Trump's anti-DEI mandate will make it hard to recruit new scientists
For half of my 32 years as a professor of chemistry at Ball State University, I was involved in executing a National Science Foundation grant called the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation program. Its aim was to encourage a broader participation in the sciences.
The LSAMP program identified undergraduate college students who were underrepresented in the sciences and tried to assist them in progressing toward their STEM degree. A primary feature was to provide those students with summer research experiences working side-by-side with a faculty mentor. Repeatedly, studies have shown that research experiences are essential for undergraduates to identify as a scientist.
The LSAMP program was extraordinarily successful, producing hundreds of new scientists over the course of its existence, all of whom were American citizens. The program did not interfere with, prohibit or reduce the historical population of undergraduates who participated in summer research or who became scientists.
Sadly, the program, established by Congress over 30 years ago, has recently been dissolved, along with other vital programs, due to new guidance restricting federal grants relating to diversity, equity and inclusion. It is hard for some to understand that without a continuous, new source of scientific talent, the US cannot hold onto its economic growth and military security or ensure quality products in manufacturing.
A myriad of industries, including paint, food, plastics, pharmaceuticals and aerospace who rely on a constant supply of American scientists expect a shortfall in the not-too distant future. It is difficult to see how we can meet our need for new talent in the sciences after stopping the successful LSAMP program.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Would you hit a dog? Then why hit a child?
In much of the world, we have outlawed physical violence against adults, including the physical punishment of women, prisoners and military recruits. It is also illegal in many places to hit a dog. In the U.S., for example, kicking or hitting a dog can result in criminal charges. And yet, parents' spanking and hitting of children in the name of 'discipline' is legal in the U.S. and in more than 130 other countries around the world. A recent study found that American parents are significantly more likely to consider it acceptable to hit a child than to hit a dog. We are in a cultural moment where physically punishing a dog is viewed as more morally objectionable than doing the same to human children. Despite decades of research showing that physical punishment is harmful and ineffective, its use persists in households around the U.S. and the world. The question is not whether hitting children causes harm, rather, it's why society allows it, knowing that it does. My colleagues and I analyzed data from 195 studies in 92 countries and found no evidence that physical punishment has any benefits. On the contrary, our findings show that physical punishment of children is linked to exclusively negative consequences, including increased aggression, lower academic performance and a higher risk of depression, anxiety and other emotional difficulties later in life. Imagine for a moment that your boss, supervisor or teacher hits you for not meeting expectations. Your immediate response would likely include physical stress reactions such as sweating and a racing heart, as well as emotional responses such as anger, sadness, anxiety or fear. These responses are evolutionary and adaptive, designed to prepare us for fight or flight in the face of threats. When such violence is repeated, it can lead to a state of constant anxiety and fear that the next blow could come at any moment. The same happens to a child. Parents tend to use spanking and other forms of physical punishment with good intentions, hoping to correct or manage children's misbehavior. Yet, the physical stress and emotional responses from physical punishment can be particularly consequential early in life, when brains and biological systems are developing in response to experience. In a neuroscientific study, my team examined brain activity in a group of children who had been spanked in their first 10 years of life, compared to a similar group who had never been spanked. Using fMRI, we showed the children images of happy, neutral and fearful or threatening faces. The children who had been spanked exhibited heightened brain activation in response to fearful/threatening faces, specifically in regions associated with detecting and responding to environmental threats. Other studies have also found reduced cortex gray matter volume in adults who experienced corporal punishment during childhood. Many adults who were hit as children remember it as 'discipline,' not violence, and often insist they 'turned out fine.' But this reasoning overlooks the broader picture. Millions of people around the world smoke without visibly seeing lung damage, yet we widely accept the health risks of smoking because science has made them clear. Similarly, even if physical punishment doesn't leave visible marks, research shows that it significantly increases the risks to children's mental, emotional and developmental health. Some argue that the government shouldn't interfere in private family matters, such as how parents choose to discipline their children. But let's reconsider that argument, and apply it to women. We rightly find it unacceptable for a man to hit his wife, regardless of it being a 'private' matter. Why should it be acceptable to hit children, who are smaller, more vulnerable and entirely dependent on adults for their safety and well-being? Protecting children from harm is not government overreach; it is a fundamental moral and societal responsibility. The right to physical safety that is afforded to adults, including prisoners, soldiers, and even to dogs, should be extended to children. Simply put, all countries should prohibit the physical punishment of children in the home, school and all settings. Such legislation should not be punitive, but written into family codes instead of criminal codes, and paired with educational campaigns, similar to those that shifted social norms around smoking. Additionally, support for parents through initiatives like parenting programs is essential to promote non-violent discipline strategies. We've long stopped justifying hitting adults, and we recoil at hurting an animal. It's time we ensure the same standard applies to children, so we can one day say with pride that they, too, are fully protected from violence. Jorge Cuartas, assistant professor at NYU Steinhardt, is an internationally recognized expert on the health and developmental impacts of physical punishment in childhood. He has authored over 30 scientific articles on the subject, published in leading journals such as Nature Human Behaviour, The Lancet and Child Development.
