Unsettled science on social media.

Jonathan Haidt's new book, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness, is a hot seller that makes the case that smartphones and social media are largely responsible for the current mental health crisis among young people and that restricting their use below certain ages (14 for smartphones and 16 for social media) can have a positive effect on reversing or slowing the problem. A social psychologist at New York University Stern School of Business, Haidt has an ability to capture the public zeitgeist and shape thinking around contentious issues. Last week, the US surgeon general called for parental warning labels on social media platforms because of the potential threat to childhood mental health, a possibility bound to be resisted by Big Tech. A clearer view of the science is more crucial than ever. Haidt's book, however, has been criticized by colleagues who dispute whether the science supports his strong claims. Meanwhile, Haidt's ideas are reaching millions-his book has been at or near the top of The New York Times Best Sellers list for weeks and covered extensively in major media outlets-while the criticisms and countervailing data mostly appear in scientific journals.

Mr. Thorp goes to Washington.

On 2 April, I received an email that changed the course of the next 2 weeks. The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, chaired by United States Congressman Brad Wenstrup, invited me to testify along with my counterparts at Nature and The Lancet. The purpose of the public hearing (Academic Malpractice: Examining the Relationship Between Scientific Journals, the Government, and Peer Review) was to determine whether government officials, specifically former National Institutes of Health leaders Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci, steered journals to publish papers suppressing the idea that COVID-19 may have arisen from a lab accident in Wuhan, China. I was not subpoenaed to appear but made the decision to testify voluntarily. My counterparts, who are based in the United Kingdom, decided not to attend.

Bridging two views of autism.

Last week, Science, Science Advances, and Science Translational Medicine published an extensive set of papers from the PsychENCODE Consortium, a multi-institutional collaboration whose aim is to study the genetics of neuropsychiatric disorders such as bipolar disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and schizophrenia. The papers, collectively called PsychENCODE2, apply advances in single-cell and multi-omic technologies to postmortem brain tissue to elucidate factors that may help explain and develop treatments for neuropsychiatric conditions. The new insights gained from these considerable data will hopefully inspire new ways in which the clinical community can find common ground with researchers, something that is not always guaranteed in the contentious mental health field.

Teach philosophy of science.

Much is being made about the erosion of public trust in science. Surveys show a modest decline in the United States from a very high level of trust, but that is seen for other institutions as well. What is apparent from the surveys is that a better explanation of the nature of science-that it is revised as new data surface-would have a strong positive effect on public trust. Because scientists are so aware of this feature, it is often taken for granted that the public understands this too. A step toward addressing this problem would be revising undergraduate and graduate curricula to teach not just theories and techniques but the underlying philosophy of science as well.

Science needs neurodiversity.

All brains work differently. Individuals process information and engage with the world in ways that are influenced by a multitude of biological, cultural, and social factors. In the world of science, these differences are what spark innovation. This is why the scientific community needs to better recognize the enormous potential of neurodiversity and bear in mind that certain behavioral and cognitive traits that may strike some as unusual can be catalytic to the scientific quest.

Misconduct's forgotten victims.

The drumbeat of complaints over the poor treatment of graduate students and postdocs in academic science continues. As explained on this page, there is a seemingly endless "slow-motion crisis" of strikes, failures at collective bargaining, and damaging news stories about the mistreatment of and poor working conditions for graduate students. Meanwhile, a parade of stories about academic fraud and failures to address research integrity undermine public trust in science. These two threads are connected. Although media coverage of research misconduct tends to focus on the motives and actions of high-flying faculty members and their institutions, the casualties of such tumult are hardly mentioned: the trainees who may be traumatized personally and harmed professionally by the clumsy, opaque, and slow way that institutions deal with these incidents.

Music and the mind.

When I was chancellor of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, I tried never to miss the annual concert of the Triangle Youth Symphony. When people asked me why I was such a regular, I complimented the music but also suggested that there were potential future college science majors on the stage. The strong correlation between scientific and musical ability is an association familiar to many scientists, but in recent years, the connections between music and the mind have begun receiving broader attention, partly because of an unexpected partnership between the former long-time director of the US National Institutes of Health Francis Collins, and soprano opera superstar Renée Fleming. I caught up with Collins and Fleming for an extended chat about their shared curiosity regarding the science of music and health.

Earning respect and trust.

