An entomologist with a corporate background is President Donald Trump's pick to head research programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Trump intends to nominate Scott Hutchins, global leader of integrated field sciences for Corteva Agriscience, for undersecretary of Agriculture for research, education and economics, the White House said yesterday.
Today, Hungary’s parliament approved an amendment that makes it legally possible to transfer a large part of the budget of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA) in Budapest to the country’s newly established Ministry of Innovation and Technology (MIT). The vote is the first step in a process that may bring almost €88 million of MTS’s €124 million annual budget under direct control of MIT; the next step is a parliamentary vote on the science budget itself on Friday. The government’s proposal is widely expected to pass.
Minister for Innovation and Technology László Palkovics has said the transfer will unite Hungary’s innovation and science policy and end fragmentation of research budgets. But many scientists see the move as a power grab by an increasingly authoritarian regime that would extend political influence over science spending and research agendas.
Last week, ScienceInsider talked to MTA President László Lovász, who has negotiated at length with Palkovics in search of a last-minute compromise. This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
A pair of proposed hydroelectric dams that will encroach on the habitats of critically endangered primates—in Guinea and Indonesia—are receiving fierce criticism from conservation groups, who fault what they call inadequate scientific review of the harmful effects of these big infrastructure projects.
The government of Guinea was finalizing plans last week for the construction of a 294-megawatt hydroelectric dam in the country’s Moyen Bafing National Park, which wildlife experts say could lead to the loss of up to 1500 critically endangered western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus), a subspecies whose population has fallen by more than 80% over the past 20 years. Guinea created the national park only this year as a refuge for an estimated 4000 chimpanzees.
A dam planned for Sumatra in Indonesia faces similar criticism; constructing the roads, tunnels, and power lines necessary to service the dam would deforest the habitat of the Tapanuli orangutan subspecies (Pongo tapanuliensis), discovered only last year, which has a remaining population of just 800 apes.
A new report finds no evidence that efforts to provide support for the chronically homeless improve their health or reduce the cost of their care. But that doesn’t mean the U.S. government should stop funding programs that offer permanent supportive housing (PSH), say the authors of the study, conducted by a panel convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Instead, the report calls for more analyses of what types of interventions work best for which populations.
“As a former clinician and public health official it would seem logical, if not obvious, that if you can keep people safe with housing they should have better health outcomes,” says the report’s chair, Kenneth Kizer, who leads the Institute for Population Health Improvement at the University of California, Davis. “Indeed, one of our recommendations is that we need to increase the supply of permanent supportive housing.”
The chronically homeless represent less than 20% of the 550,000 homeless people in the United States. But that group tends to require more social and medical services than those with even occasional access to safe and stable housing environments do.
Since it was first funded in 2009, the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) in Washington, D.C., a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) program aimed at using government funding to push promising technologies from the laboratory into the marketplace, has been headed by scientists bearing doctorates in fields such as chemistry and engineering. Now, President Donald Trump’s administration wants a lawyer and energy investor to take over.
The 10 July announcement is prompting questions about the direction ARPA-E will take under Trump—and whether someone with Genatowski’s experience is equipped to lead a small, tight-knit agency where discussions can touch on the latest developments in fields as diverse as nuclear fusion and batteries.
Got an idea that could transform the world? The National Science Foundation (NSF) is all ears.
The $7.8 billion research agency in Alexandria, Virginia, already gets way more good research proposals from scientists than it can fund. But NSF officials worry they still might be missing something important. So this fall they will give the public a chance to win glory—and some money—in a contest dubbed The NSF 2026 Idea Machine.
“We don’t want [the idea] to be something NSF is already doing,” says Suzi Iacono, head of NSF’s Office of Integrative Activities. “We want it to be exciting, and original, and important in terms of the potential benefits to science and to society.”
COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND—There may be a turf war on between two U.S. federal agencies over who will regulate the emerging industry of cultured meat, but you wouldn’t know it from the presentations by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at a meeting here yesterday.
