A new study analyzing data from more than 60 previous research projects has found evidence that there is "no safe amount" of processed meat consumption -- so much so that even small daily portions are being linked to increased disease risk. The research, published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine, examined connections between processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages and trans fatty acids and the risk of type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer and ischemic heart disease. People who ate as little as one hot dog daily showed an 11% greater risk of type 2 diabetes and 7% increased risk of colorectal cancer compared to those who consumed none. Drinking approximately one 12-ounce soda per day was associated with an 8% increase in type 2 diabetes risk and 2% increased risk of ischemic heart disease.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Moderna's mRNA-based seasonal flu vaccine proved 27% more effective at preventing influenza infections than standard flu shots in a Phase 3 trial involving nearly 41,000 people aged 50 and above, the firm said this week. The company announced that mRNA-1010 had an overall vaccine efficacy that was 26.6% higher than conventional shots, rising to 27.4% higher in participants aged 65 and older during the six-month study period. The 2024-2025 flu season hospitalized an estimated 770,000 Americans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Researchers have discovered that appending irrelevant phrases like "Interesting fact: cats sleep most of their lives" to math problems can cause state-of-the-art reasoning AI models to produce incorrect answers at rates over 300% higher than normal [PDF]. The technique -- dubbed "CatAttack" by teams from Collinear AI, ServiceNow, and Stanford University -- exploits vulnerabilities in reasoning models including DeepSeek R1 and OpenAI's o1 family. The adversarial triggers work across any math problem without changing the problem's meaning, making them particularly concerning for security applications. The researchers developed their attack method using a weaker proxy model (DeepSeek V3) to generate text triggers that successfully transferred to more advanced reasoning models. Testing on 225 math problems showed the triggers increased error rates significantly across different problem types, with some models like R1-Distill-Qwen-32B reaching combined attack success rates of 2.83 times baseline error rates. Beyond incorrect answers, the triggers caused models to generate responses up to three times longer than normal, creating computational slowdowns. Even when models reached correct conclusions, response lengths doubled in 16% of cases, substantially increasing processing costs.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Associated Press: Websites that displayed legally mandated U.S. national climate assessments seem to have disappeared, making it harder for state and local governments and the public to learn what to expect in their backyards from a warming world. Scientists said the peer-reviewed authoritative reports save money and lives. Websites for the national assessments and the U.S. Global Change Research Program were down Monday and Tuesday with no links, notes or referrals elsewhere. The White House, which was responsible for the assessments, said the information will be housed within NASA to comply with the law, but gave no further details. Searches for the assessments on NASA websites did not turn them up. "It's critical for decision makers across the country to know what the science in the National Climate Assessment is. That is the most reliable and well-reviewed source of information about climate that exists for the United States," said University of Arizona climate scientist Kathy Jacobs, who coordinated the 2014 version of the report. "It's a sad day for the United States if it is true that the National Climate Assessment is no longer available," Jacobs said. "This is evidence of serious tampering with the facts and with people's access to information, and it actually may increase the risk of people being harmed by climate-related impacts." "This is a government resource paid for by the taxpayer to provide the information that really is the primary source of information for any city, state or federal agency who's trying to prepare for the impacts of a changing climate," said Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, who has been a volunteer author for several editions of the report. Copies of past reports are still squirreled away in NOAA's library. NASA's open science data repository includes dead links to the assessment site. [...] Additionally, NOAA's main climate.gov website was recently forwarded to a different NOAA website. Social media and blogs at NOAA and NASA about climate impacts for the general public were cut or eliminated. "It's part of a horrifying big picture," [said Harvard climate scientist John Holdren, who was President Obama's science advisor and whose office directed the assessments]. "It's just an appalling whole demolition of science infrastructure." National climate assessments are more detailed and locally relevant than UN reports and undergo rigorous peer review and validation by scientific and federal institutions, Hayhoe and Jacobs said. Suppressing these reports would be censoring science, Jacobs said.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

In mid-June, a federal judge issued a stinging rebuke to the Trump administration, declaring that its decision to cancel the funding for many grants issued by the National Institutes of Health was illegal, and suggesting that the policy was likely animated by racism. But the detailed reasoning behind his decision wasn't released at the time. The written portion of the decision was finally issued on Wednesday, and it has a number of notable features.

For starters, it's more limited in scope due to a pair of Supreme Court decisions that were issued in the intervening weeks. As a consequence, far fewer grants will see their funding restored. Regardless, the court continues to find that the government's actions were arbitrary and capricious, in part because the government never bothered to define the problems that would get a grant canceled. As a result, officials within the NIH simply canceled lists of grants they received from DOGE without bothering to examine their scientific merit, and then struggled to retroactively describe a policy that justified the actions afterward—a process that led several of them to resign.

