iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Jenna Norton @jenna-m-norton.bsky.social · 01/10/2026

Hope can feel in short supply these days. But I am truly hopeful for the future, in large part because of the community we've built through the Bethesda Declaration. Proud to share these reflections on hope: ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.... May they bring you some hope.

ajph.aphapublications.org

Hope From the Front Lines: Reflections From the Bethesda Declaration Movement | Hope: A Public Health Blueprint for Action

American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA)

25317

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Mark Histed @markhisted.org · 24/09/2026

The Trump admin keeps trying ways to break and take over NIH and we keep pushing back and winning. Two takeaways: 1. Together we have power; your voice matters. 2. This isn’t over; they are going to keep trying more ways to take over NIH and science for their political ends. Be ready!

17234

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Jenna Norton @jenna-m-norton.bsky.social · 24/09/2026

The immediate threat of the EO seems to have passed, but the greater attack on science by this administration is almost certainly not over. Some good thoughts on what we should be doing. I would add: get organized. Build connections and community. Many voices are louder than one.

24915

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Mark Histed @markhisted.org · 23/09/2026

Can confirm (see 🧵 ). But let me share some optimism. A NIH colleague said today that against all odds, NIH has been…winning. “We made this EO a necessity. We fought hard. We threw sand in all the gears. All the lowdown ways of blocking grants failed to produce the results Vought et al wanted.”

217876

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Mark Histed @markhisted.org · 05/09/2026

Ok here we go: It DOES look like a major purpose of this NIH funding transfer to NIH is to circumvent NIH’s peer review processes so political appointees can have control. Check out the redacted agreement @maxkozlov.bsky.social released: 1/

AGENCY-AGREEMENT-NIH-AND-DOW-REDACTED v
Q
Federal departments, agencies, and offices with respect to the identification of additional priority virus families and other viral pathogens with a significant potential to cause a pandemic" (42
U.S.C. § 285f-5(e)(1)).
Through this agreement, NIH will leverage OASW ND-CBD's procurement, grants, and funding network to allow for critical basic science
I, related research pathways, and basic research to
support the translation and advanced development of medical countermeasures.

11441245

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Mark Histed @markhisted.org · 17/08/2026

This is why science needs to care about democracy. US science depends on state capacity—the ability of NIH and NSF to continue to fund fundamental research is what built the US science superpower. But we can’t rebuild that without also supporting the people who care about the collapse of democracy.

210941

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Jenna Norton @jenna-m-norton.bsky.social · 22/07/2026

Remember when NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya said there were no banned words and NIH Program Officers were making them up? Here’s the proof he lied: apnews.com/article/cali... I know, Jay Bhattacharya lying is not news. But it’s still really validating to have the admission.

apnews.com

White House admits it used keywords to kill billions worth of California research grants

Federal agencies that terminated more than a thousand research grants at the University of California last year admitted that they used keywords related to diversity, gender, vaccine hesitancy and COV...

8736358

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Jenna Norton @jenna-m-norton.bsky.social · 20/07/2026

9 lessons from Bethesda Declaration organizers on how to rescue US science: www.ovid.com/jnls/dartmou... 1. Scientists can no longer safely claim the privilege of being outside of, or above, politics 2. Inaction can be riskier than action. 3. Progress requires work. 4. Do not wait for someone else.

ovid.com

Nine lessons from Bethesda Declaration organizers... : Dartmouth Journal of Healthcare Delivery Science

Abstract was not provided for this article.

414570

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani @mayor.nyc.gov · 14/07/2026

This morning in Biddeford, Maine, a 26-year-old man said goodbye to his wife and daughter and left for work. Moments later he was dead, shot in the head by ICE agents, the second man ICE has killed in six days. ICE is killing our neighbors. ICE cannot be reformed. Abolish ICE.

