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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

First things first.

Although trustees and administrators at universities in the United States are acutely aware of the mental health crisis on their campuses and consistently rate it as one of the most pressing challenges, it usually only gets attention when a tragedy strikes a member of the student body. Those moments illuminate the lack of adequate mental health care for undergraduate and graduate students, but are hastily followed up with meetings admonishing administrators to hire more counselors. Despite the constant drumbeat of these episodes, hardly any universities have prioritized mental health in a comprehensive and proactive way. The newly appointed president of Dartmouth College, Sian Beilock, has taken a refreshing approach in naming campus mental health as the first priority in her inaugural address. It's long past time.

Groundhog Day.

As a long-time academic and university administrator in the United States, I've attended more meetings than I can remember about what "counts" toward faculty hiring, promotion, tenure, and other rewards at institutions of higher education. These meetings always followed a similar pattern- and sadly, still do. A wise colleague referred to these meetings as "Groundhog Day," after the movie about a single day that repeats over and over again. The process of assessing faculty success has not changed in about 70 years, despite a lot of talk to change things. Why can't universities break out of these ossified patterns?

Proudly nonprofit.

Science is fortunate that so many authors seek to publish with us. We shoulder enormous responsibility from both our outsized influence on research across many fields and from the journal's impact on the careers of scientists who publish in our pages. Although there can be some cynicism about the role of highly selective "glam journals," we understand why we are part of conversations that sometimes center around "CNS" (Cell, Nature, Science) periodicals. All three have considerable importance and prominence in the scientific community. But there is a major difference that often gets lost. Whereas Cell and Nature generate revenue for their parent for-profit companies, Elsevier and Springer Nature, Science is published by a nonprofit organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and produces no revenue for shareholders. We don't get the word out about this distinction frequently or overtly enough. It's an important contrast because decisions that we make at Science and AAAS are driven by putting scientists ahead of profit.

Generative approach to research integrity.

It's been a bad few weeks for public perceptions of research integrity, as multiple cases at elite universities have received wide news coverage. Francesca Gino, a scientist at Harvard University, is in a legal dispute over whether data in newly retracted papers about dishonesty were manipulated; she is now suing Harvard and the researchers who surfaced the alleged problems. Likewise, Duke University is investigating published work by scientist Daniel Ariely. Johns Hopkins University may initiate an investigation of research misconduct by Nobel laureate Gregg Semenza. And most prominently, the president of Stanford University, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, recently resigned after the institution's report determined that the "culture" in his laboratory contributed to manipulation of results.