science funding

Scientific American (SciAm) set social media on fire this week by endorsing Kam

It's mildly amusing that ACSH is referred to as "industry-friendly." That term, which is applied to us by friend and foe alike, is based on a half-truth. And half-truths are the worst kind of "truths" because they're actually lies.

Let's pretend that you're a government funded scientist, like many professors and academics. Your entire livelihood depends on the largesse of taxpayers, politicians, and bureaucrats.

In order to capitalize on current events and our hyperpartisan climate, science news outlets increasingly feel the need to weigh in on how day-to-day political affairs will affect science.

Philanthropic giving constitutes roughly 2% of the U.S. economy. In 2014, it totaled $358 billion. Who gives all that money, and where does it go?

Because of the replication problems facing biomedical science and psychology, much attention in recent years has focused on scientific integrity. How can scientists ensure that the data they are publishing is accurate and reliable?

On November 8, I published an article titled, "Whoever Wins On Election Day 2016, American Science Is Still #1 In The World." Tha

On one thing at least, almost all Americans agree: This election cycle has been too long and depressing.

Glance through any sufficiently long comments section, and you will find that two things almost always happen: Somebody makes a reference to Hitler (Godwin's Law), and somebody accuse