Back in the ancient mists of time, scientists and mathematicians would circulate preprints of their articles among friends and colleagues via the postal service, as a courtesy, to get feedback and to try to make sure people in the community were aware of their forthcoming work.  As the wikipedia entry says, with the advent of widespread LaTeX and the development of the web, Paul Ginsparg (then at LANL) put together an html-based site for electronic sharing of preprints, initially at xxx.lanl.gov (back before "xxx" in URLs was the kind of thing filtered and blocked by employers).   In 2001 he moved to Cornell, and by then the lab was perhaps relieved to see the site, rebranded as the arXiv, shift to Cornell's library/repository infrastructure.   PIs my age remember (fondly? maybe?) the old days of the arXiv, when Prof. Ginsparg's rather dry sense of humor pervaded the site.  The skull-and-crossbones logo.  The "help"/FAQ pages that basically said, "if you can't figure out how to .tar.gz all of your necessary LaTeX files, and you can't figure out how to make your .eps figures small, maybe you should reconsider whether you're smart enough to be sharing your ideas here".  The arXiv was for preprints, without peer review (though interesting follow-on sites like Scirate now exist for organized commenting on the articles). From these modest beginnings, the arXiv has grown enormously, including imitators/spin-offs such as chemrxiv and biorXiv and socarXiv.  The arXiv has recently become an independent nonprofit, hired a CEO, secured multiyear philanthropic support, and hosts over 3 million articles.  It's been interesting seeing some level of complaints online about some of these steps, but when the audience is so large, not everyone is going to be happy.  Rapid growth has been a major issue - see here for a graph of monthly submissions: The exponential rise (except for a slight pandemic-correlated shoulder) has been problematic, especially recently.  One hallmark of the arXiv over the years has been its ability to function with comparatively minimal need for "moderation".  Early on, one consequence of the minimalistic help and moderate technical entry barrier was that it was unusual for fringe/pseudoscience to make its way onto the server.  (Hence the establishment of viXra.)  With the ease of cranking out properly formatted readable manuscripts using AI, clearly the arXiv has been struggling.  If 10-15% of submissions need some kind of human intervention or review, the support needs are rapidly outpacing the limited count of support staff.  There can be substantial backlogs.  To help deal with this, the arXiv recently updated its policies regarding AI-generated content (and AI cannot be a co-author, because the AI tools cannot take responsibility for content), and most recently has had to limit submission rates to two papers per month per submitting author.  These moves, too, have drawn some criticism (e.g. here).  Personally, I think the operators of the arXiv face an incredibly challenging environment and are doing the best they can - the idea that they are making moves because they are establishment sticks in the mud who don't understand the New Way of Doing Science is just wrong-headed. It's completely unclear where all this is heading.  Exponential growth in nature signals instability and does not continue forever. If proponents of very heavily AI-driven research want to establish a repository specifically for that work, that's up to them.  [It is very on brand for the hard core AI advocates to argue that the arXiv is somehow morally obligated to host everything (regardless of hardware or personnel costs) so that future AI tools can read everything (a repository growing too quickly for human researchers to keep up) and summarize it.] One overarching point that should come up in any arXiv discussion: The arXiv has become a global repository for an enormous amount of human knowledge, without charging anyone publication fees.  This should make interested parties think reallllllly hard about economic models of for-profit publishers.

We are less than one month away from the end of the federal fiscal year, and traditionally there are internal deadlines for agencies to allocate their final spending by around September 9. Right now, the NSF is on track to issue about 4000 fewer (!!) awards in FY26 than it did annually back in FY21-FY24, and 2000 fewer than it did in the incredibly tumultuous FY25 (with its government shutdowns and mass cutbacks in agency personnel). This is dire, if like me you are a supporter of the agency and its vital role in the US research ecosystem.   Perhaps even more distressing, the NSF is on track to underspend its FY26 budget appropriation (congressionally approved, presidentially signed) by between $1.25-1.5B, or 15-18%. This is essentially unprecedented - in the past, the NSF has always spent ~ 99% of its appropriation in a given fiscal year. Some large portion of this is from the mid-FY clawbacks that were reported in Science and Nature, supposedly squirreled away to support an as-yet unannounced OSTP "grand challenges" program.   While technically the funds don't go away at the end of September, this kind of underspending raises the possibility of a pocket rescission. OMB and the executive branch have been pushing for massive cuts to the agency; Congress has disagreed. It sure looks like all the "see, don't worry, Congress didn't allow big cuts to the NSF" palliative statements don't hold up very well to scrutiny, if the majority party is content to just give up Article I power to the executive branch.  In this period of complete flood-the-zone craziness, the mainstream news media seemingly doesn't have the bandwidth or interest to report on this; they seem to have judged that it's too obscure, it doesn't play in Peoria, the public doesn't really care. This kind of disruption will have ripple effects that last for many years and affect US scientific and economic competitiveness, and it's happening without much notice. This week's news about an agreement between NIH and DOD to funnel NIH funds for infectious disease to DOD (or, in the official statement, to work together on projects of mutual interest), is at least getting some public attention.  Agencies agreeing to pass around at minimum hundreds of millions of dollars outside congressional oversight or what the appropriations acts say is another example of an Article I crisis, when the majority party basically hands over what are supposed to be congressional powers to executive branch. (An additional sciencey blog post coming soon!)

