Opinion: STEM's Grand Challenges — And Opportunities
In his recent letter to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, President Donald Trump charged his Office of Science and Technology Policy to 'cement America's global technological leadership and usher in the Golden Age of American Innovation.'
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
Tha means the administration will do all it can to bolster the STEM K-12 talent pipeline, right? And Americans will surely support policies aimed at equipping youth for high-demand and mission-critical career paths, eh?
U.S. STEM education faces eight ornery, grand challenges, each conceivably conquerable if we rally.
1. America's STEM Education imperative is being eclipsed by an AI exigency. The stakes associated with leading in artificial intelligence blow the 1958 Sputnik crisis out of the sky. The Trump administration recently released an AI-in-education executive order. The STEM education community should seize leadership of a chaotic AI-in-education landscape, leveraging vast networks and partnerships as testbeds. STEM gives AI context and purpose. Many leading AI developers and funders are investing strongly in K-12 technology education.
2. Federal education research and development funding has been sharply diminished lately. STEM education leaders are going to miss the data and research that flowed from the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education through its now-diminished National Center for Education Statistics, including the hobbled National Assessment of Educational Progress and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. But as plans for carving up federal education grant programs into state block grants emerge, state STEM networks will be well-positioned to advance this sort of analysis.
Related
3. Teachers of STEM subjects from pre-K to college level may not be career-ready for the modern teaching job. Systems of teacher preparation and professional development remain largely discipline focused, while the messiness of real-world issues meshes the disciplines. The President's termination of ED grants for Teacher Quality and Teacher Leadership, as well as Effective Educator Development, exacerbate the challenge of changing how we prepare educators. But state block grants could represent an opportunity for supporting STEM-focused educator development.
4. Well-documented STEM education innovations dot the U.S. education landscape, but progress toward scaling is inequitable and frustratingly incremental. A recent National Academies report examined hurdles, including decentralization and lack of incentives to scaling proven practices in STEM education.Recommendations were familiar: increased federal investments in professional development, more data collection, and broadened connections for partnerships and collaborations. In reality, evidence-based practices identified by research have often been ignored by public school districts and the education schools that prepare teachers. If the estimated $1.5 billion annual federal education R & D investment were carved into 50 chunks for states, STEM leaders could make the case for devoting tens of millions of dollars to bringing innovations to scale.
5. Standards for K-12 science, mathematics, technology, are great for leveling the playing field, but may inhibit STEM innovation. The entire K-12 galaxy spins on a standards axis: curricula, professional development, assessment and grading, publishers, performance reviews. But when organizations and states define what students should know and be able to do at each grade level, rarely do they feature the more integrated aspects of STEM (see challenge #3). Standards-driven systems favor efficiency and conformity (i.e., teach to the standards) over creativity and inventiveness. It's time to flip the script from emphasizing content (What do you know?) to practices (What can you do?), which are hallmarks of STEM education.
6. Now that the acronym is target practice for many folks in power at the national and state level, that puts at risk the STEM community's consensus objective to broaden the talent pipeline. The shift is starkly evident at the National Science Foundation, where updated priorities state that 'Awards that are not aligned with NSF's priorities have been terminated, including but not limited to those on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)….' Is there room to continue prioritizing outreach to the underserved and underrepresented? Yes, says NSF 'so long as these programs do not preference or limit participation based on these protected characteristics.' STEM for all.
7. The skills and attributes that STEM education aspires to imbue – teamwork, curiosity, ideation, negotiation, accountability and 95 more – are tough to measure. Simulations, portfolios, interviews, and AI chatbot diagnostics are so far questionably valid, reliable, and equitable at distinguishing learners' acquisition of soft skills, a.k.a. employability skills, 21st century skills, or durable skills. Competency born of practice is the ideal route for STEM education, and now that all 50 states permit competency-based assessment, STEM can lead a culture shift.
8. American STEM education faces a public awareness problem. The 1958 Sputnik scare was Tinker Toys compared to today's global competition to own quantum, AI, and other emerging technologies. A functionless, beeping satellite spurred a multi-billion-dollar investment in STEM, while today's government shrinks science budgets and dismisses experts. What's lacking is a jolt 'to snap the U.S. out of its complacency.' But unlike 1958, we have today a vast array of university STEM centers, local and regional STEM ecosystems, STEM specialty schools, and STEM learning centers across the continent. If public awareness of the nation's STEM imperative were prioritized as a mission action by all, the jolt could spark a STEM rally.