10716502820328

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Colette Delawalla, PhD @cdelawalla.bsky.social · 14/07/2026

PHASE ONE of our fight against the OMB rule is complete and YOU ALL SHOWED UP!!! HALF A MILLION COMMENTS is WILD. We absolutely exceeded our goal of 100,000! So, what happens next??? Welcome to PHASE TWO: Pressure and Preparation! 1/x

1595227

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Sam Wang @samwang.bsky.social · 13/07/2026

You can help stop the Project 2025 attack on science - but you need to act *today*. Tune in to Fixing Bugs in Democracy. Veteran science policymaker Elizabeth Ginexi will help us make an effective public comment & get Congress to act. Join us today 3pm Eastern: samwang.substack.com/p/fixing-bug...

Photo of veteran science policymaker Elizabeth Ginexi. Dr. Ginexi will help us make an effective public comment & get Congress to act.

Join us today, Monday July 13, 2026 at 3pm Eastern:
https://samwang.substack.com/p/fixing-bugs-live-help-stop-the-project

04023

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Colette Delawalla, PhD @cdelawalla.bsky.social · 13/07/2026

JOIN US TODAY! With @aaup.org and @aft.org

04652

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Sam Wang @samwang.bsky.social · 12/07/2026

To stop the Project 2025 takeover of science, public comments are half a plan. But they won't get us all the way there. Here's the second half of the plan - and what you can do: samwang.substack.com/p/building-h...

samwang.substack.com

Comments are Half A Plan To Stop the Takeover of Science...

...here's the second half.

211276

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Jenna Norton @jenna-m-norton.bsky.social · 13/07/2026

I submitted my comment on the proposed OMB rule. Sharing here to the extent it’s useful. Today is the last day to comment. If you have not yet commented, please do! substack.com/@jennanorton...

substack.com

A Public Comment on Proposed Rule: Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance

Docket: OMB-2026-0034, Submitted by: Jenna M Norton, PhD, MPH in a personal capacity

46646

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Mark Histed @markhisted.org · 13/07/2026

My comment with @nataliebaviles.bsky.social on the proposed OMB rule. Covers the shift to presidential control over funding decisions, and how this draws from the logic of unitary executive theory—which is flawed historically, Constitutionally, and in its assertion of democratic accountability. 1/

scienceandfreedomalliance.substack.com

Presidential control of funding is less, not more, accountable to the public

A comment on the OMB funding proposed rule from Mark Histed and Natalie Aviles

322996

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

⳽ⳑⲇⳕⲛⲉ @sloanelysbeth.northsky.social · 12/07/2026

these folks are so tedious. lindsey graham was a fascist. the fact that you all refuse to say mean things about fascists is why fascism is winning.

3587

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Sanho Tree @sanho.bsky.social · 12/07/2026

Whether this story is apocryphal or not, how we shit on Lindsay Graham today matters. Other Quislings who are still alive and enabling Trump need to know how they will be remembered if they don’t turn on him immediately. This is the legacy that awaits them all.

231834481

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Jenna Norton @jenna-m-norton.bsky.social · 12/07/2026

History can often give us glimpses into our potential future. The Soviet Union’s history with politicizing science under Stalin and Trofim Lysenko shows what our future might be like under Vought’s proposed OMB rule. www.sciencenews.org/article/omb-...

sciencenews.org

Here’s what happens when you put politicians in charge of science

Proposed federal rules would rely on political appointees to decide how a lot of U.S. science gets done. History shows the consequences of such actions.

212065

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Mark Histed @markhisted.org · 10/07/2026

Worth your time. Closely related argument to the one from @joshtpm.bsky.social yesterday. A short summary: fighting for a better world is not just the right thing, but will build power.

176

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Jenna Norton @jenna-m-norton.bsky.social · 03/07/2026

Really enjoyed speaking with @joho.bsky.social and @wendyorent.bsky.social about what’s been happening at the NIH under Jay Bhattacharya, often driven by Russell Vought. Got in a nod to efforts to impeachvought.com. Give it a listen!

impeachvought.com

Impeach Vought

We are current and former federal workers from across the government. We have witnessed first-hand the harm Russell Vought has inflicted on American communities. We are urging Congress to act now to p...

