@katiecorker.bsky.social thanks for highlighting our work! We're now running a series of follow-up studies—looking at how moderation shapes trust among editors/authors, how preprint certification is developing and how funder mandates intersect with preprint integrity/transparency. More coming soon 🚀

It really can be a game-changer. I use a powerchair and scooter intermittently too, and they’ve made such a big difference in my independence and overall ease. I hope yours brings the same kind of freedom!

One speaker referred to Metascience as ‘successful branding’ to engage policy makers; another spoke of it ‘strategically forgetting’ well-established disciplines like STS and Philosophy of Science.

10/10 Do better, @nytimes.com. Journalism should scrutinize power, not launder its talking points through bootlicking.

9/10 What’s needed from journalism right now isn’t performative neutrality. It’s the spine to call things what they are. These cuts restrict scientific inquiry, silence marginalized communities, and weaken the foundation of public-interest research.

8/10 And it gets worse: Toward the end, Kitroeff asks whether the Trump administration might actually be right about the cuts. That is NOT journalistic curiosity and it isn't balance. It's legitimizing a political narrative that dismisses entire fields of research as “woke” or wasteful.

7/10 Researchers aren’t political operatives—they ask hard questions, often in uncomfortable places. To survive by appeasement is to lose the point of inquiry entirely.

6/10 At one point, Kitroeff even asks whether scientists could “change the way they pitch their research” to better align with the administration’s priorities. This is a dangerous suggestion: that scientific research should adapt itself to authoritarian preferences to survive.

5/10 Bisexual people face some of the highest rates of sexual violence—61% of bisexual women have experienced intimate partner rape, stalking, or abuse. That’s not a "niche" topic. It's a public health issue, no qualifiers needed.

4/10 Kitroeff also questions whether taxpayer dollars should fund research on sexual violence against bisexual individuals. That framing is deeply troubling.

3/10 You don’t get breakthroughs in public health, behavioral science, or pharmacology by studying “people in general.” You study specifics. Margins. Edge cases. Subpopulations.

2/10 Kitroeff refers to several terminated NIH grants as “niche,” implying their specificity undermines their value. But research is niche by design. That’s how progress happens.