This ornery octet of challenges faced by the STEM education community is surmountable if we work at it. A 'golden age of American innovation' sounds great but calls for a strong system of STEM education to fuel the talent pipeline and to wisely manage profound human inventiveness.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
2 hours ago
- Scientific American
Trump Cuts Could End U.S. Exploration of the Outer Solar System
In the spring of 2022 the U.S. space community selected its top priority for the nation's next decade of science and exploration: a mission to Uranus, the gassy, bluish planet only seen up close during a brief spacecraft flyby in 1986. More than 2.6 billion kilometers from Earth at its nearest approach, Uranus still beckons with what it could reveal about the solar system's early history—and the overwhelming numbers of Uranus-sized worlds that astronomers have spied around other stars. Now President Donald Trump's proposed cuts to NASA could push those discoveries further away than ever—not by directly canceling the mission but by abandoning the fuel needed to pull it off. The technology in question, known as radioisotope power systems (RPS), is an often overlooked element of NASA's budget that involves turning nuclear fuel into usable electricity. More like a battery than a full-scale reactor, RPS devices attach directly to spacecraft to power them into the deepest, darkest reaches of the solar system, where sunlight is too sparse to use. It's a critical technology that has enabled two dozen NASA missions, from the iconic Voyagers 1 and 2 now traversing interstellar space to the Perseverance and Curiosity rovers presently operating on Mars. But RPS is expensive, costing NASA about $175 million in 2024 alone. That's largely because of the costs of sourcing and refining plutonium 238, the chemically toxic, vanishingly scarce and difficult to work with radioactive material at the heart of all U.S. RPS. The Fiscal Year 2026 President's Budget Request (PBR) released this spring suggests shutting down the program by 2029. That's just long enough to use RPS tech on NASA's upcoming Dragonfly mission, a nuclear-powered dual-quadcopter drone to explore Saturn's frigid moon Titan. After that, without RPS, no further U.S. missions to the outer solar system would be possible for the foreseeable future. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. 'It was an oversight,' says Amanda Hendrix, director of the Planetary Science Institute, who has led science efforts on RPS-enabled NASA missions such as Cassini at Saturn and Galileo at Jupiter. 'It's really like the left hand wasn't talking to the right hand when the PBR was put together.' Throughout its 400-odd pages, the PBR repeatedly acknowledges the importance of planning for the nation's next generation of planetary science missions and even proposes funding NASA's planetary science division better than any other part of the space agency's science operations, which it seeks to cut by half. But 'to achieve cost savings,' it states, 2028 should be the last year of funding for RPS, and 'given budget constraints and the reduced pipeline of new planetary science missions,' the proposed budget provides no funding after 2026 for work by the Department of Energy (DOE) that supports RPS. Indeed, NASA's missions to the outer solar system are infrequent because of their long durations and the laborious engineering required for a spacecraft to withstand cold, inhospitable conditions so far from home. But what these missions lack in frequency, they make up for in discovery: some of the most tantalizing and potentially habitable environments beyond Earth are thought to exist there, in vast oceans of icy moons once thought to be wastelands. One such environment lurks on Saturn's Enceladus, which was ranked as the nation's second-highest priority after Uranus in the U.S.'s 2022 Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal Survey. 'The outer solar system is kind of the last frontier,' says Alex Hayes, a planetary scientist at Cornell University, who chaired the Decadal Survey panel that selected Enceladus. 'You think you know how something works until you send a spacecraft there to explore it, and then you realize that you had no idea how it worked.' Unlike solar power systems—relatively 'off-the-shelf' tech that can be used on a per-mission basis—RPS requires a continuous production pipeline that's vulnerable to disruption. NASA's program operates through the DOE, with the space agency purchasing DOE services to source, purify and encapsulate the plutonium 238 fuel, as well as to assemble and test the resulting RPS devices. The most common kind of RPS, a radioisotope thermoelectric generator, converts the thermal energy released from plutonium 238's natural decay to as much as 110 watts of electrical power. Any excess heat helps keep the spacecraft and its instruments warm enough to function. Establishing the RPS pipeline took around three decades, and the program's roots lie in the bygone cold war era of heavy U.S. investment in nuclear technology and infrastructure. Preparing the radioactive fuel alone takes the work of multiple DOE facilities scattered across the country: Oak Ridge National Laboratory produces the plutonium oxide, then Los Alamos National Laboratory forms it into usable pellets, which are finally stockpiled at Idaho National Laboratory. Funding cuts would throw this pipeline into disarray and cause an exodus of experienced workers, Hendrix says. Restoring that expertise and capability, she adds, would require billions of dollars and a few decades more. 