joshuasweitz.bsky.social
Professor of Biology & Institute for Health Computing, U of Maryland; explores how viruses impact human and environmental health; 'Asymptomatic' (JHU Press, 10/22/2024) & 'Quantitative Biosciences' (Princeton U Press, 3/2024) & 'Science Matters' substack.
1,199 posts
8,725 followers
2,261 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
A few years back we tried to address whether it makes sense for a donor country w/a vaccine stockpile to share w/other countries for self-interested objectives, because not all begin with the same priors (even more so now).
Answer: yes. Selfish? Then share.
journals.plos.org/globalpublic...
comment in response to
post
A title:
"Kennedy’s New Advisers Promise Closer Scrutiny of Childhood Vaccines"
A translation:
"Kennedy's New, Anti-vax Advisers Welcome Anti-vax Presenters Spreading Misinformation About Vaccines"
www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-vac...
comment in response to
post
Exploring ways to continue these activities in years to come and to share open-source training materials to students/postdocs. More to come via
weitzgroup.umd.edu/workshops/
comment in response to
post
Many thanks to Gabi Steinbach and Anais Bardyn for their help in making the logistic possible as well as the College of Computer, Mathematical and Natural Sciences at UMD, Brin Mathematics Research Center and the Institute for Health Computing.
comment in response to
post
Evolution ( @aburmeister.bsky.social UWM, Tapan Goel, UMD, @justinmeyer.bsky.social)
Ecology (Sarah Preheim JHU, @beckettstephen.bsky.social UMD, Daniel Muratore SFI, and Paul Fremont UMD)
w/ @mariandm.bsky.social as our lead lab instructor.
comment in response to
post
Themes span:
Principles (w/me, Ido Golding, UIUC)
Phage Therapy (@paulturnerlab.bsky.social Yale; Waqas Chaudhry of Tolka.AI; and Jacopo Marchi, UMD)
Spatial Dynamics (Namiko Mitarai, NCBI; Carey Nadell, Dartmouth; + Marchi)
...
comment in response to
post
Each full day includes morning lectures, afternoon computational laboratories (guided and hands-on in both Python and R) and an evening plenary + multiple activities including a Day 1 poster session.
comment in response to
post
More information here, building on @dangaristo.bsky.social's breaking news.
www.alxnow.com/2025/06/24/r....
comment in response to
post
We account for economic impacts arising, in part, because of commuter flows and Boulder/Denver/Ft. Collins matter... Folks who work in institutions in/around those areas live in multiple districts which are colored in the same shade (i.e., by House district).
comment in response to
post
Precisely so, it is up to us - across our expertise and local communities and via member-driven professional organizations - to ensure that information on what proposed policies actually do is on the negotiating table when decisions that impact all of us are made.
/🧵
comment in response to
post
The administration might say one thing, but their policies, whether through layoffs, grant terminations, and massive cuts to science tell us what they will do.
comment in response to
post
If we are to make a values judgement then we have to move past sloganeering into data, evidence, and consequences.
comment in response to
post
For our part, the #SCIMaP team has provided one such assessment, focusing on economic impacts of cuts to NIH-supported research. The impacts are stark, national in scope, and impact communities all across the US.
scienceimpacts.org/fy26
comment in response to
post
These debates set the stage for something consequential - the FY26 budget. In doing so, we must hope (indeed we should expect and demand) that @science.org will make space not just for point/counter-points but for data-driven assessment of the impacts of decisions to slash science funding.
comment in response to
post
What happens next will be consequential. @science.org and @aaas.org must continue to ensure data and evidence is their guide to what is published and not political ideology that aligns with the WH talking points. If not, then they will have strayed from their mission.
comment in response to
post
I agree with @science.org's editorial decision to provide Kratsios a forum to respond to critiques of so-called "gold standard science." It represents a concise summary of what the White House thinks of science and of scientists.
comment in response to
post
The biggest tell is of course what the administration has decided to do with federal support of science. Put simply, they want to slash it, by nearly 50%, spanning federal support for NIH, NSF, DoE, NOAA and beyond.
