US Agencies' Science Journal Subscriptions Canceled (semafor.com) 99
An anonymous reader shares a report: The US government canceled several federal agencies' subscription to Nature and other scientific journals. A spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services said all contracts with Springer Nature, Nature's publisher, had been "terminated" and that taxpayer money should not be used on "junk science." Nature newsroom, with an update : On 2 July, one US government agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees the National Institutes of Health (NIH), appeared to walk back its earlier statement to Nature's news team saying that it was cancelling contracts to Springer Nature. Now the HHS says: "Science journals are ripping the American people off with exorbitant access fees and extra charges to publish research openly. HHS is working to develop policies that conserve taxpayer dollars and get Americans a better deal. In the meantime, NIH scientists have continued access to all scientific journals."
Sad (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
history doesn't repeat itself, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, you never toook science in high school, or jr. high. What are you doing *here*, pretending to be a nerd?
As long as Communications of the ACM is safe (Score:2)
Ingsoc (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to 1984!
No longer true, missed the update! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Like I care what a barely-literate coward thinks.
Which one - Trump, or RFK Jr.?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A regime by assholes, for assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
From Nature: https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
If HHS can pull that off and make taxpayer funded science available via open or very low cost source, they won't have to cancel subscriptions, the pubs will die a natural death. It is ridiculous that gov't funded research isn't freely available. I get peer reviewers like an honorarium, but I'd propose adding to research grants a stipulation that for every X dollars of grant money the grantee needs to provide Y of peer reviews.
what google has to say about it (Score:5, Informative)
"Yes, the scientific journal Nature has taken positions on Donald Trump and his presidency.
In 2020, Nature explicitly endorsed Joe Biden for US President and condemned Donald Trump's administration, citing his "disastrous response to the COVID-19 pandemic," his undermining of science and public health agencies, and his disregard for research-informed knowledge.
More recently, particularly after the 2024 election, Nature has published editorials and articles expressing concerns about a second Trump administration and its potential impact on science. For instance, a February 2025 article stated that Trump is "taking a wrecking ball to science and to international institutions,". Another article from the same month denounced Trump's "assault on science".
It's important to note that Nature's decision to endorse a political candidate has sparked debate, with some arguing that it can undermine public trust in the journal and science itself.
Re:what google has to say about it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Somethings should be Apolitical (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Two paragraphs of victim blaming.
They tried to warn us and are paying the price.
Re: (Score:2)
They tried to warn us and are paying the price.
Well I'm trying to warn you about the problems of politicizing science and clearly my karma is paying the price but that's a price worth paying.
Re: (Score:2)
It would become pretty clear what the political ideology of our supreme court justices was after a year or two. I don't see the point in hiding it when after a few dozen rulings it would become apparent what their political beliefs are.
Not to mention who appointed them would kind of give it away too.
Re: (Score:3)
It would become pretty clear what the political ideology of our supreme court justices was after a year or two.
Would it? I'm not sure I could tell you the political affiliations of the supreme court justices in either the UK or Canada.
Re: Somethings should be Apolitical (Score:1)
After all, gravity is apolitical.
Re: (Score:1)
Good old both-sideism
Look guys, I know Trump is destroying our democracy, is openly using the justice department to go after his enemies and ignore his friends, is promoting his crypto and merchandising openly, is ignoring due process first for non-citizens and soon for citizens, has put a actual crackpot in charge of our nation's health, is destroying the economy with insane tariff wars and deporting hard working migrants, is changing the EPA's mission from protecting our environment to helping its destruc
Re: (Score:2)
Just because Trump is destroying all the social, legal and ethical norms does not mean that everyone else has to
Re: (Score:1)
So no, it isn't scientific, it's political - a dispute over resource allocation.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know those scientists have a hard time telling fact from fiction...
I go to church to learn about the latest development in physics, I read Nature for political punditry, and I always listen to politicians to tell me what really happened, right?
Re: what google has to say about it (Score:2)
If you are a maggot, yes, except you only read scientific journals to find out what to be mad about because you don't understand it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No it is not scientific.
Science is about facts, not policies. Ideally, policies are decided based on these facts, but at that point, it stops becoming science and it becomes politics.
A scientist's job is not to support a politician over another, decide on budgets, or anything like that. What a scientist can do however is point out the possible consequences of a policy, backed with data and using proper methodology. He can make recommendations on what to do to achieve a certain goal, referencing relevant sci
There's always divine intervention (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The Cass Review was prepared following the same careful method of scientific meta-analysis followed by RFK Jr. and his vaccine experts.
No "/s" because this is strictly factual, and even more worrying due to that.
Re:There's always divine intervention (Score:4, Interesting)
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
--Barry Goldwater
Re: (Score:2)
I think black women have a better grasp of what it means to be Christian than the Republicans you seem to think they should be allied with.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "Democrat party", get over yourself. Stop cosplaying as a victim, you're not persecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "Democrat party", get over yourself.