Yesterday I attended the 40th annual summer research colloquium of the Smalley-Curl Institute at Rice, a fun internal conference that provides a great opportunity for undergrads (including visitors), graduate students, and a few postdocs to present their work.  The keynote speaker was our EVPR, Prof. David Sholl, who gave a very informative talk about reproducibility in the chemical engineering/materials literature.  We hear a lot these days about crises of reproducibility in scientific research, and Prof. Sholl rightly points out that in some fields the expectation of reproducible results is high - no one would spend $1B on a chemical engineering plant if they weren't very sure that the catalytic processes were going to work as expected at scale.  Keys to reproducibility include, unsurprisingly, repeated results and independent replication.  One metaresult that was interesting is this paper, looking at the literature on metal-organic frameworks and how often there are published replications of syntheses; not as often as you would think or want!   A truly surprising (to me, anyway) result is this one.  The Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) (yes, that Teller) method is a long-established technique that uses gas adsorption measurements to infer the surface area of porous materials.  Many research groups were given identical raw adsorption isotherms and asked to calculate the specific surface areas, resulting in a surprisingly large spread of results (Fig 1 of the paper).  Clearly not everyone had the same analysis procedures even for a technique developed in the 1930s! Some take-away lessons from this are encapsulated here, in an article titled "Five easy ways to make your research more reproducible".  Good stuff.  The talk raised a number of questions relevant to our present era of huge enthusiasm about AI-based materials research and "self-driving" labs.  If the AI models are all trained on the literature, and the literature is not representative of complete and reproducible procedures, that's a problem.   One personal anecdote about reproducibility and its challenges in materials synthesis.  Twenty years ago (!), I was working with a colleague who had a postdoc who was synthesizing Fe3O4 (magnetite) nanoparticles via wet chemistry methods (see here). We did some fun electronic transport experiments bridging very closely spaced electrodes with such nanoparticles, and we saw some very dramatic hysteretic response kick in as \(T\) was reduced below about 120 K.  That's the temperature of the Verwey transition in magnetite, where the material enters a more insulating low temperature phase.  Basically all of the devices we made with that batch of nanoparticles showed this phenomenon.  Then the postdoc took up a faculty position and a senior grad student came in and took over the synthesis, and for several months, subsequent batches of nanoparticles just didn't seem to show the effect.  The key issue is oxygen stoichiometry.  Get a little oxygen rich, and you form nanoparticles that include some \(\gamma\)-Fe2O3, which doesn't have the Verwey physics and in nanoparticle form looks really similar in x-ray diffraction to the desired magnetite.  Anyway, we started working with a collaborator who could grow epitaxial Fe3O4 films, and in those devices the electronic effect was there all the time.  All this led to this publication and subsequent papers, and I still think it's a cool set of result about a nonequilibrium transition in a correlated material.  In the end, after several months the chemistry grad student did get back to making nanoparticle batches that showed the transition. It turns out that at some point he had changed the length of a piece of tubing in the gas manifold, and unexpectedly that had altered the reaction kinetics just a little.  Changing it back got the synthesis to be reliable again.  This is an example of how finicky materials synthesis can be!

For non-US folks, feel free to skip.  For US folks:  The Office of Management and Budget, which for much of its history has been a comparatively uncontroversial element of the executive branch, has set rules and guidelines for how many executive-branch agencies conduct business and interact with, e.g., universities.  For the purposes of how the research ecosystem operates, the most relevant is OMB's "Uniform Guidance" about how grants and contracts work.  Periodically these rules are updated for various reasons, including the goals and policies of the presidential administration.  The standard way this works is that the proposed changes are published in the Federal Register; there is a public comment period; OMB makes revisions and then publishes the new rules.  In principle, Congress can act to override or prevent rule changes, but without the agreement of the President, this is an extremely challenging path. OMB has proposed sweeping changes to the Uniform Guidance, summarized here.  These proposed rule changes are huge deviations from previous practice.  For example, they would have all final grant decisions made by political appointees or hires of the executive branch (rather than, e.g., agency subject matter experts); grants could be cancelled at any time for essentially any reason (completely undefined insufficient support of the president's priorities), with no appeal process; international collaborations would be severely curtailed. That's just three for starters.  Note that this would also go beyond just the public research enterprise - it would allow the executive branch to cancel funding for things like bridges, roads, schools, agriculture, etc. for undefined political reasons.  It would be a huge transfer of power from Congress to the presidency.  Here is another summary by the AAU.  Here is an editorial essay from ars technica.   The public comment period on this runs until July 13.  Here is a link where you can make a comment.  Here is a guide for how to be effective at this from Stand Up for Science.  The APS has a tool for helping people to comment about specific aspects of the rule changes.  It is also a good idea to contact congressional delegations (representatives, senators).   It's important to have a clear public record about the proposed changes.  They may try to implement these regardless, but if so, there will be a continued fight over this in Congress and through the courts.