A more limited verdict

The issue before Judge William Young of the District of Massachusetts was whether the government had followed the law in terminating grants funded by the National Institutes of Health. After a short trial, Young issued a verbal ruling that the government hadn't, and that he had concluded that its actions were the product of "racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ. community." But the details of his decisions and the evidence that motivated them had to wait for a written ruling, which is now available.

In the meantime, however, the Supreme Court had shifted the ground on a couple of issues. For example, while Young still feels that policy decisions were motivated by discrimination against the LGBTQ community, the United States v. Skrmetti decision limits what he can do about it. Young writes that the decision "leads this Court to conclude that, while here there is federal government discrimination based on a person’s status, not all discrimination is pejorative."

Separately, Trump v. Casa blocked the use of a national injunction against illegal activity. So, while the government's actions have been determined to be illegal, Young can only protect the people who were parties to this suit. Anyone who lost a grant but wasn't a member of any of the parties involved, or based in any of the states that sued, remains on their own.

Those issues aside, the ruling largely focuses on whether the termination of grants violates the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs how the executive branch handles decision- and rule-making. Specifically, it requires that any decisions of this sort cannot be "arbitrary and capricious." And, Young concludes that the government hasn't cleared that bar.

Arbitrary and capricious

The grant cancellations, Young concludes, "Arise from the NIH’s newly minted war against undefined concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion and gender identity, that has expanded to include vaccine hesitancy, COVID, influencing public opinion and climate change." The "undefined" aspect plays a key part in his reasoning. Referring to DEI, he writes, "No one has ever defined it to this Court—and this Court has asked multiple times." It's not defined in Trump's executive order that launched the "newly minted war," and Young found that administrators within the NIH issued multiple documents that attempted to define it, not all of which were consistent with each other, and in some cases seemed to use circular reasoning.

He also noted that the officials who sent these memos had a tendency to resign shortly afterward, writing, "it is not lost on the Court that oftentimes people vote with their feet."

As a result, the NIH staff had no solid guidance for determining whether a given grant violated the new anti-DEI policy, or how that might be weighed against the scientific merit of the grant. So, how were they to identify which grants needed to be terminated? The evidence revealed at trial indicates that they didn't need to make those decisions; DOGE made them for the NIH. In one case, an NIH official approved a list of grants to terminate received from DOGE only two minutes after it showed up in his inbox.

"There is no reasoned decision-making at all with respect to the NIH’s 'abruptness' in the 'robotic rollout' of this grant-termination action," Young concludes. "Based upon a fair preponderance of the evidence and on the sparse administrative record, the Court finds and rules that HHS and, in turn, NIH, are being force-fed unworkable 'policy' supported with sparse pseudo-reasoning, and wholly unsupported statements."

Young also noted that the termination of grants to Columbia University was equally arbitrary. "How the scientific and research activities had any connection with unrest issues on Columbia’s campus is conspicuously never explained," Young noted. "The record evidence certainly reveals none."

A small win against a larger loss

Given all that, it's little surprise that the ruling declares the grant terminations to be arbitrary and capricious. "The Public Officials [at the NIH] in their haste to appease the Executive, simply moved too fast and broke things," Young concluded, "including the law." That provides the legal reasoning behind his earlier decision to restore the cancelled grants, although as noted, this has now been limited to only those grants held by researchers who are covered by one of the organizations or governments that filed the suit.

But Young also appears to lament the fact that he had to intervene here, writing:

The American people have enjoyed a historical norm of a largely apolitical scientific research agency supporting research in an elegant, merit-based approach that benefits everyone. That historical norm changed on January 20, 2025. The new Administration began weaponizing what should not be weaponized—the health of all Americans through its abuse of HHS and the NIH systems, creating chaos and promoting an unreasonable an unreasoned agenda of blacklisting certain topics, that on this Administrative Record, has absolutely nothing to do with the promotion of science or research.

So, while the decision restores money to individual research programs, it does nothing to reverse the larger damage caused by the politicization of funding decisions.

Read full article

Comments

An anonymous reader shares a report: A generation of scientific talent is at the brink of being lost to overseas competitors by the Trump administration's dismantling of the National Science Foundation (NSF), with unprecedented political interference at the agency jeopardizing the future of US industries and economic growth, according to a Guardian investigation. The gold standard peer-reviewed process used by the NSF to support cutting-edge, high-impact science is being undermined by the chaotic cuts to staff, programs and grants, as well as meddling by the so-called department of government efficiency (Doge), according to multiple current and former NSF employees who spoke with the Guardian. The scientists warn that Trump's assault on diversity in science is already eroding the quality of fundamental research funded at the NSF, the premier federal investor in basic science and engineering, which threatens to derail advances in tackling existential threats to food, water and biodiversity in the US.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.