Tag: Science

  • UNC Merges Information and Data Science Schools, Names New AI Vice Provost

    UNC Merges Information and Data Science Schools, Names New AI Vice Provost

    Manning Hall at University of North Carolina Chapel HillUNCThe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill announced last week that it will merge the School of Information and Library Science and the School of Data Science and Society into a single, yet-to-be-named institution focused on applied technology, information science and artificial intelligence.

    The merger, announced in a joint letter from Chancellor Lee H. Roberts and Interim Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost James W. Dean Jr., represents what administrators called “a bold step forward” in positioning Carolina as a national leader in data and AI education.

    Dr. Stanley Ahalt, current dean of the School of Data Science and Society, will serve as inaugural dean of the new school. Dr. Jeffrey Bardzell, dean of the School of Information and Library Science, will continue leading SILS through the transition while also assuming a newly created secondary appointment as Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer and Vice Provost for AI.

    “Information technologies, especially generative AI, are having a transformational impact,” the letter stated. “This new school is a bold step forward in our commitment to preparing students for a world increasingly shaped by data, information and artificial intelligence.”

    The AI vice provost position, which will become full-time once the new school is operational, will coordinate the university’s response to artificial intelligence across all campus units.

    “Dean Bardzell has been a key voice informing our thinking about AI campuswide,” Roberts and Dean wrote. “We are grateful to have his experience in the classroom, administration and research guiding our efforts.”

    The announcement comes as universities nationwide grapple with integrating AI into curriculum and operations. UNC joins a growing number of institutions restructuring academic units to address what administrators describe as rapid technological change.

    While the decision to merge has been finalized, administrators said that implementation plans remain under development. The university will establish a task force, advisory committee and multiple working groups to determine operational details.

    “Faculty, staff and students will be engaged throughout,” the announcement stated. Both schools will maintain current academic programs during the transition, with administrators expressing hope the merger will support enrollment growth and expanded impact.

    SILS, established in 1931, has approximately 600 students across bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral programs, with strengths in information ethics, library science and human-centered information design.

    SDSS, founded in 2019, has grown to roughly 400 students and focuses on computational methods, statistical analysis and data science applications across disciplines.

    “Both SILS and SDSS bring distinct strengths and areas of excellence to Carolina — technical expertise, humanistic inquiry and a deep understanding of the societal implications of emerging technologies,” administrators wrote.

    The letter noted that the merger is “driven by long-term possibilities” rather than budget constraints, with a focus on growth and expanding both schools’ “powerhouse academic programs.”

    University officials did not provide a timeline for completing the merger or naming the new school. They also did not specify budget details or projected enrollment targets.

    The announcement marks the latest in a series of administrative restructuring efforts at UNC-Chapel Hill, which has seen several organizational changes in recent years as it responds to shifting academic priorities and funding models.

    Source link

  • How teachers and administrators can overcome resistance to NGSS

    How teachers and administrators can overcome resistance to NGSS

    Key points:

    Although the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were released more than a decade ago, adoption of them varies widely in California. I have been to districts that have taken the standards and run with them, but others have been slow to get off the ground with NGSS–even 12 years after their release. In some cases, this is due to a lack of funding, a lack of staffing, or even administrators’ lack of understanding of the active, student-driven pedagogies championed by the NGSS.

    Another potential challenge to implementing NGSS with fidelity comes from teachers’ and administrators’ epistemological beliefs–simply put, their beliefs about how people learn. Teachers bring so much of themselves to the classroom, and that means teaching in a way they think is going to help their students learn. So, it’s understandable that teachers who have found success with traditional lecture-based methods may be reluctant to embrace an inquiry-based approach. It also makes sense that administrators who are former teachers will expect classrooms to look the same as when they were teaching, which may mean students sitting in rows, facing the front, writing down notes.

    Based on my experience as both a science educator and an administrator, here are some strategies for encouraging both teachers and administrators to embrace the NGSS.