'These decisions are made by people that don't fully understand the implications,' says Ryan P. Russell, an aerospace engineer at the University of Texas at Austin. 'Technologically, [RPS] is on the critical path to superiority in space, whether that's military, civilian or industrial applications.' Russell emphasizes that RPS isn't just critical for exploring Uranus, Enceladus and other destinations in the outer solar system—it's also a likely fundamental pillar of the administration's space priorities, such as developing a sustained human presence on the moon and sending astronauts to Mars. While both destinations are relatively close to the sun, the Red Planet's global dust storms can bury solar panels, and the moon's two-week-long lunar nights are cold enough to test the mettle of even the best batteries. The latter situation informed the reasoning that drove NASA's acting administrator Sean Duffy's directive last week to fast-track a lunar nuclear reactor. Abandoning smaller-scale nuclear options such as RPS while aiming for a full-scale reactor is 'like trying to build a house without a two-by-four,' Russell says. 'If you don't have the basic building blocks, you're not gonna get very far.' Another initiative reliant on RPS, NASA confirmed in a statement e-mailed to Scientific American, is the beleaguered Mars Sample Return (MSR) program that the U.S. agency has been jointly pursuing with the European Space Agency. While the White House has proposed nixing MSR, scientists and politicians view bringing Martian samples back to Earth as a key milestone in the modern-day space race against China. Meanwhile other nations are pursuing or preserving their own RPS capabilities, with Europe's sights set on americium 241, a radioisotope with a five-times-longer half-life but a five-times-weaker energy output than plutonium 238. Russia has used RPS for decades, and China and India are also developing homegrown versions of the technology. Notably, despite the administration's push for commercial partners to take up costly space functions such as rocket launches, RPS is unlikely to find much support in the private sector. 'Dealing with [this sort of] nuclear material—that's not something a company is going to do,' Russell says. Going forward, the planetary science community hopes to convince Congress that RPS is 'critical and foundational,' Hendrix says. The Outer Planets Assessment Group (OPAG), which was chartered by and provides independent input to NASA, expressed its concerns to the space agency in findings from a June meeting, writing that the decision would have 'dire implications' for future solar system exploration. White papers prepared by representatives of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Goddard Space Flight Center and Glenn Research Center conveyed similar sentiments, noting that nine of the 15 existing and future missions recommended in the latest Decadal Survey use RPS. In short, 'you're just hamstringing your ability to do certain mission configurations and also to get out to and past Saturn if you shut down RPS,' Hayes says. 'You can't argue that scientific prioritization was part of [the White House's] decision process.' Although both the House and Senate have released drafts of the 2026 appropriations bill that preserve top-line funding for NASA, neither explicitly mentions RPS. That means the program would fall under NASA's 'discretionary spending,' a category that scientists and legal experts alike say would be more easily manipulated by a presidential administration looking to enforce its political agenda. In other words, without a clear, direct callout for RPS from congressional appropriators, the Trump administration's plan to shut down the program could more easily come to pass. Hendrix consequently hopes that Congress will add language explicitly funding RPS in its final budget. 'There is a strong interest from Congress in the need for a powerful, deep-space energy source,' says a congressional staffer who is familiar with the NASA budget and was granted anonymity to discuss these issues freely. But 'I don't know that members have quite honed in on [RPS] yet because the worry is so much about [Trump's] intent to cancel a lot of future planetary missions.' Fundamentally, political support for outer solar system missions is a moot point without corresponding support for the ability to get there, explains University of Oregon planetary physicist and OPAG co-chair Carol Paty. The decision to shut down RPS 'seems like a simple line item,' she says. But the implications are 'deeply troubling and concerning. If there are not big missions to drive the community, to drive exploration, to drive training the next generation, where does that leave us?'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's commercial spaceflight executive order could benefit SpaceX, Elon Musk
