Wāhine in science program cut at UH Mānoa
Project lead and faculty member Barbara Bruno received a termination notice in April to immediately close the program funded by the National Science Foundation. Two-thirds of the almost $200,000 budget was forfeited.
UH program that helps struggling ʻohana on federal chopping block
'[The School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology] is Hawaiʻi's largest producer of geoscience graduates — alumni who go on to monitor volcanic hazards, predict extreme weather, conduct assessments of environmental impacts, ensure sustainable use of Hawaiʻi's freshwater resources and more,' Bruno said.
She then went on to highlight the importance of supporting wāhine in their academic journeys.
'I think the biggest impact of this termination is the loss of professional development opportunities for women,' she said. 'STEM is hemorrhaging women — we need programs to keep them.'The program, the Catayst Awards for Science Advancement, allowed female students, researchers, staff and faculty to attend professional meetings, workshops and work in the field.
'We were also actively soliciting applications for the next round of CASA funding when we received the termination notice,' Bruno said. 'Ending this grant eliminates the support for future professional development opportunities and K-12 and community engagement.'
Hawaiʻi Attorney General Anne Lopez, alongside 15 other attorneys general, filed a lawsuit to stop illegal attempts to cut critical science programs on May 28. In the meantime, Bruno is actively searching for funding alternatives.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
Antarctica evacuation: US researchers flown in high-risk winter night operation
Three staff members from a United States research base in Antarctica were medically evacuated to New Zealand during extreme cold and dark conditions amid the southern winter, New Zealand's air force said Wednesday, Aug. 6. The U.S. National Science Foundation requested an emergency evacuation for three people unable to receive necessary care on the continent, including one who required urgent treatment, according to the New Zealand Defense Force. Despite high-risk travel conditions, the flight landed successfully and all three received treatment. "With the support of Antarctica New Zealand and United States' National Science Foundation staff in Antarctica, we have been able to complete the flight and the patients are now getting the medical treatment they need in Christchurch," Air Component Commander Air Commodore Andy Scott said in the Aug. 6 news release Following detailed analysis of weather conditions and the airfield, the Royal New Zealand Air Force aircraft flew from the McMurdo Station on Tuesday afternoon, Aug. 5, and landed in Christchurch, New Zealand, the next morning. One doctor and other medical personnel with the New Zealand Defence Force were onboard to care for the patients throughout the flight, the agency said. The military group did not provide any details about why each staff member required medical treatment. Why was the trip so dangerous? The military group stated that mid-winter flights in Antarctica are among the most challenging trips due to extreme cold, variable weather conditions, and the difficulty of landing an aircraft on the ice during the dark hours. Temperatures at the McMurdo Station were as low as -24 Celsius (-11 Fahrenheit) on Aug. 6, Reuters reported. The crew used night vision goggles to navigate the essentially pitch-black trip, and the U.S. Antarctic Program Winter Team physically created a runway ahead of takeoff to ensure the aircraft could safely land, according to Scott. "Although they determine it is safe, it's still an extremely challenging environment to fly in," Scott said. "This, coupled with there being no airfields available to divert to once the aircraft is past a certain point south adds to the risk, so these missions are not taken lightly." The trip took nearly 20 hours, including a brief stint on the ice to refuel while the aircraft engines continued to run in a process known as "hot refueling," the New Zealand Defense Force said.