    For teachers: Shift expectations and embrace ‘organized chaos’

    A helpful first step is to approach the NGSS not as a set of standards, but rather a set of performance expectations. Those expectations include all three dimensions of science learning: disciplinary core ideas (DCIs), science and engineering practices (SEPs), and cross-cutting concepts (CCCs). The DCIs reflect the things that students know, the SEPs reflect what students are doing, and the CCCs reflect how students think. This three-dimensional approach sets the stage for a more active, engaged learning environment where students construct their own understanding of science content knowledge.

    To meet expectations laid out in the NGSS, teachers can start by modifying existing “recipe labs” to a more inquiry-based model that emphasizes student construction of knowledge. Resources like the NGSS-aligned digital curriculum from Kognity can simplify classroom implementation by providing a digital curriculum that empowers teachers with options for personalized instruction. Additionally, the Wonder of Science can help teachers integrate real-life phenomena into their NGSS-aligned labs to help provide students with real-life contexts to help build an understanding of scientific concepts related to. Lastly, Inquiry Hub offers open-source full-year curricula that can also aid teachers with refining their labs, classroom activities, and assessments.  

    For these updated labs to serve their purpose, teachers will need to reframe classroom management expectations to focus on student engagement and discussion. This may mean embracing what I call “organized chaos.” Over time, teachers will build a sense of efficacy through small successes, whether that’s spotting a studentconstructing their own knowledge or documenting an increased depth of knowledge in an entire class. The objective is to build on student understanding across the entire classroom, which teachers can do with much more confidence if they know that their administrators support them.

    For administrators: Rethink evaluations and offer support

    A recent survey found that 59 percent of administrators in California, where I work, understood how to support teachers with implementing the NGSS. Despite this, some administrators may need to recalibrate their expectations of what they’ll see when they observe classrooms. What they might see is organized chaos happening: students out of their seats, students talking, students engaged in all different sorts of activities. This is what NGSS-aligned learning looks like. 

    To provide a clear focus on student-centered learning indicators, they can revise observation rubrics to align with NGSS, or make their lives easier and use this one. As administrators track their teachers’ NGSS implementation, it helps to monitor their confidence levels. There will always be early implementers who take something new and run with it, and these educators can be inspiring models for those who are less eager to change.

    The overall goal for administrators is to make classrooms safe spaces for experimentation and growth. The more administrators understand about the NGSS, the better they can support teachers in implementing it. They may not know all the details of the DCIs, SEPs, and CCCs, but they must accept that the NGSS require students to be more active, with the teacher acting as more of a facilitator and guide, rather than the keeper of all the knowledge.

    Based on my experience in both teaching and administration roles, I can say that constructivist science classrooms may look and sound different–with more student talk, more questioning, and more chaos. By understanding these differences and supporting teachers through this transition, administrators ensure that all California students develop the deeper scientific thinking that NGSS was designed to foster.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Strengthening family engagement to support the science of reading

    Strengthening family engagement to support the science of reading

    Key points:

    While most teachers are eager to implement the science of reading, many lack the time and tools to connect these practices to home-based support, according to a new national survey from Lexia, a Cambium Learning Group brand.

    The 2025 Back-to-School Teacher Survey, with input from more than 1,500 K–12 educators nationwide, points to an opportunity for district leaders to work in concert with teachers to provide families with the science of reading-based literacy resources they need to support student reading success.

    Key insights from the survey include:

    • 60 percent of teachers are either fully trained or interested in learning more about the science of reading
    • Only 15 percent currently provide parents with structured, evidence-based literacy activities
    • 79 percent of teachers cite time constraints and parents’ work schedules as top barriers to family engagement
    • Just 10 percent report that their schools offer comprehensive family literacy programs
    • Teachers overwhelmingly want in-person workshops and video tutorials to help parents support reading at home

    “Teachers know that parental involvement can accelerate literacy and they’re eager for ways to strengthen those connections,” said Lexia President Nick Gaehde. “This data highlights how districts can continue to build on momentum in this new school year by offering scalable, multilingual, and flexible family engagement strategies that align with the science of reading.”

