Published July 2026, https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/Science-A-New-Golden-Age.pdf

This document titled "Science a Golden Age" by the White House Tech director and presented to Donald Trump calls for "de-prioritization and re-engineering of legacy institutions" in favor of individual researchers and the creation of an organization that supercedes academia entirely.

• The U.S. research system should prioritize the individual scientist over legacy institutions...Too much of our research enterprise has come to serve itself rather than the scientists within it. Federal funding agencies should support a broader range of performers...rather than the academic silos of the last century.
• We must prepare our research enterprise for the AI revolution...even the most capable AI models will be slowed down in the bottleneck of institutions and systems built for the last century.
• Just as scientific inquiry demands that we revise our theories when evidence contradicts them, evidence of scientific slowdown...should spur us to experiment...new ways of funding, conducting, and translating research. Vannevar Bush’s pioneering spirit calls us to do what he would surely do today: reimagine the entire enterprise for our time

The report goes on detailing problems widely recognized within academia, with sections titled:

• The Incumbency Tax
• Weakened Meritocracy
• Misaligned Incentives
• The Reproducibility Crisis
• A Lack of Accountability

While I agree that the problems mentioned are significant enough to warrant a completely revamping of academia, the report is also quite elitist at points and it is hard to see how disadvantaged population could rise to the top under this system. In either case, if you are in academia or planning to continue to work within academia in the US, be prepared to swim against some major tides soon (if you aren't already).

Throughout the process, I made sure I went over every detail, updated the review several times, including removing comments that I felt were unnecessary. This did not necessarily come out of a moral obligation, but I was also concerned of putting my best foot forward.

I have no idea how there are reviewers who submit subpar reviews, which clearly had no effort put into it. I know that this is a volunteer role, but if you cannot do it, let someone else do it. Even a harsh reviewer is better than a lazy reviewer.

Hello!

I am a student that has worked with PsychoPy. I was speaking with a PI regarding my experience with PsychoPy, and she mentioned that she is learning to code with it.

While I do not have experience with coding in PsychoPy, I realized later that I have code from a previous lab that may be helpful. Would it be appropriate to reach out to my previous PI regarding whether I could share the code with my current PI? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!