New York Times
8 hours ago
- New York Times
New Zealand Air Force Mounts Dangerous Rescue Mission in Antarctica
The Royal New Zealand Air Force evacuated three people from a U.S. research base in Antarctica on Wednesday, conducting a rare and highly dangerous mission through volatile weather and 24-hour darkness to rescue the individuals. The evacuation at McMurdo Station, the United States' main outpost in Antarctica, was requested by the National Science Foundation after a staff member required urgent medical care and was unable to be treated there, the air force said in a statement. Two other people who needed medical care were also taken on the flight. The station, which typically hosts around 200 people during the winter months, has a small medical staff on site, similar to an urgent care facility, the National Science Foundation said in a statement. The foundation is not equipped, however, to handle major emergencies. It did not provide details about the medical conditions that led to the evacuations. On Tuesday afternoon, the air force sent a C-130J Hercules, a military transport aircraft, from Christchurch, New Zealand, to Antarctica. The crew, equipped with night vision goggles, flew about 2,400 miles, roughly the distance from Los Angeles to New York City, in difficult weather conditions and complete darkness, Andy Scott, an air commodore, said in the statement. Mr. Scott said that evacuating people from Antarctica during the winter months is one of the most challenging missions the air force can undertake. Temperatures can drop to minus 90 degrees Fahrenheit (roughly minus 70 Celsius) in some locations, and violent storms can appear in a matter of minutes. The journey is made even riskier because there is a point of no return, after which there are no airfields where the crew can divert the aircraft if something goes wrong, Mr. Scott said. The plane also needs to land in Antarctica on a runway made of ice, he added. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Contributor: The true cost of abandoning science
Any trip to the dark night skies of our Southern California deserts reveals a vista full of wonder and mystery — riddles that astrophysicists like myself spend our days unraveling. I am fortunate to study how the first galaxies formed and evolved over the vast span of 13 billion years into the beautiful structures that fill those skies. NASA's crown jewel, the James Webb Space Telescope, has delivered measurements of early galaxies so puzzling that, more than three years after its launch, we are still struggling to understand them. My work on ancient galaxies may seem to have no relevance to the enormous challenges that confront our nation every day. But if we look back over the last 80 years, ever since World War II turned America into the epicenter of global science, curiosity-driven investigation — in astronomy, quantum materials, evolutionary biology and more — has been a pillar of American progress. But science in America is now under dire threat. President Trump's administration is laying waste to both national laboratories and federal support for academic science. Scientific staff is being sharply reduced from the National Park Service to the National Science Foundation and everywhere in between. Looking at the president's science funding proposals across many agencies, the 2026 fiscal year budget calls for a 34% cut to basic research. The plan slashes NASA's budget to the lowest amount since human space flight began more than 60 years ago, canceling or defunding dozens and dozens of NASA missions. Already, the NSF has halved support for the most promising American graduate students. Read more: Contributor: Those cuts to 'overhead' costs in research? They do real damage Scientists are speaking up against this destruction, of course. There are strong practical reasons to back science: It is a powerful engine for economic growth, and it is essential for understanding and mitigating the dangers of the natural world — whether they be the Los Angeles wildfires (which my family fled in January) or the tragic floods in Texas last month. As important as these pragmatic arguments are, their focus on quantifiable, short-term benefits undervalues the true worth of the scientific enterprise. Occasionally, curiosity-driven inquiry — basic science — rapidly enables new technology, but more often its first impact is the wonder we experience at novel measurements, whether contemplating ripples in space-time generated by colliding black holes, underwater ecosystems that draw energy from geothermal vents rather than the sun, or the relic microwave radiation of the Big Bang. The practical impacts that follow are unpredictable; if the goal is to explore the unknown, then the benefits are also unknown. (Let us not forget that even Columbus was sorely mistaken about what his journey would uncover!) Only through hard work to understand and unpack new discoveries do their full benefits become clear, and that can take decades, as with how Einstein's theory of relativity (published from 1905 to 1915) eventually enabled GPS technology. Read more: Contributor: Ending LGBTQ+ health research will leave science in the dark Government support is essential in this process. Although Hollywood often portrays scientific discovery as the work of lone geniuses, far more often it is an incremental process, inching ahead through insights from disparate research groups leveraging cutting-edge infrastructure (such as Arctic research facilities and orbiting telescopes), which can only be built through the focused resources of government investment. Every American taxpayer has helped enable innumerable scientific advancements because they are largely due to our nation's investments in the public goods of people and facilities. Of course, these advances have cost money, and we must always ask how best to balance the long-term benefits of science against our country's other urgent needs. (The enormously popular James Webb Space Telescope, for example, was massively over budget, which led to budget-estimation reforms at NASA.) In 2024, the total science budget, outside of medical research (and its obvious practical benefits), was about $28 billion. This is a large number, but it is still just over one-half of 1% of all spending outside of Social Security and Medicare: For every $1,000 in spending, about $6 — one tall Starbucks Caffè Mocha or Big Mac in California — supports fundamental scientific inquiry. Read more: Trump freezes $300 million in UCLA science and medical research funding, citing antisemitism Yet the current administration has chosen to hack away at budgets rather than do the hard work of self-examination and improvement. American science, and especially the emerging generation of young scientists, will not survive these cuts. If implemented, the administration's framework will choke off new technologies before they are only half an idea, leave fundamental questions about the universe unanswered and chase a generation of scientists to other countries. By any measure, American science is the envy of the world, and we now face a choice: to remain at the vanguard of scientific inquiry through sound investment, or to cede our leadership and watch others answer the big questions that have confounded humanity for millennia — and reap the rewards and prestige. Only one of those options will make the future America great. Steven R. Furlanetto is a professor of physics and astronomy at UCLA. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times. Solve the daily Crossword