    Teachers also called for:

    • Better technology tools for consistent school-to-home communication
    • Greater multilingual support to serve diverse communities
    • Professional learning that includes family engagement training

    Gaehde concluded, “Lexia’s survey reflects the continued national emphasis on Structured Literacy and shows that equipping families is essential to driving lasting student outcomes. At Lexia we’re committed to partnering with districts and teachers to strengthen the school-to-home connection. By giving educators practical tools and data-driven insights, we help teachers and families work together–ensuring every child has the literacy support they need to thrive.”

    The complete findings are available in a new report, From Classroom to Living Room: Exploring Parental Involvement in K–12 Literacy. District leaders can also download the accompanying infographic, “What District Leaders Need To Know: 5 Key Findings About Family Engagement and Literacy,” which highlights the most pressing data points and strategic opportunities for improving school-to-home literacy connections.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Trump Hijacks American Science and Scholarship (opinion)

    Trump Hijacks American Science and Scholarship (opinion)

    In a nearly daily barrage, President Trump and his MAGA forces heave fireballs at science and higher education. In the last weeks alone, the administration has been busy hurling a demand for a billion dollars from the University of California, Los Angeles; axing proven mRNA vaccine research; and demanding colleges submit expanded sex and race data from student applications, among other startling detonations. Amid the onslaught of these unsettling developments, it would be easy to miss the decisive change in conventional scientific and scholarly practice, one so vast that it threatens to overturn our revered American research achievements.

    On Aug. 7, Trump issued an executive order that uproots more than a half century of peer review, the standard practice for funding federal scientific grants. Taking approval out of the hands of experts, the new rule makes grant approval contingent upon the assent of political puppets who will approve only those awards the president finds acceptable.

    When I first came upon the order, I was immediately struck by how closely it resembles the unquestioned authority granted to senior political appointees in Soviet Russia and Communist China. As if dictated by commissars, the new rule requires officials to fund only those proposals that advance presidential priorities. Cast aside, peer review is now merely advisory.

    It took my breath away, suddenly realizing how completely threatening the new order is to the very foundations of the democratic practice of research and scholarship. As Victor Ambros, Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of microRNA, aptly put it, the order constitutes a “a shameless, full-bore Soviet-style politicization of American science that will smother what until now has been the world’s pre-eminent scientific enterprise.”

    Decades ago, long before I entered higher ed, I worked at a small publishing company in New York that translated Russian scientific and technical books and journals into English. As head of translations, I’d travel once or twice a year over many years to Moscow and Leningrad (now, once again, St. Petersburg) to negotiate with Soviet publishers to obtain rights to our English translations.

    One evening in the late ’60s, I invited a distinguished physicist to join me for dinner at a Ukrainian restaurant not far from my hotel in Moscow. We talked for some time openly over a bottle of vodka about new trends in physics, among other themes. As dinner drew to a close, he let his guard down and whispered a confidence. Mournfully, he told me he’d just received an invitation to deliver the keynote address at a scientific conference in England, but the Party official at his institution wouldn’t permit him to travel. I still remember the sense of being privy to a deep and troubling secret, reflected in the silence that followed and the palpable unease at the table. Shame enveloped him.

    Over a couple of dozen years of frequent trips to the Soviet Union and Communist China, I never met a single Party official. My day-to-day interactions were with administrators, editors, researchers and faculty who managed scientific publishing or were involved in teaching, research or other routine matters. The Party secretary remained hidden behind a curtain of power as in The Wizard of Oz.