24319

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Mark Histed @markhisted.org · 29/06/2026

Quick 🧪 and law note. The SCOTUS decision in Slaughter today has *profound* implications for US science, cancer cures and the economy. Sotomayor dissent: “Put simply, today the majority reshapes our Government… shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President’s hands”

315190

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Max Kozlov @maxkozlov.bsky.social · 27/06/2026

NIH grants have been under political scrutiny since early 2025. But what does the screening process actually look like? What is being flagged? I spent a month digging into leaked docs and emails. We've published the 235-word list that are being flagged by an internal AI tool. And so much more. 🧵

nature.com

Inside the new political screening that’s stalling NIH grants

Mandatory reviews by top health officials and checks for 235 disfavoured terms have left hundreds of vetted grant applications in administrative limbo.

9541384

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Mark Histed @markhisted.org · 17/06/2026

The Battle over the Constitution Has Spread to American Science. I'm out in the @theatlantic.com today about the new OMB proposed rule. It's just the longtime agenda of the the Supreme Court. US science and cancer cures now all depend on us picking up a fight with the Roberts Court.

theatlantic.com

The Unitary Executive Takes Over New Territory

The Trump administration’s theory of how the federal government should work is a threat to American science.

11326169

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Jenna Norton @jenna-m-norton.bsky.social · 10/06/2026

Worth a read. Many have taken note of the growing solidarity in the science community in opposition to the OMB proposed rule. But this must be just the start. For an example, we can look to @sekahn.bsky.social, Justin Ryder & co who spoke up at ADA and were removed for it. 🧵

314454

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

27 UNIHTED @27unihted.bsky.social · 09/06/2026

One year ago today, 300+ NIH scientists and staff risked their livelihoods by signing the Bethesda Declaration to call out government leadership for harms to science and patients... ...today, their new report documents continuing harm to science and the American public. www.27unihted.org/bd-home

Picture of crowd outside nih with text

One year ago today, 300+ NIH scientists and staff risked their livelihoods by signing the Bethesda Declaration to call out government leadership for harms to science and patients...

...today, their new report documents continuing harm to science and the American public.

29155

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Jenna Norton @jenna-m-norton.bsky.social · 09/06/2026

If you share the concerns of NIH staff worried about the future of NIH, based on the harms we've seen through bad policies at NIH to both the conduct science and the public as its beneficiaries, please add your name (or anonymous endorsement): actionnetwork.org/forms/suppor...

actionnetwork.org

Support Authors of the Bethesda Declaration One Year Later

Be counted as a support of the Bethesda Declaration One Year Later. If you're an NIH current or former worker and would like your name and position listed on 27 UNIHTED's website, we will add your nam...

13320

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

27 UNIHTED @27unihted.bsky.social · 08/06/2026

We published an article written by a number of current and former peer review workers in their personal capacities outlining the changes to peer review at the NIH over the last 18 months. It’s a great resource, and we’re grateful to the authors who wrote it! open.substack.com/pub/27unihte...

open.substack.com

The Quiet Attack On Science: Subverting NIH Peer Review

Authored by anonymous current and former NIH workers with experience in peer review, this is an overview of all the changes to NIH's peer review over the last 18 months.

07547

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Annika Barber @annikabarber.bsky.social · 07/06/2026

Megathread resources now compiled in a Google doc. Send it to your friends. Share with your departments and trainees. And share with non-scientists! I also have a template for non-scientist comments, because this is an all-taxpayer, all medical service user issue. docs.google.com/document/d/1...

docs.google.com

Submit an OMB Comment!

SAVE AMERICAN SCIENCE (Please! 💜 Annika @annikabarber.bsky.social) What are the proposed changes to scientific grant review and award? Read the Federal Register directly here: Regulation for Federal...

29254

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Princess Vimentin PhD | Cancer Biologist @princess-vimentin.bsky.social · 05/06/2026

This is a good pithy explainer by @cdelawalla.bsky.social, founder of @standupforscience.net on OMB's proposed rule that affects federal funding. It impacts cancer research, clinical trials, women’s health, climate change, how scientists disseminate information at conferences & public.🧪

9244153

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Mark Histed @markhisted.org · 03/06/2026

'Positions of “Health Scientist Administrator”' 'Positions of branch chief or division director' Health Scientist Administrators include #NIH program officers and scientific review officers (who run peer review). Branch chief/div. directors supervise program officers. This could be a bloodbath. 🧪

