Silencing Science Tracker

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

About: “The Silencing Science Tracker is a joint initiative of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. It is intended to record reports of federal, state, and local government attempts to “silence science” since the November 2016 election.

We define “silencing science” to include any action that has the effect of restricting or prohibiting scientific research, education, or discussion, or the publication or use of scientific information. We divide such actions into 7 categories as follows…(More)”

CategoryExamples
Government CensorshipChanging the content of websites and documents to suppress or distort scientific information.Making scientific data more difficult to find or access.Restricting public communication by scientists.
Self-CensorshipScientists voluntarily changing the content of websites and documents to suppress or distort scientific information, potentially in response to political pressure.
 We note that it is often difficult to determine whether self-censorship is occurring and/or its cause. We do not take any position on the accuracy of any individual report on self-censorship.
Budget CutsReducing funding for existing agency programs involving scientific research or scientific education.Cancelling existing grants for scientific research or scientific education.
 We do not include, in the “budget cuts” category, government decisions to refuse new grant applications or funding for new agency programs.
Personnel ChangesRemoving scientists from agency positions or creating a hostile work environment.Appointing unqualified individuals to, or failing to fill, scientific positions.Changing the composition of scientific advisory board or other bodies to remove qualified scientists or add only industry-favored members.Eliminating government bodies involved in scientific research or education or the dissemination of scientific information.
Research HindranceDestroying data needed to undertake scientific research.Preventing or restricting the publication of scientific research.Pressuring scientists to change research findings.
Bias and MisrepresentationEngaging in “cherry picking” or only disclosing certain scientific studies (e.g., that support a particular conclusion).Misrepresenting or mischaracterizing scientific studies.Disregarding scientific studies or advice in policy-making.
Interference with EducationChanging science education standards to prevent or limit the teaching of proven scientific theories.Requiring or encouraging the teaching of discredited or unproven scientific theories.Preventing the use of factually accurate textbooks and other instructional materials (e.g., on religious grounds).

Grant Guardian

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

About: “In the philanthropic sector, limited time and resources can make it challenging to thoroughly assess a nonprofit’s financial stability. Grant Guardian transforms weeks of financial analysis into hours of strategic insight–creating space for deep, meaningful engagement with partners while maintaining high grantmaking standards.

Introducing Grant Guardian

Grant Guardian is an AI-powered financial due diligence tool that streamlines the assessment process for both foundations and nonprofits. Foundations receive sophisticated financial health analyses and risk assessments, while nonprofits can simply submit their existing financial documents without the task of filling out multiple custom forms. This streamlined approach helps both parties focus on what matters most–their shared mission of creating impact.

How Does It Work?

Advanced AI Analyses: Grant Guardian harnesses the power of AI to analyze financial documents like 990s and audits, offering a comprehensive view of a nonprofit’s financial stability. With rapid data extraction and analysis based on modifiable criteria, Grant Guardian bolsters strategic funding with financial insights.

Customized Risk Reports: Grant Guardian’s risk reports and dashboards are customizable, allowing you to tailor metrics specifically to your organization’s funding priorities. This flexibility enables you to present clear, relevant data to stakeholders while maintaining a transparent audit trail for compliance.

Automated Data Extraction: As an enterprise-grade solution, Grant Guardian automates the extraction and analysis of data from financial reports, identifies potential risks, standardizes assessments, and minimizes user error from bias. This standardization is crucial, as nonprofits often vary in the financial documents they provide, making the due diligence process more complex and error-prone for funders…(More)”.

Strategic Foresight Toolkit for Resilient Public Policy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

OECD Toolkit: “By exploring 25 evidence-based potential disruptions across environmental, technological, economic, social, and geopolitical domains, the Strategic Foresight Toolkit for Resilient Public Policy helps anticipate challenges and opportunities that could reshape the policy landscape between 2030 and 2050. These disruptions are not predictions, but hypothetical future developments identified through extensive research, expert consultations, and workshops. The Strategic Foresight Toolkit features a five-step foresight process, guiding users to challenge assumptions, create scenarios, stress-test strategies, and develop actionable plans. It includes facilitation guides and case studies to support effective implementation. Each disruption is accompanied by insights on emerging trends, potential future impacts, and both immediate and long-term policy options to ensure resilience and preparedness. Designed for policymakers, public administrators, and foresight practitioners, this publication is designed to promote holistic, strategic and evidence-informed decision-making. It aims to support countries and organisations in using strategic foresight to design and prepare robust and adaptable public policies for a range of possible futures. With its practical methodology and forward-looking approach, the Strategic Foresight Toolkit is a vital resource for building sustainable, resilient, and effective public policies…(More)”

