncertainty from the federal government, this is about protecting one of the things that makes Massachusetts so special—our global leadership in health care and helping families across the world,” Healey said in a statement.

    The plan calls for $200 million to be appropriated for research at hospitals, universities and independent research groups; the other $200 million will support the state’s public colleges and universities in covering the direct and indirect costs of research and partnerships, as well as hiring personnel. The funds must be approved by the Legislature.

    Higher ed leaders applauded the move.

    “University research fosters the creation of new knowledge, drives regional economies, and is vital to prepare the next generation of innovators,” said Northeastern University president Joseph Aoun in a statement. “I commend Governor Healey and her team for their commitment to ensuring Massachusetts remains a global leader in cutting-edge research.”

    “In moments of uncertainty, it is essential that we protect the integrity of Massachusetts’ renowned biomedical research ecosystem, which contributes immensely to our nation’s research enterprise,” said Michael Collins, chancellor of the UMass Chan Medical School. “We are profoundly grateful to Governor Healey and her administration for their leadership in recognizing the urgent need to support research and innovation in the commonwealth, and we look forward to working with the Legislature to assure passage of this timely initiative.”  

    Source link