Positions of “Principal Deputy Director” under position
description number 00551682;
Positions of “Deputy Director for Intramural Research” under
position description number 00235547;
156
Positions of “Associate Director for Science Policy” under
position description number 00545751;
Positions of “Supervisory Public Health Analyst” under position
description number 00450091;
Positions of branch chief or division director that are
responsible for (1) influencing policy-making and budgetary
decisions over a portfolio of not less than in $20 million in
biomedical research grants, cooperative agreements, and/or
related funding mechanisms; and (2) formulating and
implementing program objectives, establishing funding
priorities, and exercising discretion in the allocation of
federal resources to advance Institute- and National Institutes
of Health-wide strategic goals.

23818

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Gregg Gonsalves @gregggonsalves.bsky.social · 31/05/2026

Are you a scientist or have you benefited from the fruits of research, from new treatments to new technologies? Then you have a job to do. STAND UP FOR SCIENCE. Register for this meeting--then take action. @standupforscience.net

113362

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Gregg Gonsalves @gregggonsalves.bsky.social · 31/05/2026

From @unbiasedscipod.bsky.social. Read through these. Take action. See alt-text for more. Science in America is at risk.

Today, independent expert panels review proposals, and their recommendations are generally followed. The proposal puts political appointees (not scientists) in charge of every discretionary federal grant, demotes expert review to merely advisory, and bars appointees from deferring to it. Active multi-year grants could be canceled mid-project because they no longer match "agency priorities," with no finding of misconduct required.
The rule treats public health and equity research as "divisive ideology." A new provision could stop scientists from speaking publicly about their own findings. Conference attendance, journal subscriptions, and publishing results would each require case-by-case approval. The infrastructure that lets science reach people would be choked off.
This proposal, if enacted, hits every federal science agency simultaneously, targeted for October 1. No agency can opt out.
The proposal's author and OMB Director, Russell Vought, was a lead architect of Project 2025. It furthers one of the Heritage Foundation's central goals: give the president far greater control over the federal workforce. This rule applies the same logic to science funding and cites Heritage's own reports as justification, rather than any independent scientific review.

We want to point you to Elizabeth Ginexi, who spent 22 years writing NIH funding announcements and read all 412 pages. Her breakdown is the clearest one out there. Read it and give her a follow!
https://lnkd.in/eRqfpw2B

So, what can we do? The public comment window is short, and a comment in your own words carries far more weight than a form letter. Scientists, universities, patient advocates, and the public all have the right to weigh in. Comments are due July 13 at regulations.gov under Docket OMB-2026-0034. A guide to writing effective comments is available at https://lnkd.in/eF4pzCPf or in Ginexi’s breakdown.

The U.S. federal government built the best scientific enterprise in the world on one idea: tax dollars should fund the best research, peer-reviewed by independent experts rather than politicians.
A new 412-page proposal from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would end that.

25032

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Joshua Weitz @joshuasweitz.bsky.social · 31/05/2026

"The document itself is an odd grab-bag of micromanaging grant processes, assertion of presidential power, and airing of cultural grievances... Its lack of coherence, however, will not prevent it from causing staggering damage to the US scientific system." 👇 arstechnica.com/science/2026...

arstechnica.com

Proposed new US funding rules: We can cancel any grant at any time

Peer review now optional, political staff would screen grants for forbidden topics.

718796

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Jenna Norton @jenna-m-norton.bsky.social · 30/05/2026

Stopping Vought’s proposed rule will be critical to save science and future cures. @standupforscience.net created an action center to help you comment and contact Congress. Time to get loud! fight2win.standupforscience.net

fight2win.standupforscience.net

Stand up for Science

16443

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Princess Vimentin PhD | Cancer Biologist @princess-vimentin.bsky.social · 29/05/2026

This right here is very telling. The OMB proposal directly dismantles the post-WWII system used by NIH, NSF, DOE, NASA, and nearly every science agency, in which independent expert peer review was the primary measure of scientific merit. 🧪 elizabethginexi.substack.com/p/summary-of...