SpaceX and Elon Musk just notched a significant win with President Donald Trump's latest executive order. Trump on Wednesday, Aug. 13, signed an executive order that eases many federal regulatory restrictions on commercial spaceflight companies in the U.S. Though SpaceX is not mentioned by name in the order, the commercial spaceflight company perhaps stands to gain the most from the move due to its many lucrative government contracts and active launch cadence in the U.S. The order also comes more than two months since Trump and Musk had a very public feud over a spending bill that led to a falling-out between the once-close allies – and threats that could have hampered U.S. spaceflight ambitions. Here's everything to know about Trump's commercial spaceflight executive order, as well as SpaceX's long battle with government regulators. Trump signs executive order on commercial rocket launches Trump's order directs the U.S. transportation secretary to eliminate or expedite environmental reviews for launch appovals administered by the Federal Aviation Administration, which licenses commercial rocket launches. The declaration further calls on the secretary to do away with "outdated, redundant or overly restrictive rules for launch and re-entry vehicles," the White House said in a statement provided to Reuters. Trump's order states that it is imperative to increase commercial rocket launches in the U.S. to "ensure that new space-based industries, space exploration capabilities, and cutting-edge defense systems are pioneered in America rather than by our adversaries." Interestingly, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, whose title is referenced several times in the order, was appointed in July as interim administrator of NASA. Following the news, Duffy praised Trump in a post on social media site X calling the order "visionary." "We're launching into the final frontier and this EO makes it possible for the U.S. to lead the world from earth travel to space travel," Duffy said in the post. Order could ease environmental regulations for SpaceX missions The executive order would directly benefit private spaceflight companies like Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin, both of which conduct the bulk of their operations in Texas. But SpaceX, which Musk founded in 2002, likely stands to gain the most from the relaxed regulatory environment. The commercial rocket launch company leads the way in U.S. spaceflight missions by routinely conducting Starlink satellite deployments using its Falcon 9 rocket from both California and Florida. SpaceX's Falcon 9, one of the world's most active rockets, is also the vehicle of choice for NASA when the space agency sends astronauts to the International Space Station. What's more, the SpaceX Crew Dragon Capsule perched atop the rocket is the only U.S. vehicle capable of transporting astronauts to the orbital laboratory. SpaceX additionally benefits from billions of dollars in contracts from not only NASA, but the Department of Defense by providing launch services for classified satellites and other payloads. Trump's order comes as SpaceX prepares to launch its massive 400-foot Starship rocket again in August from its Starbase headquarters in South Texas, near the U.S.-Mexico border. Musk has also oft-stated his commitment to increasing the cadence of test missions for the spacecraft after receiving key regulatory approval. The launch vehicle, regarded as the world's largest and most powerful rocket, is set to serve a pivotal role in future U.S. spaceflight. Starship is the centerpiece of Musk's vision of sending the first humans to Mars, and is also critical in NASA's plans to return astronauts to the moon's surface. Elon Musk, SpaceX have battled regulations for years Trump's executive order is undoubtedly a huge win for Musk, who has spent years pushing back on federal regulations he views as "superfluous." In September 2024, the FAA announced a proposal to hit SpaceX with $633,009 in civil penalties for what the agency claims were failures by the company to follow license requirements ahead of two separate launches in 2023. In response, Musk took to his social media site X to indicate his plans to sue the agency for "regulatory overreach." The FAA has previously said in a statement to USA TODAY that it seeks to balance spaceflight progress with the need to ensure commercial launches are safely conducted. A record 148 FAA-licensed commercial space operations took place in 2024, up by more than 30% from the year prior, the agency has noted. But when it comes to Starship's development, SpaceX has become known for its risk-tolerant philosophy. Musk has stressed that rapid and frequent testing that sometimes leads to explosive ends can still provide data that helps engineers improve the vehicle's design. Environmental groups, others long oppose SpaceX rocket launches That aggressive approach, though, has rankled environmentalists and others who have criticized SpaceX's operations for potentially decimating regional ecosystems. The South Texas Environmental Justice Network, which has long opposed Musk and his space program, most recently issued a statement in May condemning the FAA for approving SpaceX's request to increase its Starship flight tests to 25 a year. In late June, Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum threatened to sue SpaceX if investigators determined that Musk's spaceflight company had contributed to undue pollution and marine life die-off in the country. The announcement came after the fiery mishap earlier in the month caused debris to fall in the Mexican state of Tamaulipa. Contributing: Reuters Eric Lagatta is the Space Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach him at elagatta@ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: SpaceX to benefit from Trump order on commercial rocket launches Solve the daily Crossword
