A global survey of more than 30,000 people in 30 countries has revealed how people around the world feel about climate change, and how those emotions relate to perceptions of and support for climate interventions that could address the crisis. The new study is published in the journal Risk Analysis.

Transitioning to clean energy is not just about reducing carbon emissions - it’s also about saving lives.  According to a Princeton-led study, reducing emissions from American power plants, buildings, and vehicles not only mitigates climate change, but it also leads to significant improvements in air quality and reduces harmful pollutants like fine particulate matter (PM2.5).  

The U.S. National Institutes of Health’s recent decision to impose a 15% cap on facilities and administrative (F&A) cost reimbursements threatens to undermine the quality and sustainability of university research by slashing indirect funding by $4 billion. In a Policy Forum, Jeongwon Choi and colleagues argue that this policy is fundamentally flawed, as it disregards the essential role of indirect costs, such as infrastructure, utilities, and administrative support, in enabling scientific research. The current system, governed by rigorous federal oversight and audits, ensures that F&A reimbursements are fair and necessary, varying across institutions based on actual costs. NIH’s argument that reducing F&A costs will redirect more funds to direct research is misleading, as indirect and direct costs are interdependent. Cutting F&A funding will ultimately weaken research capacity rather than enhance it. In response to several lawsuits disputing this decision, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelly issued a temporary restraining order on the policy. According to Choi et al., Judge Kelly’s skepticism of NIH’s justification underscores that this policy is not a cost-saving measure for efficiency but rather a funding reduction in disguise, with potentially detrimental consequences for the U.S. research ecosystem. Cutting F&A funding will ultimately weaken research capacity, stifle scientific competitiveness, and impose increased financial strain on institutions. “The scientific community, firms that depend on university research, members of Congress and their constituents, and Judge Kelly in particular, should consider these implications of the proposed plan,” write the authors.  “The consequences of failing to do so […] are simply too dire to ignore.”

In a recently published article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Marisha Burden, MD, MBA, and Liselotte Dyrbye, MD, MHPE, introduce evidence-based work design, a unique approach that confronts the growing divide between frontline clinicians and administrative leaders in health care.