So "Don't trust your own lying eyes" argument again?
Re: (Score:3)
No the name of the organization is "The Democratic Party", not "democrat party". Try to learn that.
And you're still not a victim of religious persecution.
Like Green Mountain Bot asked and you didn't bother to answer:
Which religious beliefs exactly are the Democratic Party hostile to?
(Note: unlike yourself, he correctly called it the "Democratic Party")
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
soooo, you've got noting but nonsense, got it.
I was almost worried it was something real.
Re: (Score:2)
Though I can't help but notice your response is a bit hostile. Amusing, given that to which you respond.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a typo you prick. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You're falling for propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
So again: Which religious beliefs exactly are the Democratic Party hostile to again? Still waiting on that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
These Christians you speak of don't seem very familiar with the source material. If a guy named Jesus showed up today and started preaching about loving thy neighbor, feeding the poor, and generally being a nice person he would get grabbed by ICE.
Re: There's always divine intervention (Score:2)
The Democrat party is not at all hostile to Christianity, it isn't affiliated with any religion and doesn't pick a favorite.
The Republican Party has decided it's so close to religion that when their politics get in the way they'll change the religion to fit. To the point of failing every single WWJD check and calling empathy a sickness. Personally, I don't think any ideology with Christ in the name has a lot of room to fail many WWJD checks, but here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, in reality they did not and have not. What actually happened was that Republicans hitched their wagon to transgender issues, and Democrats wanted to talk about other things like the economy and Trump's crimes. And so the Republicans kept stumping on and on about trans-this and trans-that, and the Democrats kept talking abo
Re: (Score:2)
"All things happen through god"
Therefore...literally...science is invalid. Why did the sun come up? Rotation of the earth? no. God hung it up there.
Re: There's always divine intervention (Score:3)
Science is the study of, if you are religious, HOW God hung it up there. In no way does that fundamentally conflict with the idea of religion.. However, it can easily conflict with some religions when they are stupid enough to try to describe science even though that's not what they are for.
Re:There's always divine intervention (Score:4, Interesting)
I still don't get why so many in the USA feel that religion and science are so incompatible.
Many long, bloody, vicious wars have been fought over religion, so it seems to me that it isn't even compatible with itself, never mind with science. Science at least tries to distance itself from conclusions based on magical thinking and folklore, while religion pretty much is magical thinking and folklore.
So I find claims of compatibility between them surprising. Peaceful-but-sometimes-scrappy coexistence? Sure, I buy that - it's what I share with my brother-in-law who uses racial slurs and is fond of the phrase "brown people". But compatibility? Not so much...
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of our religious folks are very religious and very conservative. This stems all the way back to our early colonial period when Britain used the colonies as a place to get rid of their religious extremists as well as many coming over here on their own to get away from British persecution. Fast forward to today and we're full of religious radicals and the UK isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
St. Augustine said something appropriate, but as I'm having trouble tracking down the exact quote I'll paraphrase - When scripture and our observations of the natural world appear to contradict each other
Re: (Score:2)
The barriers are not pointless at all, if we read the writings of the founders of America you can see they were all keenly aware of it and there are reasons the system they made is structured how it is, there was a lot of debate about this. These were all religious people and as one of them put it in debate to put god into the Constitution would be man saying he can add to God's wisdom which would be sacrilegious basically. The separation was not out of contempt for religions but respect and necessity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That wall isn't a created thing like the governmental separation, religion by it's very nature cannot subscribe to scientific methods, it's a thing of faith precisely because the truth it deals with is distinctly different than science.
How do you put a hypothesis or a measurement on the existence of god or the afterlife or a miracle? This line of argumentation is mostly in the realm of apologia, what truth do you think combining religion and science could reveal that neither of can't them deal with on thei
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, religion deals with the supernatural and if science could measure the supernatural it would no longer be supernatural.
Why does the New Testament begin with that encoding? Because the author knew about it, we can look into that. Was it written by man or divine being? Can we measure it?
If you're talking inspiration and philosophy of science type things, sure, right there with you, we are just humans after all, I never understood creationists when you can just as easily say natural selection was god's int
Re: (Score:2)
Just taking the example of the christian bible: the earth is at the center of the universe, the universe was "created" in six literal days, there was a world-wide flood that covered all land masses and killed all life except that on a wooden shop, people who live for hundreds of years, men have one fewer ribs than women, bats are birds and whales are fish, a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: There's always divine intervention (Score:2)
Not given how bad you are at explaining it, no.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you try hard enough, you can misconstrue anything.