    On one rare occasion in the 2010s, at a graduation ceremony at a local technical university in Beijing where I ran a couple of online master’s degrees in partnership with Stevens Institute of Technology, a student seated next to me in the audience drew near and identified a well-dressed official several rows ahead of us up front. “The Party secretary,” he revealed in hushed tones. I saw the officer later at the reception, standing by himself with a dour expression, as faculty, students and family members bustled about at a distance.

    One afternoon at that university in Beijing, I came upon a huddle of faculty in a corner office. As they chatted quietly among themselves in Mandarin, I took a seat at the far end of the room to give them privacy. But I could make out that a man in the group was disturbed, his face flushed and his eyes close to tears. Later, I approached one of the faculty members in the group with whom I’d grown close and asked what had troubled his colleague.

    “Oh,” he replied. “He often gets upset when the Party secretary objects to something we’re doing. He worries that our joint program is in jeopardy.”

    These personal reflections, based on my limited encounters with scientists and faculty, do not reveal the full extent of the control over scientific research exerted by Party functionaries. But if you compare the president’s new order with that of the Party’s authority in Soviet Russia and Communist China, you’ll find they’re all out of the same playbook.

    The order’s demand for political appointee approval takes decisions out of the hands of apolitical, merit-based peer-review panels. In the Soviet Union and China, adherence to the Party line and loyalty to the regime was (or is) paramount, with grant funds being used to advance ideological or state power. Similarly, the president’s order establishes a party line, stating that federal money cannot be used to support racial preferences, “denial … of the sex binary in humans,” illegal immigration or initiatives deemed “anti-American.”

    Relegating peer review is no small matter. It is at the center of modern science, distributing responsibility for evaluating scholarly work among experts, rather than holding this responsibility in the fist of authority. Even though peer review is under criticism today for its anonymity and potential biases, among other perplexing features, when researchers referee proposals, they nevertheless participate in a stirring example of collaborative democracy, maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarship—characteristics anathema to far-right ideologues.

    Of all the blasts shattering American science and higher education since the president assumed office in January, this executive order may be the most devastating. It is not one of Trump’s random shots at research and scholarship, but an assault on democracy itself.

    Source link

  • Getting it ‘right’ – a reflection on integrating Service Learning at scale into a large Faculty of Science and Engineering

    Getting it ‘right’ – a reflection on integrating Service Learning at scale into a large Faculty of Science and Engineering

    This blog was kindly authored by Professor Lynne Bianchi, Vice Dean for Social Responsibility & Equality, Diversity, Inclusion and Accessibility, at the University of Manchester

    I recently had the fortune to be part of a panel discussing the place of Service Learning in higher education, chaired by HEPI. My reflections before and since may inspire you to take time to think about your perspective on the nature and role of Service Learning in fast-changing university and civic landscapes. In its simplest sense, Service Learning is an educational approach that combines academic study with community service.

    In my role within a large science and engineering faculty, I have rallied our staff and students to think seriously about the features, advantages and benefits of Service Learning in science and engineering contexts. For our university, this teaching and learning approach isn’t new, with expertise in the biomedical sciences and humanities teaching us much about the way in which undergraduate students can create benefit for our local communities whilst enriching their own academic experiences.

    In this blog, I build on my own background as a teacher and higher education academic and draw on my experience in curriculum design when focusing on how we can provide authentic and impactful Service Learning experiences for our undergraduates.

    What do we mean by the ‘right’ learning experiences?

    It doesn’t take long working in this area to unearth a wide range of terms that are used interchangeably – from place-based learning, real-world learning, community-engaged learning, practice-based learning, critical urban pedagogy, industry-inspired learning and more. A gelling feature is that to get Service Learning working well there must be an authentic benefit to each party involved. The students should develop skills and understanding directly required within their degree, and the partner should have a problem explored, solved, or informed. In essence, the experience must lead to a ‘win-win’ outcome(s) to be genuine.