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States With Most HPV-Related Cancers as 1 in 3 Unaware of Link
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. People in some U.S. states are more likely to be diagnosed with HPV-associated cancers than in others—with this discrepancy likely linked to awareness of the risk from the virus. Overall, one in three adults nationally are unaware of the connection between HPV and cancer, reveals a study from the MUSC Hollings Cancer Center in South Carolina. HPV, or the human papillomavirus, is spread by skin-to-skin contact and has been linked to the onset of six different types of cancer. It is responsible for almost all cases of cervical cancers, causes the majority of throat or 'oropharyngeal' cancers and can cause anal, penile, vaginal and vulvar cancers. "Awareness of HPV in the general population is an important determinant of preventative care uptake," MUSC researcher Kalyani Sonawane told Newsweek. Such measures, she explained, include the HPV vaccine and cervical cancers screening. "Achieving adequate HPV vaccine coverage is critical for eliminating these cancers." State-level data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—see map above—shows geographical differences in the diagnoses of HPV-associated cancers. At joint top of the list, Kentucky and West Virginia recorded 16.9 HPV-associated cancer cases per 100,000 residents in 2022 (the year with the most recent available data.) However, at the bottom of the list, North Dakota recorded just 8.3 HPV-associated cancer cases per 100,000 residents in the same year. According to the new study, around a third of Americans are not aware of either HPV or that a vaccine exists against it—despite this protection having been available for nearly two decades in the U.S. This lack of awareness is heightened in the Midwest and South, the researchers noted. For example, more than 40 percent of people in 13 states—including South Carolina—are unaware there is a vaccine against HPV. "In general, literacy levels (overall and health literacy) are lower in the U.S. South and Midwest, which is likely a reason why we found a lack of HPV awareness concentrated in states in these regions," explained Sonawane. The team used data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS), a survey conducted by the National Cancer Institute, to inform their research. Sonawane said that the CDC data "further highlights the need for increasing HPV awareness in Southern and Midwestern states"—where cases of HPV-related cancer also tend to be more common. The vaccine is the "first and best defense" against HPV-caused cancers, the researchers said. It is routinely recommended for children aged 11–12 years (and can be started as early as nine years). Catch-up vaccination is recommended through age 26. Additionally, adults aged 27–45 might be able to receive the vaccine after consultation with their healthcare provider. Doctor examining throat of male patient. Doctor examining throat of male research from Europe and the U.S. shows a significant reduction in cervical cancer cases in young women—likely due to them being the first group to have been vaccinated as children—there's a bigger picture to consider. Cervical cancer may show up when people are in their 30s or 40s, but oropharyngeal cancers are mostly diagnosed when people are in their 50s or 60s, the researchers warn. Sonawane noted that the biggest knowledge gap is in relation to oropharyngeal cancer. Across the nation, 70 percent of those who have heard about HPV did not know that it can lead to throat cancer. The vaccine is now approved for boys too, but their vaccination rates remain lower than among girls. "The HPV vaccine was first approved for the prevention of cervical cancer in women and was therefore heavily marketed toward women. This 'feminization' of the HPV vaccine continues to linger—and is likely a reason why most people have heard of HPV and cervical cancer, but not of its link with oral cancers," Sonawane explained. "Boys and men can also get HPV-associated oral, penile, and anal cancers; therefore, getting the HPV vaccine is equally important for males." While the pandemic interrupted measures of preventive care—including the HPV vaccination and screening for breast, cervical and colon cancers—an American Cancer Society report showed screening for breast and colon cancers has since rebounded. However, both cervical cancer screening—which is not a test for cancer, but a test to help prevent cancer—and HPV vaccination rates have not similarly recovered. "Prevention is always better than a cure. We have a safe and effective vaccine to prevent six cancers," Sonawane said. She concluded: "Going forward, we need to ensure that every child and eligible adult is protected from HPV-related cancers by ensuring they are offered the opportunity—i.e., the HPV vaccine—for preventing these cancers." Do you have a tip on a health story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about HPV? Let us know via health@ Reference Garg, A., Damgacioglu, H., Graboyes, E. M., Seal, S., Deshmukh, A. A., & Sonawane, K. (2025). State-level public awareness of HPV, HPV vaccine, and association with cancer. JAMA Oncology. Star, J., Han, X., Smith, R. A., Schafer, E. J., Jemal, A., & Bandi, P. (2025). Cancer Screening 3 Years After the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA, 333(17), 1543–1546.