No verse says the earth is at the center of the universe. It is at the center of mankind's universe, though, for now, and probably for millennia to come. The universe wasn't created in six literal days (Gen 1:1 just says in the beginning). It was restored to a habitable state after Lucifer's judgment in six literal days though. Noah's flood destroyed the world he knew and he saved the local wildlife that came to his ark - probably a description of the Bl
Re: (Score:2)
There's a bit of a difference in the way science and religion tend to operate. A scientific theory might be completely disproved, but more often it will be refined or replaced with a better one. When an organized religion is proved wrong, it just murders the people who said so.
Re: (Score:2)
I also remember an instance where people thought they had their science right, and rather than admit that it was wrong in the face of clear evidence, they let millions of people die. Turns out that wheat simply will not grow in Siberia.
Marxism maintains the pretense of being "scientific history" that accurately predicts the future. Y
Re: (Score:2)
Agree. Science says these people are dumb as fuck. Religion says "Oh, nice, these people are dumb as fuck, lets exploit them!"
parental rights (Score:2)
no discount? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If you are willing to pay full price, why would I give you a discount?
Re:What companies still pay for periodicals? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Why not? Mechanics are usually expected to bring their own tools.
Re: (Score:2)
Mechanics get _paid_ for bringing their own tools as that is priced in.
Re: (Score:1)
Right. And now the govt is telling the magazine readers that their salaries "price in" the need to pay for their own magazines.
But besides that, i was responding to the comment that it is absurd to expect scientists to pay for their own tools. If it is ok for mechanics, I don't see why it's absurd for scientists.
I also have a bit of a bias. As an "IT worker", I am more than happy to supply my own tools, rather than asking an employer to pay for them. I'll supply my own computer and my own software and (back
Re: (Score:3)
I guess you have no clue what these "magazines" cost and that as a scientist you need to survey a lot in there but will read relatively little. Just FYI, no scientist gets paid enough to be able to affort these subscriptions and that is why for scientists, these tools are _not_ priced in.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure I do.
Have you priced out a full box of Snap On tools?
Re: (Score:2)
You really have no clue what you are talking about. Pathetic.
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you for your insights.
Re: (Score:2)
A one-year subscription to Nature [nature.com] costs $199. That's a lot less than I expected. But it adds up when a research project might need a hundred or more publications.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed.
Re:What companies still pay for periodicals? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why not? Mechanics are usually expected to bring their own tools.
That is true, and I owned thousands of dollars in tools. But those were primarily hand manual and power tools. Shops supply more permanent things like tire mounting and balancing machines, alignment machines, and air compressors.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if they work for a shop.
Re: What companies still pay for periodicals? (Score:2)
You never worked in a shop, I take it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I have, although it was decades ago. But I also know people who work in an auto shop now.
Re: (Score:2)
It's very common for mechanics to be required to provide their own tools.
It's California law that you cannot require an employee to provide their own tools, unless you are paying them at least twice the minimum wage. This is true in general, not just for auto shops. I worked in an RV shop. I had to provide my tools. I got in a wage dispute over it. I received a settlement.
Only the low-end guys in the shop don't typically have to provide tools.
Re: (Score:2)
So, I have to admit, this was back when I was a (apparently clueless) teenager, and basically what I was amounted to being a gopher and extra set of hands. It never occurred to me that the guys owned their own tools, I didn't see them hauling them in/out.
The guys I know now, I know through the owner of a rather large auto shop. He is frequently talking about expensive stuff he's bought for the shop, so I've just assumed he bought everything.
Side note - back in the day, it was pretty obvious I wasn't particu
Re: (Score:3)
DOGE reported on many thousands of subscriptions to things that were being paid for by the taxpayers.
Given their track record, I think it'd be more accurate to say DOGE reported thousands of times on the same one subscription being paid for by the taxpayers, because it appeared on multiple databases, no one at DOGE normalized those because they have no idea how to do that, and as a result the cost informed in their report was falsely inflated by three orders of magnitude.
Re: (Score:2)
DOGE reported on many thousands of subscriptions to things that were being paid for by the taxpayers.
And now our deficit is gone!
Does it matter? (Score:2)
Idiocracy (Score:2)
Idiocracy is when one of the best scientific journals on the planet gets called "junk science". I guess these morons will not get their "science" from the bible or any other such spurce.
The Journals are almost as bad as the President (Score:2)
Good science requires: 1) Reporting of negative results and 2) Confirming of positive results.
However, most science journals insist on only reporting 'relevant' results, so they never publish negative results and also only report 'new' science, so they refuse to publish results that confirm or deny existing results.
Personally, if I were President (never going to happen), I would refuse to pay for any journal unless they consistently included both negative results and secondary tests of existing reports.
Unf
We'll pay in other ways ... (Score:2)
If there's one thing I'll give this Administration, they know junk science - just ask RFK, Jr (HHS) , Dr. Oz (Medicare) ... Unfortunately, we'll be paying for junk science even w/o subscriptions to journals they simply don't like.