    In our context in science and engineering, we have envisioned Service Learning working well, and considered this to include when:

    For students:

    • Learning has relevance: work on a project, individually or in groups, is contextualised by a problem, issue or challenge that is authentic (as opposed to hypothetical).
    • Learning has resonance: developing and applying skills and knowledge to inform the problem, issue or project that dovetails with existing course specifications and requirements.

    For partners:

    • They are engaged: partners are involved in the design and delivery of the project to some extent. This may vary in the depth or level of engagement and requires both sides to appreciate the needs of each other.
    • They are enriching: partners identify real issues that matter and expose elements of the work environment that enrich students’ awareness of the workplace and career pathways.

    When is the right time for students to engage in service learning?

    I am still pondering this question as there are so many variables and options that influence the choice. Which year group should service learning drop into? Or, does a developmental over time approach suit better? Is Service Learning more impactful in the later undergraduate years, or should it be an integral part of each year of their experience with us? Realistically, there won’t be a one-size-fits-all all model, and there are benefits and challenges to each. What will need to underpin whichever approach we take, will be the focused need to elicit the starting points of our students, our staff and our partners in whichever context.

    Going from ‘zero to hero’ in Service Learning will require training and support for all parties. My experience working across the STEM sector for nearly three decades has taught me that no one partner is the same as another – what is a big deal to one can mean nothing to another. My thinking is that we need to see each person involved in the Service Learning experience as a core ‘partner’ and each has learning starting points, aspirations and apprehensions. Our role as programme leaders is to identify a progression model that appreciates that this is ‘learning’ and that scaffolds and key training will be required at different times – even within the process itself.

    What support will be required to mobilise this model at scale?

    In my early career at this university, I spent time within the Teaching & Learning Student Experience Professional Support teams, where I saw firsthand the integral way that any university programme relies on expertise in taking theoretical ideas into practice. The interplay between project management, planning, timetabling, eLearning, marketing and communications and student experience support teams, to name some, will have play such critical roles in achieving excellence in Service Learning. Working at scale in our faculty across 10 different discipline areas, will require integrated work with other faculties to harness the power of interdisciplinary projects and digital support for course delivery and assessment that can embrace an internal-external interface.

    Support for scaling up will also require a culture of risk-taking to be valued and championed. Over the introductory years, we need to provide a sense of supported exploration, a culture of learning and reflection, and an ethos where failure is rarely a negative, but an opportunity. Of course, science and engineering disciplines bring with them our obligations to accrediting bodies, and a close dialogue with them about ambition, relevance and need for this enriching approach needs to be clearly articulated and agreed so that any course alteration becomes a course invigoration rather than a compromise.

    Faculty culture and the way the university and the sector views and reviews SL will have a significant implication on practice and people feeling safe to innovate. As the university forges and launches its 2035 strategy the spaces for innovation and development are increasingly championed, and the months and years ahead will be ones to watch in terms of establishing a refreshed version of teaching and learning for our students.

    In closing this short exploration of Service Learning, I can feel a positive tension in the air – the excitement to work together to further invigorate our student experience whilst supporting our staff and partners to embrace varied new opportunities. The ‘getting it right’ story will have many chapters, many endings as the genres, characters and plots are there for us all to create – or more pertinently ‘co-create’! What drives me most to remain in this space of uncertainty for a while longer is the anticipation of creating experiences that truly make a difference for good. As our universities transform themselves over the coming years, I invite you to join us in the dialogue and development as we have so much to learn through collaboration.

    Source link

  • In training educators to use AI, we must not outsource the foundational work of teaching

    In training educators to use AI, we must not outsource the foundational work of teaching

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    I was conferencing with a group of students when I heard the excitement building across my third grade classroom. A boy at the back table had been working on his catapult project for over an hour through our science lesson, into recess, and now during personalized learning time. I watched him adjust the wooden arm for what felt like the 20th time, measure another launch distance, and scribble numbers on his increasingly messy data sheet.