13162131

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Princess Vimentin PhD | Cancer Biologist @princess-vimentin.bsky.social · 30/05/2026

Make your voices heard! The proposed OMB rule negates peer review for approval of grant applications. The political appointee will have the power to randomly override peer review. The last thing we need is the fear of grants getting terminated based on whim. Russ Vought is all over this.🧪

5144118

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Gregg Gonsalves @gregggonsalves.bsky.social · 23/05/2026

Dave Pozen at Columbia and Dan Hemel at NYU make the case for democratization of university governance in the US and away from the liberal autocracies of trustees and administrators, as better for higher education and the country as a whole. Read it. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

papers.ssrn.com

In Search of University Democracy

<p><span>Virtually all institutions of higher education in the United States share the same basic governance structure. Ultimate authority resides not with facu

47026

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Colette Delawalla, PhD @cdelawalla.bsky.social · 11/05/2026

GET IN, DORKS! It's a watershed moment and we need YOUR HELP. 1/x @standupforscience.net was asked by independent members of the National Academies to support their letter to Congress calling for the reinstatement of the National Science Board. #saveNSB 🔗 www.standupforscience.net/nasem-letter...

standupforscience.net

NASEM Open Letter to Congress demanding the restoration of the NSB — STAND UP FOR SCIENCE

Support NASEM's open letter to Congress by signing your endorsement now!

4422169

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Jeremy Berg @jeremymberg.bsky.social · 11/05/2026

Open letter calling for the reinstatement of the National Science Board. This letter is from leaders of the National Academies Note: This does not refer to the leaders on paper such as presidents of the NAS, NAM, and NAE. www.standupforscience.net/nasem-letter... @standupforscience.net

standupforscience.net

NASEM Open Letter to Congress demanding the restoration of the NSB — STAND UP FOR SCIENCE

Support NASEM's open letter to Congress by signing your endorsement now!

8256118

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Sam Bagenstos @sbagen.bsky.social · 12/05/2026

RFK may have gone underground with it, but he's continuing to work aggressively to turn HHS against vaccines. Don't let the relative public silence fool you. www.nytimes.com/2026/05/11/h...

nytimes.com

Kennedy Is Driving a Vast Inquiry Into Vaccines, Despite His Public Silence

623086

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Mark Histed @markhisted.org · 09/05/2026

The approach described by McNutt in these slides IS partisan and political. It‘s changing behavior based not on science—but on how the political parties act. Scientists and scientific institutions should stand up for facts and good science. But this is rejecting those for political reasons.

24610

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

The Tennessee Holler @thetnholler.bsky.social · 08/05/2026

REP. @justinjpearson.bsky.social : “This isn't coincidental or accidental. We're seeing the greatest purge of Black power since the era of Reconstruction.” (H/T @motherjones.com ) #Memphis #JimCrow @GovBillLee @MarshaBlackburn

13138231507

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Jenna Norton @jenna-m-norton.bsky.social · 08/05/2026

If you are a member of the scientific community wondering how to meet this moment, check out this excellent discussion between @holdenthorp.bsky.social and @timothysnyder.bsky.social. youtu.be/IWNDMwimUP0?...

youtu.be

Lessons in resistance for the scientific community

YouTube video by Science Magazine Podcasts

311362

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Princess Vimentin PhD | Cancer Biologist @princess-vimentin.bsky.social · 09/05/2026

Some people in my circle have expressed reticence in speaking out. One important point from @timothysnyder.bsky.social is that complying in advance & incidental resistance both invite risk. The difference: Recapitulation puts your reputation & more at risk. 🧪 www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

science.org

Lessons in resistance from Tim Snyder

Federal grant cancellations, restrictions on immigration for foreign scientists, and attempts to cut the budgets of science funding agencies by 60%—the past 18 months have been tumultuous for American...

314983

Reposted by Rosa Lafer-Sousa

Gregg Gonsalves @gregggonsalves.bsky.social · 01/05/2026

"Too many scientists are willing to collaborate with Trumpism in the mistaken assumption that obedience will save their own necks." www.thenation.com/article/soci...

thenation.com

The Rise of the Vichy Scientists

Too many scientists are willing to collaborate with Trumpism in the mistaken assumption that obedience will save their own necks.

20573218