The makers of cancer blood tests claim the tests can detect dozens of cancer types - but some scientists say they could be missing many cancers or delivering the wrong diagnosis
go.nature.com/4rZFJeA
Dear Sir Paul, Re: Royal Society Code of Conduct I am sure that many scientists have written to you about the specific question of Elon Musk’s Fellowship and whether, under the Royal Society’s Code of Conduct, his retaining that Fellowship is appropriate. I will not rehash these issues. Instead, as a female scientist with extensive experience of activities aiming to increase equality, diversity and inclusion in the engineering and physical sciences sector, I am writing to you (in a personal capacity) to ask you to reconsider the statements you have recently made in this context to the UK press about the Royal Society’s Code of Conduct and how it is applied. A 2018 report from the joint National Academies of the United States of America, concluded that “sexual harassment is common in academic science, engineering, and medicine” and that “greater than 50 percent of women faculty and staff and 20–50 percent of women students encounter or experience sexually harassing conduct in academia”. This report described codes of conduct that make clear that sexual harassment is unethical and will not be tolerated as a “powerful incentive for change”. The authors also noted that sexual harassment can have significant and damaging effects on the integrity of research. In my own praxis, I have found that clear and consistently-implemented codes of conduct that address these issues make female scientists and engineers safer, and allow them to focus more effectively on their research. For codes of conduct to have such a positive effect, it is vital that sanctions for actions which transgress the code are meaningful and substantial.
I was hence aghast to realise that in an interview with the Financial Times published on 9/1/26, you appear to have suggested that the Royal Society “should only expel fellows if their science proved “faulty or fraudulent or highly defective””. Moreover, in a further interview with the Guardian on 11/1/26 you suggested that the code “may need to be looked at again”, with the implication that your aim would be to remove the option of sanctions on Fellows for reasons not strictly related to faults or defects in their research. I suggest that changing the Royal Society’s code of conduct so that the likelihood of serious sanctions for sexual harassment is reduced, would directly endanger women who interact with the Royal Society at events or otherwise, and would provide a licence to harass to the already powerful people on whom the Society bestows fellowship. The implications of your words - that under your leadership the only infringements of the code which are likely to receive the sanction of the Fellowship being removed are those related to research misconduct - already risk empowering harassers. You stated, in the Financial Times interview, that “there’s many bad people around, but they have made scientific advances”. Given this awareness of the possibility of bad actors in our scientific community, it is wholly irresponsible to suggest that the Royal Society would not act to sanction these people if they harass more vulnerable scientists. I am hence writing to request that you retract any suggestion that the Society’s Code of Conduct should be changed so that the only reason a Fellow might be sanctioned by the removal of their Fellowship is “faulty or fraudulent or highly defective” research. This action is necessary to safeguard female scientists, a requirement placed on the Society by safeguarding legislation and UK statutory guidance. Yours sincerely, Professor Rachel A. Oliver.
Following coverage over the weekend of Sir Paul Nurse's comments that suggested that the only reason that a Fellow should be expelled from @royalsociety.org is scientific misconduct, I have written to him to explain the risks such an attitude poses of increasing sexual harassment in STEM.
My Watson memory: I was interviewing for a postdoc at the LMB in the late 00s, arriving in Cambridge from the US to find that JW was also giving a talk that day.
The other students and postdocs had an over/under of 5 on how many racist or sexist comments might be littered in his talk. The overs won
NEW: Oxford-led researchers have delivered the most comprehensive analysis yet of cancer diagnosis in patients with vague symptoms (like fatigue or weight loss) - tackling one of primary care’s biggest challenges.
Find out more ⬇️
The paper:
A survey of over 800 scientists, educators, and communicators reveals a clear shift: for networking, public engagement, and staying informed, they now find Bluesky more effective than X—marking a significant platform change for the science community.
The pro-pediatric brain cancer administration.
Here is a press release/ summary blog post about our new paper.
Key conclusion: For every single professional use that scientists used to use Twitter for, Twitter is much worse now than it used to be, and Bluesky is better that Twitter currently is.
www.southernfriedscience.com/twitter-suck...
Slightly diminish a band: Minivan Halen
National Cancer Institute projection of a 4% pay line in FY2026.
Good grief, the US National Cancer Institute projects it will fund only one in 25 RO1 grant applications in 2026. This is massively defunding cancer research. Despicable vandalism. www.cancer.gov/grants-train...
Durbin to Bhattacharya: "I can't understand it. I disagree w/ this admin on so many things. But this is the one that really gets to me personally. To think this nation would walk away from medical research. For God's sake...cancer, your budget requests a 38% cut to the National Cancer Institute"
Just gonna re-up these slides about how the Nazis destroyed German physics 🧪
Graphs showing 25 years of budgets for the National Institute of Health, NASA, and the NSF. In all cases, the proposed budget for next year is far, far below any year of the previous quarter century.
There are 2 previous historical cases of countries destroying their science and universities, crippling them for decades: Lysenkoism in the USSR and Nazi Germany. The Trump administration will be the 3rd.
It's not just budgets but research, institutions, expertise, and training the next generation.
Secretary Kristi Noem @Sec_Noem This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus. It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused. They have lost their Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a result of their failure to adhere to the law. Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.
Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program Decertification I am writing to inform you that effective immediately, Harvard University's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification is revoked. As I explained to you in my April letter, it is a privilege to enroll foreign students, and it is also a privilege to employ aliens on campus. All universities must comply with Department of Homeland Security requirements, including reporting requirements under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program regulations, to maintain this privilege. As a result of your refusal to comply with multiple requests to provide the Department of Homeland Security pertinent information while perpetuating an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-Hamas sympathies, and employs racist "diversity, equity, and inclusion" policies, you have lost this privilege. The revocation of your Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification means that Harvard is prohibited from having any aliens on F- or J- nonimmigrant status for the 2025-2026 academic school year. This decertification also means that existing aliens on F- or J- nonimmigrant status must transfer to another university in order to maintain their nonimmigrant status. This action should not surprise you and is the unfortunate result of Harvard's failure to comply with simple reporting requirements. On April 16, 2025, I requested records pertaining to nonimmigrant students enrolled at Harvard University, including information regarding misconduct and other offenses that would render foreign students inadmissible or removable. On April 30, 2025, Harvard's counsel provided information that he represented as responsive to my request. It was not. As a courtesy that Harvard was not legally entitled to, the Acting DHS General Counsel responded on my behalf and afforded Harvard another opportunity to comply. Harvard again provided an insufficient response. Consequences must follow to send a clear signal to…
If Harvard would like the opportunity of regaining Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification before the upcoming academic school year, you must provide all of the information requested below within 72 hours. Please be advised that providing materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent information may subject you to criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Other criminal and civil sanctions may also apply. I expect full and complete responses to the following requests: 1. Any and all records, whether official or informal, in the possession of Harvard University, including electronic records and audio or video footage, regarding illegal activity whether on or off campus, by a nonimmigrant student enrolled in Harvard University in the last five years. 2. Any and all records, whether official or informal, in the possession of Harvard University, including electronic records and audio or video footage, regarding dangerous or violent activity whether on or off campus, by a nonimmigrant student enrolled in Harvard University in the last five years. 3. Any and all records, whether official or informal, in the possession of Harvard University, including electronic records and audio or video footage, regarding threats to other students or university personnel whether on or off campus, by a nonimmigrant student enrolled in Harvard University in the last five years. 4. Any and all records, whether official or informal, in the possession of Harvard University, including electronic records and audio or video footage, regarding deprivation of rights of other classmates or university personnel whether on or off campus, by a nonimmigrant student enrolled in Harvard University in the last five years. 5. Any and all disciplinary records of all nonimmigrant students enrolled in Harvard University in the last five years. 6. Any and all audio or video footage, in the possession of Harvard University, of any protest activity involving a nonimmigrant student on a Harvard Univer…
Here's the letter Noem sent Harvard, as posted on X. Nothing alleges ANY specific violation of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. Nothing. She cites no law violated, no regulation broken, no policy ignored.
I don't care what you think of Harvard; this is clear weaponization of government.
There is no doubt that Trump and Noem's actions here are that of an authoritarian; using the federal government to blow a hole in Harvard's budget and punish thousands of students who have done nothing wrong just because they don't like Harvard.
Our country is in crisis.
New Faraday Fellowships for international applicants moving to the UK
Up to £4 million per researcher over 5-10 years
Fast-track option for mid-career researchers looking to relocate to the UK
Protests against cuts to NIH
The US National Institutes of Health will no longer approve research grants that involve “subawards” to foreign researchers, potentially spelling an end to the type of international multicentre studies that have delivered breakthroughs in many diseases
www.bmj.com/content/389/...
You’re telling me that right wing voters that Labour was trying to appeal to voted for a right wing party anyway and left wing voters decided not to vote for Labour because they’re too right wing now? Who could have possibly predicted this.
With a heavy heart I have decided not to attend a meeting in the US this June. I can’t act as if things are normal when science, universities, dissent & truth are all under threat. And I feel I can’t attend when there are scientists who are not able to travel to the US without fear of arrest.
Secretary RFK Jr. is a danger to the public’s health and should resign or be fired, says APHA. Logo
HHS Secretary RFK Jr. is a danger to the public’s health and should resign or be fired, says APHA. In just a few short weeks, his actions on vacccines, fluoride and other public health science have shown how wrong he is for the job. Read & share our statement: apha.org/news-and-med...
The NSF's flagship fellowship program typically gives offers to 2,000+ young scientists. This year, in the face of looming budget cuts, that number was halved: only 1,000 received an offer. Our story on what that means for the science talent pipeline: www.nature.com/articles/d41...
UKRI’s budget will fall in 2025-26 compared with the previous year, the government has confirmed.
It will receive £8.8 billion for 2025-26—compared with the £8.9bn initially set out for the previous year, Dsit announces.
www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-r...
Trump promised to “get the cure for cancer" among other things.
But in the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs, there's “No money for kidney cancer. No money for pancreatic cancer. No money for lung cancer."
Must-read from @angusrohan.bsky.social
www.statnews.com/2025/03/24/t...
Were you one of the thousands of HHS/CDC/FDA scientists, public health experts, researchers who Trump just cut?
I am very interested in hearing from you. I want to know more about the good work you did and what is now lost.
jen.bendery@huffpost.com / jbendery@proton.me
On Signal: jbendery.41 🙏
“This will go down as one of the darkest days in modern scientific history in my 50 years in the business,” says Michael Osterholm, an infectious-diseases epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. “These are going to be huge losses to the research community.”
What happened in Wisconsin is an example of what is most feared: That in a true democracy regular people have more power than a billionaire, that all the money in the world doesn’t change one person one vote.
This is, in large part, pandemic revenge.
As far as these oligarchs are concerned, all science does is tell them stuff they cannot do.
They can't keep spewing carbon.
They can't keep businesses open as usual when millions are dying.
They have concluded that research is the enemy of profit.
We’ll miss you Val. If you haven’t seen Real Genius, this is your sign to watch it!
Things that make the recent darkness brighter:
1. Sunshine in Glasgow ☀️
2. @booker.senate.gov speaking truth to power for over 24 hours
3. the election of Susan Crawford in Wisconsin despite all of the dirty money and shenanigans