In a daylong discussion of safety considerations, the agency asserted its jurisdiction over products made of chicken, beef, pork, and seafood cells grown in a culture medium, despite recent calls—including a proposal from lawmakers in the House of Representatives—to leave that responsibility to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Cultured meat, also sometimes called clean meat or lab-grown meat, is made by extracting cells from an animal and prompting them to mature into muscle fibers and grow in a bioreactor. No products have yet hit the market, though several companies have suggested that their first generation of cultured meat will be available in the next 5 years.
Toxicologists today unveiled a digital chemical safety screening tool that could greatly reduce the need for six common animal tests. Those tests account for nearly 60% of the estimated 3 million to 4 million animals used annually in risk testing worldwide.
The computerized tool—built on a massive database of molecular structures and existing safety data—appears to match, and sometimes improve on, the results of animal tests for properties such as skin sensitization and eye irritation, the researchers report in today’s issue of Toxicological Sciences. But it also has limitations; for instance, the method can’t reliably evaluate a chemical’s risk of causing cancer. And it’s not clear how open regulatory agencies will be to adopting a nonanimal approach.
Still, “We’re really excited about the potential of this model,” says toxicologist Nicole Kleinstreuer, deputy director of a center that evaluates alternatives to animal testing at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in Durham, North Carolina. Kleinstreuer, who was not involved in the work, adds that using “big data … to build predictive models is an extremely promising avenue for reducing and replacing animal testing.”
The world’s second-biggest private funder of medical research, the London-based Wellcome Trust, is taking a high-stakes gamble. The charity announced this week that it would put £250 million (about $330 million) toward pursuing “bold ideas that would fall outside the remit of conventional life sciences funding.” The money is earmarked for ideas that have a high risk of failing or “need to overcome a major scientific or technical hurdle.” The money will also be open to researchers without a background in life sciences.
Called the Wellcome Leap Fund, the initiative will be set up as a subsidiary of the Wellcome Trust with an independent board; the search for a CEO will start shortly and its first research programs could start in late 2020. James Wilsdon, a science policy specialist at the University of Sheffield in the United Kingdom, says considering people outside of biomedical research is a good idea. “Anything which further opens up Wellcome’s rich vein of funding to those wider communities of health research, practice, and policy is something we should embrace.”
Established in 1936 from the estate of eccentric businessman Henry Wellcome, the Wellcome Trust now has assets topping £23 billion, more than $30 million. Last year, it spent about £900 million on research, more than any other charity in the world except the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle, Washington. The new fund fits into the recent priorities of Wellcome Trust Director Jeremy Farrar, Wilsdon says. The charity, he explains, is“going beyond discovery-led biomedical and life sciences to support other areas of the research and innovation system for global health."
As the tissue samples and DNA of more and more people are shared with researchers, the question of what information buried in those samples to give back is more pressing than ever. Now, a 335-page report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released this morning urges researchers and regulators to return more biological data to the people whose samples yielded it in the first place. Giving back data to individuals is part of a broader push to offer participants a voice in research, especially research on their own tissues—but how best to do it in a way that is helpful to recipients and their physicians remains murky.
The issue has been charged for years, since expanded DNA sequencing started turning up unexpected findings in research participants’ samples that weren’t always connected to the original study—such as a gene predisposing a person to breast cancer in a project studying heart disease. In addition, scientists often uncover mutations or other findings that have questionable medical significance to an individual. A DNA quirk that might raise the risk of disease only marginally, for example, or carry uncertain medical meaning may still merit publication and help advance a field of research. For participants, this distinction can be frustrating. If their DNA is worth publishing and helps boost a scientist’s career, why can’t it also be shared with them?
Given these questions, along with inconsistent regulations, three major U.S. agencies--the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—turned to NASEM for help. And about a year after its work began, the NASEM authors concluded that “the expanded return of results on a cautious basis is the way to go,” says Jeffrey Botkin, a pediatrician and bioethicist at the University of Utah School of Medicine in Salt Lake City, who chaired the committee. Researchers have traditionally focused on returning results that are medically significant, meaning they have a big effect on disease risk, and are medically “actionable,” meaning something can be done to head off that disease. In 2013, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics in Bethesda, Maryland, put out a list of 57 gene mutations that it said fit the bill, although it later said the results should be returned only if people want them.