    “The longer arm launches farther!” he announced to no one in particular, his voice carrying the matter-of-fact tone of someone who had just uncovered a truth about the universe. I felt that familiar teacher thrill, not because I had successfully delivered a physics lesson, but because I hadn’t taught him anything at all.

    Last year, all of my students chose a topic they wanted to explore and pursued a personal learning project about it. This particular student had discovered the relationship between lever arm length and projectile distance entirely through his own experiments, which involved mathematics, physics, history, and data visualization.

    Other students drifted over to try his longer-armed design, and soon, a cluster of 8-year-olds were debating trajectory angles and comparing medieval siege engines to ancient Chinese catapults.

    They were doing exactly what I dream of as an educator: learning because they wanted to know, not because they had to perform.

    Then, just recently, I read about the American Federation of Teachers’ new $23 million partnership with Microsoft, OpenAI, and Anthropic to train educators how to use AI “wisely, safely and ethically.” The training sessions would teach them how to generate lesson plans and “microwave” routine communications with artificial intelligence.

    My heart sank.

    As an elementary teacher who also conducts independent research on the intersection of AI and education, and writes the ‘Algorithmic Mind’ column about it for Psychology Today, I live in the uncomfortable space between what technology promises and what children actually need. Yes, I use AI, but only for administrative work like drafting parent newsletters, organizing student data, and filling out required curriculum planning documents. It saves me hours on repetitive tasks that have nothing to do with teaching.

    I’m all for showing educators how to use AI to cut down on rote work. But I fear the AFT’s $23 million initiative isn’t about administrative efficiency. According to their press release, they’re training teachers to use AI for “instructional planning” and as a “thought partner” for teaching decisions. One featured teacher describes using AI tools to help her communicate “in the right voice” when she’s burned out. Another says AI can assist with “late-night lesson planning.”

    That sounds more like outsourcing the foundational work of teaching.

    Watching my student discover physics principles through intrinsic curiosity reminded me why this matters so much. When we start relying on AI to plan our lessons and find our teaching voice, we’re replacing human judgment with algorithmic thinking at the very moment students need us most. We’re prioritizing the product of teaching over the process of learning.

    Most teachers I talk to share similar concerns about AI. They focus on cheating and plagiarism. They worry about students outsourcing their thinking and how to assess learning when they can’t tell if students actually understand anything. The uncomfortable truth is that students have always found ways to avoid genuine thinking when we value products over process. I used SparkNotes. Others used Google. Now, students use ChatGPT.

    The problem is not technology; it’s that we continue prioritizing finished products over messy learning processes. And as long as education rewards predetermined answers over curiosity, students will find shortcuts.

    That’s why teachers need professional development that moves in the opposite direction. They need PD that helps them facilitate genuine inquiry and human connection; foster classrooms where confusion is valued as a precursor to understanding; and develop in students an intrinsic motivation.

    When I think about that boy measuring launch distances with handmade tools, I realize he was demonstrating the distinctly human capacity to ask questions that only he wanted to address. He didn’t need me to structure his investigation or discovery. He needed the freedom to explore, materials to experiment with, and time to pursue his curiosity wherever it led.

    The learning happened not because I efficiently delivered content, but because I stepped back and trusted his natural drive to understand.

    Children don’t need teachers who can generate lesson plans faster or give AI-generated feedback, but educators who can inspire questions, model intellectual courage, and create communities where wonder thrives and real-world problems are solved.

    The future belongs to those who can combine computational tools with human wisdom, ethics, and creativity. But this requires us to maintain the cognitive independence to guide AI systems rather than becoming dependent on them.

