How can I make this newsletter better for you?

I'm on vacation for the eclipse. So instead of the usual Monday post, I have a request: tell me what you want!

Academics in Germany and Austria are stuck in job limbo

Also: Montana's "right to try" law for experimental cures, UK science gets reshuffled, a university sues Anthropic over patents, and more from last week

It is not science journalism's job to improve trust in science

Also: The "Science: A New Golden Age" report, layoffs at National Geographic, and studies on the consequences of AI adoption in research

Is peer review at Science sexist?

Also: Attention as a class issue, an anti-AI editorial containing AI links, and a Thiel-backed journalist-rating startup

"The bullets we've dodged have hit someone else" — UK science cuts largely spare physics and astro, hit projects and labs

Also: AI conflict of interest disclosures in philosophy, PhD admission down 15% at US universities, an AI "humanizer" tool for science, and more from last week

In the last 2 weeks, 4 science magazines shut down, sold, or lost funding

Also: Avi Loeb to head White House UFO committee, overworked ERC peer reviewers, Anthropic's push for AI in science, and more from last week

Is the NSF slashing research to fund a tech initiative?

Also: SciAm sold, two Max Planck papers retracted, a big study links AI to skill atrophy in schoolkids, and more from last week

What determines how science is done — and how it matters?

The newsletter is back with a new focus on the systems, instincts, and incentives that shape what's discovered, what's believed, and what happens when science hits the real world

Pluto is MAGA's favorite "planet" for a reason

Jared Isaacman's Pluto push is a master class in science populism

I want to do more than write science entertainment

Let's talk about science, science communication, and how knowledge matters

Who gets the job? Here's how computers could help catch unfair rankings

I am weirdly hopeful that it could be easier to notice biased AI than biased humans?

About "to" and "around" the Moon

Technically correct is not, in fact, the best kind of correct in scicomm