substack.com/@joshuasweit...
comment in response to
post
In other words: you're (and we're) next.
comment in response to
post
Kratsios continues to explain what the intent is: "The federal agencies that are subject to the Gold Standard Science order are only one part of the research ecosystem" and then takes aim at the "nation’s universities, scientific professional societies, and publishers of the scientific literature."
comment in response to
post
This attitude explains why there is a gap between what the administration claims to want to pursue ("gold standard science") and what it does in practice:
* Ad-hoc termination of grants
* Cancellations of programs
* Massive layoffs
* Targeting institutions
* Removing experts and expertise
comment in response to
post
As I described in detail, the position of the administration is not that American science is a global leader that should be supported with meaningful reforms. Instead, the WH views America's institutions with disdain and is taking steps to dismantle them.
joshuasweitz.substack.com/p/the-state-...
comment in response to
post
Back in mid-May, Kratsios sat in dialogue with Marcia McNutt, President of the NAS, where he declared a presumably shared intention: "We want America’s scientists to be the best in the world."
Remarks:
www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-st...
Video:
vimeo.com/event/5121742
(watch the video - really)
comment in response to
post
The opinion is worth reading, not because it is bound by facts or evidence, but because it reflects a dynamic that is playing out when institutional actors (whether the @nationalacademies.org or @aaas.org) engage with an administration that is not negotiating in good faith.
comment in response to
post
Full data source info available in the report, feel free to reach out directly if you wanted more context.
data.scienceimpacts.org/scimap_white...
comment in response to
post
We just released the following that directly addresses the issue embedded in the White House's FY26 NIH budget.
bsky.app/profile/josh...
comment in response to
post
It is now up to Congress to decide if will propose a budget vision that supports the goal of retaining American leadership in science and medical research.
Thanks to the #SCIMaP team: @malar0ne.bsky.social, Clio Andris, @asinclair.bsky.social and more.
scienceimpacts.org/fy26
comment in response to
post
Today's analysis comes with a reminder.
The FY26 budget is not yet fixed - it remains a proposal.
Despite talking points framing proposed cuts as targeted, the reality is quite different.
comment in response to
post
Together, ongoing #SCIMaP analyses focuses on major ways that the White House is dismantling support for science and medical research nationwide, including:
1. Reduction in research infrastructure (via "IDC" cuts)
2. Grant terminations
3. Dramatic reductions in baseline NIH support
comment in response to
post
Like reductions in research infrastructure, these terminations have impacts that extend in communities all across the U.S. given our national network of labs, halting programs already in progress and damaging the innovation pipeline to develop life-saving diagnostics, devices, and treatments.
comment in response to
post
On May 27, we extended prior analyses to evaluate the impacts of ongoing grant terminations, leveraging datasets from grant-watch.us h/t @noamross.net, @scott-delaney.bsky.social + team, that document arbitrary and ad-hoc terminations to people, programs, and institutes.
scienceimpacts.org
comment in response to
post
Similar reductions in IDC have been directed at DoE and NSF, though the implementation of drastic reductions in IDC have been paused by the courts:
NIH
www.nytimes.com/2025/04/04/u...
NSF
www.reuters.com/legal/govern...
DoE
www.highereddive.com/news/federal...
comment in response to
post
This reduction in research infrastructure (also known as 'IDC', aka indirect costs) would mean that universities, hospitals, and research institutes would not have enough funds to maintain facilities, equipment, and safety checks required for medical research.
www.science.org/content/arti...
comment in response to
post
Our initial March 27 release focused on the economic impacts of the White House decision to slash research infrastructure support.
grants.nih.gov/grants/guide...
comment in response to
post
As context, the Science and Community Impacts Mapping Project #SCIMaP explores the impacts of cuts to science and health research that fuels the economy, supports jobs, and improves health outcomes.
comment in response to
post
As described by @malar0ne.bsky.social, we use NIH Reporter FY20-24 data to identify funding baselines and then project anticipated losses due to the >40% budget cuts, while accounting for the $2.56 economic activity supported by each $1 in NIH funding.
bsky.app/profile/mala...