Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
President Bill Clinton's budget proposal contains an important message for governments that are tempted to undervalue basic science, its crucible, the research university, and the importance of impartial peer review.
Researchers contributing to the ‘stockpile stewardship programme’ should face the truth about its potential role in maintaining US reliance on the use of nuclear weapons.
A proposed new agency is a welcome first step towards a recovery of public trust in food. But an unsatisfactory history and unresolved questions necessitate continuing vigilance.
One man's absurdities are a gift to witless stereotypers of scientists. They are also an unwelcome stimulus to much needed consideration of the realities and implications of an uncomfortable technology.
There is a tendency for biology to dominate perceptions of science at the expense of support for other disciplines. There is no scientific justification for that situation, which also carries economic dangers.
Making the most of European collaboration would seem to be sensible as pressures on research budgets intensify. But those with the power to pursue that agenda are failing to do so.
