Jump to navigation
Enter the article’s url One of our curators will take care of it as soon as possible!
The site shows more and more studies are being pulled from the scientific record.
What’s the scientific value of the Stanford Prison Experiment? Zimbardo responds to the new allegations against his work.
Science needs to reckon with the #MeToo moment, and it needs to do so immediately, says a new report from the prestigious National Academies of Sciences.
What can men do to become better allies for women and other minorities in science? This is the question cognitive scientist Iris van Rooij asked on Twitter. To her own surprise, the tweet went viral.
"If you [only] have products created by white guys in their 20s, you’re gonna miss the mark."
How Andrew Wakefield’s shoddy science fueled autism-vaccine fears.
The news that lifted our existential dread.
The secret to unlocking innovation isn’t tax cuts - it’s equality.
Don't be taken in by the memo’s faux-reasonable tone.
The case for, and against, redefining "statistical significance."
When the results of clinical trials aren’t made public, the consequences can be dangerous — and potentially deadly.
"Our species has problems with violence." —Biologist Robert Sapolsky
PubMed, the Google of scientific search, is now publishing funding information in its abstracts.
Patients in red states and blue states alike benefit from work funded by the National Institutes of Health
Simple: It’s mimicking us.
Some lessons from the health community’s long battle with misinformation.
The outline cuts at least $7 billion for research on climate change, diseases, and energy.
This researcher wants to change that.
"Donald Trump is going to be the gateway drug for scientists being engaged in policy."
Government scientists are being ordered not to talk about their research — and it’s only week one.
Does that mean the original research was wrong? No. It means science is really, really hard.
Vaccines work, climate change is real — and scientists’ tweets for the Trump administration.
There’s no shortage of misinformation in the world — particularly around health and science topics.
Mick Mulvaney suggested Zika science is uncertain, so we shouldn’t bother to fund it.
Embargoes allow journals, universities, nonprofits, and corporations to decide what’s important — and when. That should be up to journalists.
Twenty percent of medical researchers do up to 95 percent of the peer reviewing.
This revolving door problem isn’t unique to the FDA; it’s an issue for all government-regulated industries.
It's easy to misrepresent the findings from brain scan studies. Just ask a dead salmon.
These are dark times for science so we asked hundreds of researchers how to fix it.
Greenpeace accepts climate science. So why do they dismiss the science around GMOs?