WIRED
7 hours ago
- WIRED
Congress Demands Answers on Data Privacy Ahead of 23andMe Sale
Jun 12, 2025 12:08 PM House Democrats sent letters to the potential buyers of the genetic testing company, asking how they plan to protect customer genetic data under a change of ownership. US Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jan Schakowsky on Thursday sent letters to the two potential buyers of troubled genetic testing firm 23andMe demanding details about consumer data privacy should either of them acquire the company. Signed by 20 other Democratic members of Congress, the letters were sent to Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and TTAM Research Institute, which have put forth separate bids to buy 23andMe. In the letters, they ask Regeneron and TTAM if they will continue to give customers the option to delete their data and withdraw consent for their data to be used in medical research. They also want to know if 23andMe's current policy of not sharing genetic data with law enforcement without a warrant will be upheld, and whether both entities intend to proactively notify 23andMe customers about the sale. After struggling for years to turn a profit, 23andMe filed for bankruptcy protection in March and put its assets up for sale. Shortly after, its CEO Anne Wojcicki resigned. Wojcicki had tried unsuccessfully to take the company private but her proposals were rejected by a special committee formed by 23andMe's board of directors. In May, biotech company Regeneron announced that it was named the successful bidder in a bankruptcy auction, offering $256 million to acquire 23andMe. 'We believe we can help 23andMe deliver and build upon its mission to help those interested in learning about their own DNA and how to improve their personal health, while furthering Regeneron's efforts to use large-scale genetics research to improve the way society treats and prevents illness overall,' said George Yancopoulos, cofounder and chief scientific officer of Regeneron, in a company statement last month. But after the auction closed, Wojcicki put in a bid of her own—offering $305 million through a newly formed nonprofit, TTAM Research Institute. The offer prompted a federal judge to reopen the sale process, and now both Regeneron and TTAM will have a chance to put in a final bid. Founded in 2006, 23andMe pioneered the field of personal genomics with its DNA test kits, which allow customers to learn about their ancestry, family connections, and certain medical risks after submitting a spit sample. Despite selling more than 12 million of its DNA testing kits, the company never achieved profitability and struggled to diversify its revenue streams after going public in 2021. In another blow to the company, a major data breach in 2023 exposed the personal data of millions of customers, including a leak that targeted users with Chinese and Ashkenazi Jewish heritage. The new owner of 23andMe would acquire its vast trove of genetic data, raising questions about how that data would be used. Under 23andMe's current policy, customers can choose to make their genetic data and other personal information available for medical research. They also have the option of deleting all of their data and directing 23andMe to destroy their saliva sample. The members of Congress who sent the letters on Thursday are seeking clarity from Regeneron and Wojcicki on whether they plan to continue those practices. The signees are also concerned about genetic data being shared with law enforcement and immigration authorities and the possibility of genetic and other personal data being used to train AI models. They're also asking Regeneron and TTAM to disclose a full list of all third parties who currently have access to 23andMe data and the steps both entities will take to ensure transparency of third-party access in the future. 23andMe previously had a multi-year research collaboration with pharma giant GlaxoSmithKline. The representatives are asking Regeneron and TTAM to respond by June 26. Wojcicki and 23andMe's interim CEO Joe Selsavage testified during a House Oversight Committee hearing this week on the privacy and national security concerns surrounding 23andMe's sale. During that hearing, Selsavage told lawmakers that 1.9 million people, or about 15 percent of its customer base, have asked for their genetic data to be removed from the company's servers since the company filed for bankruptcy protection in March. This week, more than two dozen states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit against 23andMe, arguing that the company cannot auction 15 million customers' highly sensitive personal genetic information without their consent or knowledge.
Newsweek
8 hours ago
- Newsweek
Major US Government Website Could be Shut Down After Mass Layoffs
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A central U.S. government website that educates the public about climate science may soon cease to publish new material following a mass firing of its content team, says The Guardian. Newsweek contacted the NOAA for comment on The Guardian's report via email, outside of standard working hours on Thursday. Why It Matters is one of the most widely used climate science resources online, receiving hundreds of thousands of visits monthly, The Guardian noted in its report. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) logo is seen during a NOAA media day at the Aircraft Operations Center in Lakeland, Florida, on May 6, 2025. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) logo is seen during a NOAA media day at the Aircraft Operations Center in Lakeland, Florida, on May 6, 2025. Miguel J. Rodriguez Carrillo/AFP via Getty Images The reported layoffs are the latest in a wave of cutbacks by the Trump administration that have already targeted numerous government departments and agencies, including the Department of Education, Food and Drug Administration, and NOAA. What To Know The content production team at operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), was abruptly terminated at the end of May, a former contractor among those terminated told the paper anonymously. Newsweek has not verified the anonymous sources. Other former staff said decisions to eliminate their positions appeared not to be based on performance but rather were targeted by political appointees within the Trump administration. "It was a very deliberate, targeted attack," Rebecca Lindsey, the former program manager of the website, told The Guardian. Lindsey, who was fired in February despite receiving what she described as "stellar" performance reviews and a bonus, said the site's funding was stripped during contract negotiations due to pressure from higher-level officials. The 10 or so content staff were supported by NOAA scientists. The site was housed in the agency's science wing rather than its public affairs division, and was designed to maintain political neutrality and scientific accuracy, she told the outlet. "We operated exactly how you would want an independent, nonpartisan communications group to operate," Lindsey said. "It does seem to be part of this sort of slow and quiet way of trying to keep science agencies from providing information to the American public about climate." Tom Di Liberto, a former spokesperson for the NOAA who was fired earlier this year told the outlet: "It's targeted, I think it's clear." "They only fired a handful of people, and it just so happened to be the entire content team for I mean, that's a clear signal." What People Are Saying Former NOAA spokesperson Tom Di Liberto told The Guardian: "My bigger worry, long-term, is I would hate to see it turn into a propaganda website for this administration, because that's not at all what it was." What Happens Next While the site may continue to host some prescheduled updates through June, there are no confirmed plans for future content, The Guardian reported.