Suspense and surprise in the book of technology: Understanding innovation dynamics

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Oh-Hyun Kwon, Jisung Yoon, Lav R. Varshney, Woo-Sung Jung, Hyejin Youn: “We envision future technologies through science fiction, strategic planning, or academic research. Yet, our expectations do not always match with what actually unfolds, much like navigating a story where some events align with expectations while others surprise us. This gap indicates the inherent uncertainty of innovation-how technologies emerge and evolve in unpredictable ways. Here, we elaborate on this inherent uncertainty of innovation in the way technologies emerge and evolve. We define suspense captures accumulated uncertainty and describing events anticipated before their realization, while surprise represents a dramatic shift in understanding when an event occurs unexpectedly. We identify those connections in U.S. patents and show that suspenseful innovations tend to integrate more smoothly into society, achieving higher citations and market value. In contrast, surprising innovations, though often disruptive and groundbreaking, face challenges in adoption due to their extreme novelty. We further show that these categories allow us to identify distinct stages of technology life cycles, suggesting a way to identify the systematic trajectory of technologies and anticipate their future paths…(More)”.

Developing a Framework for Collective Data Rights

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Jeni Tennison: “Are collective data rights really necessary? Or, do people and communities already have sufficient rights to address harms through equality, public administration or consumer law? Might collective data rights even be harmful by undermining individual data rights or creating unjust collectivities? If we did have collective data rights, what should they look like? And how could they be introduced into legislation?

Data protection law and policy are founded on the notion of individual notice and consent, originating from the handling of personal data gathered for medical and scientific research. However, recent work on data governance has highlighted shortcomings with the notice-and-consent approach, especially in an age of big data and artificial intelligence. This special reports considers the need for collective data rights by examining legal remedies currently available in the United Kingdom in three scenarios where the people affected by algorithmic decision making are not data subjects and therefore do not have individual data protection rights…(More)”.

Un-Plateauing Corruption Research?Perhaps less necessary, but more exciting than one might think

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Dieter Zinnbauer: “There is a sense in the anti-corruption research community that we may have reached some plateau (or less politely, hit a wall). This article argues – at least partly – against this claim.

We may have reached a plateau with regard to some recurring (staid?) scholarly and policy debates that resurface with eerie regularity, tend to suck all oxygen out of the room, yet remain essentially unsettled and irresolvable. Questions aimed at arriving closure on what constitutes corruption, passing authoritative judgements  on what works and what does not and rather grand pronouncements on whether progress has or has not been all fall into this category.

 At the same time, there is exciting work often in unexpected places outside the inner ward of the anti-corruption castle,  contributing new approaches and fresh-ish insights and there are promising leads for exciting research on the horizon. Such areas include the underappreciated idiosyncrasies of corruption in the form of inaction rather than action, the use of satellites and remote sensing techniques to better understand and measure corruption, the overlooked role of short-sellers in tackling complex forms of corporate corruption and the growing phenomena of integrity capture, the anti-corruption apparatus co-opted for sinister, corrupt purposes.

These are just four examples of the colourful opportunity tapestry for (anti)corruption research moving forward, not in form of a great unified project and overarching new idea  but as little stabs of potentiality here and  there and somewhere else surprisingly unbeknownst…(More)”

Reimagining data for Open Source AI: A call to action

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Open Source Initiative: “Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing the world at a remarkable pace, with Open Source AI playing a pivotal role in shaping its trajectory. Yet, as AI advances, a fundamental challenge emerges: How do we create a data ecosystem that is not only robust but also equitable and sustainable?