    Every time I watch my students make unexpected connections, I’m reminded that the most important learning happens in the spaces between subjects, in the questions that emerge from genuine curiosity, in the collaborative thinking that builds knowledge through relationships. We can’t microwave that. And we shouldn’t try.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    For more news on AI in education, visit eSN’s Digital Learning hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Octopus researcher Meg Mindlin on science art and video for social media

    Octopus researcher Meg Mindlin on science art and video for social media

    What’s it like to be an artist and scientist? Meg Mindlin studies octopuses, shares videos for Instagram Reels and TikTok. And, she’s a talented artist who helps people communicate science in engaging way. I felt lucky to attend her thesis defense live on YouTube.

    In this conversation, we talk about her research, dealing with the political spectrum when speaking up on social media, and sharing her art online.

    Bio

    Meg Mindlin (@invertebabe) is a molecular biologist and science communicator. She combines her background in art with an ability to communicate complex science in an engaging manner. She received her Masters in Biology studying octopuses and how ocean acidification effects a molecular process known as RNA editing.

    Meg Mindlin sits on a desk at the front of a lecture hall. She's just defended her master's thesis, titled Tickled Zinc. On the screen behind her is a beautiful title slide for her research presentation which features original art.

    Source link

  • Recipe for Science Superpower? “Pay Your Taxes With Pride”

    Recipe for Science Superpower? “Pay Your Taxes With Pride”

    Denmark’s world-leading success in commercializing research should not be written off as a one-off confined to the country’s booming weight loss drug industry, a Nobel-winning scientist has argued.

    Since Novo Nordisk’s diabetes treatment Ozempic was sold as weight-loss drug Wegovy, the Danish biotech company has quickly grown into one of the world’s biggest companies and Denmark’s largest single corporate taxpayer, contributing almost $4 billion in corporate taxes in the year ending March 2025—about half of the country’s total corporate take.

    A further $3.8 billion in income taxes—which can reach up to 56 percent for higher earners—was also collected from Novo Nordisk staff in 2024.

    That success has led to major interest in how Denmark’s model of combined strong fundamental and applied research paid off so spectacularly and whether it can be replicated, although some pundits have wondered whether the serendipitous discovery of Ozempic—whose roots lie in research on snake venom—represents a one-shot for its industrial science sector.

    Speaking to Times Higher Education, however, the Nobel laureate Morten Meldal, who is professor of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen, said Novo Nordisk’s story should not be seen as an outlier in Danish research but one of many prosperous science-based companies based in the country of just six million people.

    “Novo Nordisk is the result of Denmark’s system—its success is directly attributable to how our society operates: We have high taxes, but those taxes result in huge tax-exempt industrial foundations funding science and creating opportunities for both academic and industrial success. That is why Novo Nordisk happened in Denmark,” said Meldal, who won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 2022.

    While Novo Nordisk—whose $570 billion valuation last year was famously larger than Denmark’s entire GDP—has captured the interest of research policymakers, it should be understood in a wider context of sustained investment in research from industry, he added.

    “Look at Novozymes, Maersk, Carlsberg—if you consider how much our companies invest in research, it is far more than the government. Novo Nordisk has the blockbuster product now, but it arrived within the context of our system—there are lots of companies doing well by commercializing research.”

    Noting the advances made by U.S.-based Eli Lilly, which has two medications—Mounjaro and Zepbound—approved for use by American regulators, Meldal predicted that Novo Nordisk’s undisputed advantage in this area will eventually be eroded. But Denmark’s system will produce other big science success stories, said the biochemist, who leads the synthesis group in the chemistry department at the Carlsberg Laboratory.

    “We have won so much with Novo Nordisk, but its scientific success is the rule, not the exception,” he said, underlining the importance of basic research to create the opportunities of tomorrow.

    Denmark’s success in research has an even simpler root, continued Meldal, who was speaking at the annual Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting held in southern Germany last month.

    “The best investment that any country can make is education; the payback on this is huge, and that allows for other investments, such as science. To do this you need our high-tax system and a government dedicated to long-term success of the entire society,” he said.

    “My advice to any country who wants Denmark’s system of science is simple: Pay your taxes with joy and ask for return on investment for the community.”