I watched the webcast of the NAS State of Science address by outgoing NAS president Dr. Marcia McNutt.  (I did not watch the panel discussion afterward, so sorry if I missed critical pieces.)  A few thoughts on this: The intro music was a very classy baroque string quartet.  Hard not to think of this scene from Titanic. The main theme was about ways to revitalize US science, and there were six main points that she wanted to emphasize, each with examples of relevant projects underway, ways to measure success, and the consequences of failure.  That's fine, and I'll relay them below with some comments, but first an overall impression:  This was largely an exercise in avoiding talking about the elephant in the room, the overt hostility toward and the attempted wanton dismantling of much of the publicly funded US research ecosystem by the executive branch.  I'm unfortunately not surprised that this was largely brushed over, given the position of the Academies (see here).  As the saying goes, I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed.  The realization that the National Academies leadership do not feel empowered to have a frank discussion about this publicly has been depressing. Dr. McNutt mentioned that in her previous address, she had pointed out the US vulnerability in STEM by being so reliant on international talent, and that now that other countries are heavily investing in research, the US STEM research world needs to do a better job getting US citizens in the workforce.  That's all true, but leaving out how the government leadership is explicitly trying to curtain international scholars and international collaboration seems like quite an omission. She mentioned in passing that industrial research in the US in the 1950s was tiny, nothing compared to the fraction of R&D it is today.  Is that actually correct?  I mean, that was the heyday of Bell Labs, IBM, GE, Westinghouse, and big research labs at companies like Ford and GM.  Much has been written about this.   The first big point was the need for improved relationships between universities and industry, and some examples of ways to encourage this, including relatively simple policy changes like making it easier for faculty and others to take leaves in industry.  Certainly it would be broadly good for the US research ecosystem to have more diverse forms of support, and as I've written before, major industrial sectors with lots of capital rely in the long term on trained people.  The second point was the need to realign the academic reward system, so that industrial/entrepreneurial/coalition-building activities are incentivized, rather than rewarding on lone-wolf PIs. That's fine, and honestly I think it's already happening to some large degree at major research universities.  The third point was meeting the needs of the STEM workforce, though increased interactions with industry (including, e.g., prospective industrial employers helping to define dissertation topics), co-op efforts, some training in businessy aspects (note:  the Sloan Foundation was pushing this 25 years ago.).  This is all laudable to try, but I don't see how any of this actually addresses the issue of fewer STEM workforce participation from US citizens, which is quite complicated. The fourth point was the need to reduce regulatory burden.  Sure, we all want to reduce bureaucratic BS.  I have to say, though, that it was genuinely baffling to me that the most Dr. McNutt had to say about the threatened OMB rule changes (apart from a passing mention early on) is that they would increase bureaucracy.  That isn't even in the top 15 problems raised by those changes.  Remember, the default position of those pushing those rules is that academics are fundamentally untrustworthy and poor stewards of public resources.   Fifth was the need for automated/self-driving labs.  I agree completely that advanced degree training should not be driven by the need for cheap labor to do tedious lab tasks (e.g. a zillion cell cultures or chemical syntheses).  Overall this was pretty innocuous. Sixth, Dr. McNutt emphasized the need to take on big challenges - researchers need to be bold and not play it safe, and peer review can be inherently biased toward incrementalism.  She gave examples of large privately endowed institutes as enabling such work (MBARI, the Allen Institute).  Apparently STAC will be proposing new multi-agency science and technology "breakthrough funds".  The argument in favor of public investment in science in this section sounded rote rather than heartfelt.  If anything, I thought knocking peer review right now at a time when OMB wants to ignore it at their pleasure was a weird position to take. To be clear:  I don't think any of the ideas highlighted in the speech are actually bad (necessarily).  It just avoided emphasizing that publicly funded research has been incredibly beneficial, and that irreversible harm is being done.  The statement that science agencies "have seen a loss of key personnel" is the worst kind of passive voice garbage.  A hundred thousand technical personnel leaving agencies is not something that just "happened" like the weather.  Being quiet, avoiding confrontation, and only trying to work behind the scenes is not the leadership that is needed now.  (See, I can do passive voice, too.) I will try to get back to more science posting....