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) and Open Future have taken a significant step toward addressing this challenge by releasing a white paper: “Data Governance in Open Source AI: Enabling Responsible and Systematic Access.” This document is the culmination of a global co-design process, enriched by insights from a vibrant two-day workshop held in Paris in October 2024….

The white paper offers a blueprint for a data ecosystem rooted in fairness, inclusivity and sustainability. It calls for two transformative shifts:

  1. From Open Data to Data Commons: Moving beyond the notion of unrestricted data to a model that balances openness with the rights and needs of all stakeholders.
  2. Broadening the stakeholder universe: Creating collaborative frameworks that unite communities, stewards and creators in equitable data-sharing practices.

To bring these shifts to life, the white paper delves into six critical focus areas:

  • Data preparation
  • Preference signaling and licensing
  • Data stewards and custodians
  • Environmental sustainability
  • Reciprocity and compensation
  • Policy interventions…(More)”

Wikenigma – an Encyclopedia of Unknowns

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

About: “Wikenigma is a unique wiki-based resource specifically dedicated to documenting fundamental gaps in human knowledge.

Listing scientific and academic questions to which no-one, anywhere, has yet been able to provide a definitive answer. [ 1141 so far ]

That’s to say, a compendium of so-called ‘Known Unknowns’.

The idea is to inspire and promote interest in scientific and academic research by highlighting opportunities to investigate problems which no-one has yet been able to solve.

You can start browsing the content via the main menu on the left (or in the ‘Main Menu’ section if you’re using a small-screen device) Alternatively, the search box (above right) will find any articles with details that match your search terms…(More)”.

State of Digital Local Government

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the Local Government Association (UK): “This report is themed around four inter-related areas on the state of local government digital: market concentration, service delivery, technology, and delivery capabilities.  It is particularly challenging to assess the current state of digital transformation in local government, given the diversity of experience, resources and lack of consistent data collection on digital transformation and technology estates. 

This report is informed through our regular and extensive engagement with local government, primary research carried out by the LGA, and the research of stakeholders. It is worth noting that research on market concentration is challenging as it is a highly sensitive area.

Key messages:

  1. Local Government is a vital part of the public sector innovation ecosystem. Local government needs their priorities and context to be understood within cross public sector digital transformation ambitions through representation on public sector strategic boards and subsequently integrated into the design of public sector guidance and cross-government products at the earliest point. This will reduce the likelihood of duplication at public expense. Local government must also have equivalent access to training as civil servants…(More)”.

Nearly all Americans use AI, though most dislike it, poll shows

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Axios: “The vast majority of Americans use products that involve AI, but their views of the technology remain overwhelmingly negative, according to a Gallup-Telescope survey published Wednesday.

Why it matters: The rapid advancement of generative AI threatens to have far-reaching consequences for Americans’ everyday lives, including reshaping the job market, impacting elections, and affecting the health care industry.

The big picture: An estimated 99% of Americans used at least one AI-enabled product in the past week, but nearly two-thirds didn’t realize they were doing so, according to the poll’s findings.

  • These products included navigation apps, personal virtual assistants, weather forecasting apps, streaming services, shopping websites and social media platforms.
  • Ellyn Maese, a senior research consultant at Gallup, told Axios that the disconnect is because there is “a lot of confusion when it comes to what is just a computer program versus what is truly AI and intelligent.”

Zoom in: Despite its prevalent use, Americans’ views of AI remain overwhelmingly bleak, the survey found.

  • 72% of those surveyed had a “somewhat” or “very” negative opinion of how AI would impact the spread of false information, while 64% said the same about how it affects social connections.
  • The only area where a majority of Americans (61%) had a positive view of AI’s impact was regarding how it might help medical diagnosis and treatment…

State of play: The survey found that 68% of Americans believe the government and businesses equally bear responsibility for addressing the spread of false information related to AI.

  • 63% said the same about personal data privacy violations.
  • Majorities of those surveyed felt the same about combatting the unauthorized use of individuals’ likenesses (62%) and AI’s impact on job losses (52%).
  • In fact, the only area where Americans felt differently was when it came to national security threats; 62% of those surveyed said the government bore primary responsibility for reducing such threats…(More).”