    Source link

  • Be a Visible Expert with Dr Lily Rosewater of Pitch Science

    Be a Visible Expert with Dr Lily Rosewater of Pitch Science

    Dr Lily Rosewater designs websites, brand assets, and has a service for social media on demand at her company, Pitch Science. I knew she’d be a great expert to share with you. She joins me live from Australia to talk about what it means to be a visible expert for scientists and researchers.

    Lily is an expert for scientist websites, social media, and branding through her company, Pitch Science. What about you? What would it mean to be more visible as an expert yourself? We talk about how many academics are known in their communities, but hidden online. Are you one of the HiddenExperts™? Whether it’s been intentional for you or not, you may want people to find you and your research online. Lily can help you too.

    This interview will be also be shared on Spotify soon.

    Bio

    Dr Lily Rosewater is a science communicator, neuroscientist, and founder of Pitch Science. Armed with experience in both scientific research and digital marketing, Lily helps life science organisations and individual scientists share their brilliant ideas with the public to produce meaningful change.

    Lily Rosewater, PhD

    At Pitch Science, she turns science into stories through her purposeful, strategic, and human-centred online science content. Lily’s branding and website design services transform HiddenExperts™️ into VisibleExperts, so that scientists and science brands are ready to guide online conversations and get their work seen by those who matter. She is also empowering scientists to do science communication themselves and extend their reach beyond traditional academic channels with science communication training sessions and her Pitch Lab community. Because the more research expertise is shared online, the more it benefits everyone.

    Source link

  • National Science Foundation Suspends Grants at UCLA

    National Science Foundation Suspends Grants at UCLA

    The Justice Department this week accused UCLA of failing to protect its Jewish students.

    Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

    (This article has been updated with comment from UCLA.)

    The National Science Foundation said Thursday that it’s suspending grant awards at the University of California, Los Angeles. 

    An NSF spokesperson said that the university’s awards “are not in alignment with current NSF priorities and/or programmatic goals,” though they didn’t offer more specifics. NSF changed its priorities in April and, as a result, cut off funding to programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion and those aimed at combating misinformation

    Freelance journalist Dan Garisto wrote on BlueSky that nearly 300 grants at UCLA are now suspended. That includes a $25 million grant that supports the university’s Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics. (In 2022, UCLA had about 450 grants from the NSF, totaling more than $350 million.)

    UCLA chancellor Julio Frenk wrote in a letter to the campus community that the freeze extended beyond NSF to include grants from the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies.

    “This is not only a loss to the researchers who rely on critical grants,” Frenk wrote. “It is a loss for Americans across the nation whose work, health, and future depend on the groundbreaking work we do.”

    Frenk noted that UCLA was prepared for a grant freeze and has developed contingency plans. “We will do everything we can to protect the interests of faculty, students and staff—and to defend our values and principles,” he pledged.

    The Associated Press reported that the freeze affected $339 million in federal grants.

    The grant suspension comes as UCLA finds itself the Trump administration’s latest target in its growing war with higher education. Earlier this week, the university settled a lawsuit in which a group of Jewish students alleged that UCLA enabled pro-Palestinian activists to cut off Jewish students’ access to parts of campus. On the same day the settlement was announced, the Justice Department accused UCLA of violating the federal civil rights law that bars antisemitism and race-based discrimination.

    Frenk said the government claimed “antisemitism and bias as the reasons” for the freeze. But he argued that Trump’s “far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.” 

    He added that UCLA shares the goal of eradicating antisemitism, detailing the steps the university has taken in the last year to address the issue, including establishing new policies for campus protests.

    UCLA has until Aug. 5 to respond to the DOJ’s notice of violation; DOJ officials threatened that the university would “pay a heavy price for putting Jewish Americans at risk.” The Justice Department is also investigating the admissions practices at UCLA, but that inquiry hasn’t wrapped up yet.

    Source link