Respect for, and trust in, science may be at an all-time low. In the United States, a 2023 Pew Research poll showed that only 57% of the population believed science has had a positive impact on society, and a Gallup poll showed that confidence in higher education was down to 36%. If the Gallup poll were done now, support would likely be even lower, given recent events with university presidents, from questions about their research integrity to their explanations for policies on student speech. I'm frequently asked what can be done about all of this, especially in the realm of science. Many scientists think the challenge has largely to do with science communication, which is certainly important. But first, the scientific community must begin to conduct itself in the same manner that it is asking of the public, and that means treating everyone in the scientific community with respect.

Passion is not misconduct.

University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann was awarded more than $1 million in a lawsuit against bloggers who accused him of scientific misconduct in inflammatory terms, likening his treatment of data to what a noted child molester did to children. The verdict suggests that there are limits to which scientists working on politically sensitive topics can be falsely attacked. But the case also says something profound about the difference between matters of opinion and scientific interpretations that can be worked out through normal academic processes. Although Mann has expressed strong-and even intemperate-emotions and words in political discourse, the finding of the District of Columbia Superior Court boiled down to the fact that it is not an opinion that determines when scientific misconduct occurs but rather, misconduct can be established using known processes.

Science communication at scale.

On the television program MythBusters, which aired on the Discovery Channel from 2003 to 2016, the hosts Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman tested popular myths and ideas arising everywhere from folklore to popular culture, designating them as either "busted" or "confirmed." The show used engaging and entertaining variations on the scientific method to answer questions such as whether you get wetter when walking or running in the rain or what the fastest way is to board an airplane. I hear frequently from young scientists that the show inspired their generation to join the scientific enterprise. I sat down with Savage for an interview about what we can learn about public engagement in science.

Genuine images in 2024.

In recent years, the research community has become increasingly concerned with issues involving the manipulation of images in scientific papers. Some of these alterations-involving images from experimental techniques such as microscopy, flow cytometry, and western blots-are inadvertent and may not change the conclusions of papers. But in rare cases, some are done deliberately to mislead readers. Image sleuths who can detect these alterations, like the scientific integrity consultant Elisabeth Bik, have risen to prominence, as has the website PubPeer, where many of the detected flaws are posted. High-profile incidents, such as one involving the laboratory of former Stanford University President Marc Tessier-Lavigne, have eroded public confidence in science and harmed careers of investigators who missed doctored images coming from their own laboratories. To address these problems, in 2024, the Science family of journals is adopting the use of Proofig, an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered image-analysis tool, to detect altered images across all six of the journals.

More questions than answers.

Weight loss and obesity have been challenging topics in science and public health for decades. While scientists have pursued understanding through studies of metabolism and the microbiome, public health scholars have shown that social factors such as poverty and inadequate health care are also major contributors. And though it is true that excess weight carries with it numerous comorbidities that lower life expectancy and add costs to the health care system, studies also show that it is possible to be overweight and healthy. That doesn't change the fact that obesity can be associated with poor mental health, in part because of the corrosive societal stigma that associates being overweight with mental weakness, not biochemistry.

2024 looms.

Last week, Science reflected on major achievements in science in 2023, from weight loss drugs and a malaria vaccine to exascale computing and advances in artificial intelligence. These are all impressive developments and provide yet more testimony to the power of science to continually expand the quality of our lives while deepening our understanding of the world. Even so, it's hard to end the year without some worries about 2024. Wars in Ukraine and Gaza will grind on in the new year, and the United States is headed toward perhaps the most consequential and divisive presidential election in more than 160 years. These events-and similar ones around the world-will challenge the cohesiveness and determination of the scientific community as never before.

Correction is courageous.

In a year when disagreements over scientific matters like COVID-19 continue to occupy political discourse, the surfacing of a spate of high-profile research errors is regrettable. It's crucial that the public trusts science at a time when so many topics-artificial intelligence, climate change, and pandemics-cast shadows of uncertainty on the future. Errors, intentional or not, erode confidence in science. It's not surprising that science integrity has become a focal point for major institutions in the United States, from the White House to the National Institutes of Health. Evaluating policies on misconduct is essential, but the idea of a scientific ecosystem that is free of errors is an unattainable utopia. However, evolving a more responsive ecosystem is entirely possible, and scientific journals, institutions, and researchers must together move more intentionally in this direction.