Send us a link
Patients in red states and blue states alike benefit from work funded by the National Institutes of Health
Some lessons from the health community’s long battle with misinformation.
The outline cuts at least $7 billion for research on climate change, diseases, and energy.
Government scientists are being ordered not to talk about their research — and it’s only week one.
Does that mean the original research was wrong? No. It means science is really, really hard.
Vaccines work, climate change is real — and scientists’ tweets for the Trump administration.
There’s no shortage of misinformation in the world — particularly around health and science topics.
Embargoes allow journals, universities, nonprofits, and corporations to decide what’s important — and when. That should be up to journalists.
Twenty percent of medical researchers do up to 95 percent of the peer reviewing.
It's easy to misrepresent the findings from brain scan studies. Just ask a dead salmon.
Greenpeace accepts climate science. So why do they dismiss the science around GMOs?
These are dark times for science so we asked hundreds of researchers how to fix it.
A group of researchers has released a data set on nearly 70,000 users of the online dating site OkCupid. The data dump breaks the cardinal rule of social science research ethics: It took identifiable personal data without permission.
Science "deserves better than to be twisted out of proportion and turned into morning show gossip."
The field is currently undergoing a painful period of introspection. It will emerge stronger than before.
A new study shows that p-values have become more popular — and more meaningless — over time.
Some researchers think science should be small again.
New startups like this one are trying to disrupt traditional academic publishing.
How Sci-Hub breaks the paywall and how did academic journals get so expensive?
The most prestigious journals publish the least reliable science (at least when looking at the available evidence from experimental fields).
Scientists can be stubborn. They can use their gravitas to steamroll new ideas. Which means those new ideas often only prevail when older scientists die.
We have little or no evidence that peer review 'works,' but we have lots of evidence of its downside.
