Cory Clark and Bo Winegard argue in Can We Still Trust the Experts? that science’s authority is eroding as scholars and institutions increasingly behave like political influencers rather than impartial researchers. Once rooted in “the patient work of discovery,” science now often enters partisan arenas, where viral posts and ideological endorsements undermine credibility. The authors warn that “political activism in academia not only makes us look bad, it undermines the very thing we claim to offer: impartial, high-quality information.” Research cited shows politicization diminishes trust even among ideological allies, with journals like Nature suffering reputational costs after political endorsements. Looking forward, Clark and Winegard call for a collective recommitment to epistemic humility, neutrality, and merit-based scholarship. They suggest that restoring credibility requires resisting activist temptations and re-centering science as “a process that is always provisional” rather than a tool of influence.
-EDITOR·OP_DAILY SHARE TO X
Rodney Brooks, MIT professor emeritus and co-founder of iRobot, has issued a stark warning about the risks and limits of humanoid robotics. Writing on his blog, he advised, “My advice to people is to not come closer than 3 meters to a full-size walking robot,” citing the massive kinetic energy stored in current bipedal machines that can cause serious harm if they fall. Brooks, who pioneered robotic manipulation research, argues that companies like Tesla and Figure are overpromising by relying on video-only training to teach dexterity. He highlights that human touch relies on roughly 17,000 mechanoreceptors per hand, a complexity robots cannot yet replicate. While investors envision humanoids transforming labor markets, Brooks predicts safer, non-bipedal designs, robots with wheels, multiple arms, and novel sensors, will dominate within 15 years. Until then, certification for human-safe deployment remains out of reach, underscoring a gulf between marketing hype and practical robotics.
-EDITOR·OP_DAILY SHARE TO X
New York lawmakers have introduced Senate Bill 8518, a measure that would impose steep excise taxes on proof-of-work bitcoin mining firms based on their annual energy consumption. Co-sponsored by Senators Liz Krueger and Andrew Gounardes, the bill exempts miners using renewable energy but applies escalating rates up to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour for facilities consuming more than 20 million kWh per year. As reported by Frank Corva, the legislation is designed to channel revenues into energy affordability programs, though critics argue it will deter miners from investing in a state already seen as unfriendly to the digital asset industry. The proposal follows the expiration of New York’s moratorium on fossil-fuel-powered mining. With miners weighing expansion across the U.S., the bill could accelerate their migration to more permissive jurisdictions, undermining the economic revitalization potential of post-industrial upstate regions.
-EDITOR·OP_DAILY SHARE TO X
Microsoft researchers have revealed that generative AI systems can design dangerous proteins capable of slipping past DNA synthesis security checks, exposing what they call a “zero day” vulnerability in biosecurity safeguards. Eric Horvitz, Microsoft’s chief scientist, described how his team digitally redesigned known toxins with AI models such as EvoDiff to evade vendor screening software while preserving their harmful potential. “We’re in something of an arms race,” warned Adam Clore of Integrated DNA Technologies, which co-authored the report. Although the government and software providers have patched vulnerabilities, gaps remain. Critics like Berkeley’s Michael Cohen argue that reliance on DNA vendor screening is inadequate, urging stronger safeguards built directly into AI systems. With generative biology accelerating drug discovery, the findings highlight a dual-use dilemma: AI may unlock medical breakthroughs, but it also raises urgent biosecurity and regulatory challenges.
-EDITOR·OP_DAILY SHARE TO X
that's a really sharp take on how **political activism** is eating away at **science's credibility**, making scholars look more like influencers. it's a solid call for everyone in academia to go back to being neutral and focusing on the quiet work of **impartial discovery**.