The COVID-19 syndemic is entering its most dangerous phase. There is a mounting breakdown of trust. Not only between politicians and the public. But also among politicians and publics with science and scientists. This breach of faith with science is far more threatening.

Leading vaccine experts have backed the government’s decision to delay the second dose for up to three months, after doctors warned that the strategy was proving “ever-more difficult to justify” (see "Related" link).

COVID-19 has highlighted the need to work with researchers all around the world at the same time that it has also exposed the inequalities in the global research and knowledge system.

This U.S. federal government shut down may be different, and far more devastating, for the federal workers, including scientists, who live and work across the nation.

The US now faces a dilemma over the future of this national achievement and the supporting arrangements making it sustainable. The ‘social contract’ for science and research now looks more tentative than at any time since the Space Race.

The idea that competent researchers are apolitical is false, and it costs lives.

Funders should assign research grants via a lottery system to reduce human bias, says Dorothy Bishop.

Richard Smith spent some time reviewing two scientific papers, and the experience has made him wonder if it is time for peer reviewers to rise up in rebellion.

UKRI chief executive Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser on why we must recognise the vital contribution of everyone in research and innovation and debunk the Einstein myth.

Publishers have retracted more than 20 COVID-related papers. Are they learning from their mistakes and fixing process failures?

The open access movement has prompted a shift towards retention of rights and the use of creative commons licenses to control how works are used by publishers. However, in many cases, researchers continue to agree to standard assignment terms offered by publishers without fully investigating or understanding them.