Greetings, dear readers! I apologize for the slightly irregular Coffee Break today. Currently traveling in Scotland, my time has been filled with various details (all good) and a few unforeseen hiccups (you know how it goes).
Part the First: Scientists to the Rescue?
Economic growth isn’t the solution to our challenges in a world with finite resources. Nonetheless, it is feasible to develop without a corresponding rise in material and energy consumption. This concept has long been acknowledged by a handful of insightful heterodox economists who understand that economics cannot be equated to natural sciences despite its excessive mathematical modeling. This idea hasn’t truly resonated within conventional economic circles, which have received the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel since 1969.
“Growth at any cost leaves us all poorer.” These words were uttered by United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres during the launch of an important report, Counting What Counts, which he commissioned from a team of researchers and policymakers (www.un.org/beyondgdp). The report suggests how nations can transcend traditional measures such as gross domestic product (GDP), which has long been the primary indicator of economic well-being.
GDP emerged from a concept articulated in the 1930s (see go.nature.com/4324jwf; a pdf of Simon Kuznets’s 1934 paper on national income), and since then, GDP growth has become the main target for governments. A decline in GDP is often interpreted by markets, the media, and experts as a signal of governmental incompetence. However, this pursuit has coincided with rampant inequality and environmental degradation globally, as highlighted in the report. To ensure that economic development benefits a broad range of people sustainably over the long term, a new measure is essential; GDP simply does not encompass these elements.
The authors have identified 31 indicators encompassing human rights, peace, and environmental respect that they propose governments should track (see Nature https://doi.org/q57n; 2026). Of these, 15 align with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The report advocates for a committee of scientists to develop one or more comprehensive indicators that can encapsulate data in a unified manner, as GDP does. Spain and Guyana have been tasked with advancing these recommendations.
The inclusion of scientists in this undertaking is a promising step forward, as previously, the framework and implementation of GDP largely resided within the domains of economists and economic statisticians. Distilling the 31 indicators into a few headline statistics will necessitate insights from various disciplines. All participants in this next phase must study prior attempts to augment GDP and learn from past lessons. This presents a rare opportunity to rectify an enduring flaw. (emphasis added)
What we strive for is sustainable development (not merely growth), and ensuring that development is sustainable requires that it does not significantly contribute to the disintegration of our ecosystem in an already congested world. With this initiative to involve scientists now underway, a question arises:
Can scientists genuinely make a difference? Time will tell. Personally, I harbor doubts, as many scientists possess little understanding of political economy. Some seem to believe they exist outside the realm of political considerations. A number are, in my experience, enamored with the idea of a flat income tax, especially now as they enjoy “middle-class” earnings that are three to five times above the median family income. Additionally, the scientific community’s precarious state, much of which is self-imposed, complicates matters. For scientists to be effective, they must step far outside their “comfort zones.” Regarding the report prepared by a “High-level Expert Group on Beyond GDP,” this is a likely target for political scrutiny from all factions, especially from those in power.
Moreover, Herman Daly and John B. Cobb, Jr. developed the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) in For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future back in 1989 (and this updated version is still relevant today). Curiously, this work is not referenced in the 49-page UN report (download here), yet the ISEW would be a logical starting point. Constantly reinventing the wheel will lead us nowhere meaningful, but it will certainly sustain the status quo for those who need to keep the system perpetually functioning.
Part the Second: Democrats Send the President Sternly Worded Letters
As mentioned weeks ago, the entire National Science Board was dismissed (two weeks ago). Just recently, it was reported that Congressional Democrats have reacted by drafting those dreaded sternly worded letters: Democratic lawmakers demand Trump explain – and reverse – termination of NSF’s governing board:
Democrats in Congress are condemning President Donald Trump’s unprecedented action in dismissing all members of the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) governing board—and are demanding an explanation regarding the administration’s future plans.
“Removing the entire [board] without justification, without replacements, and without strategies to ensure the Board’s ongoing work is an affront to both the independence of American science and the rule of law,” states a letter dispatched today (pdf) to Trump and NSF by 26 senators, led by Ed Markey (D–MA) and Maria Cantwell (WA), the senior Democrat on the NSF oversight committee.
Another letter sent today (pdf), spearheaded by Representative Zoe Lofgren (CA), the senior Democrat on the House science panel, and signed by 31 legislators, takes a firmer stance. “We write to express our outrage,” the letter begins, “and we demand that you reinstate the 22 non-partisan [members of the board] so they can resume their crucial responsibilities in providing consistent, expert guidance to [NSF].”
…
The senators are seeking answers by May 29. However, the administration is not legally obligated to respond to this letter, and as the Senate’s minority party, Democrats have limited avenues for compelling a reply.
…
Throughout the Trump administration, NSF has encountered a series of setbacks, including losing its office space, a 30% reduction in staff, and repeated attempts to slash its budget by over half. Currently, the agency lags behind its typical pace in issuing new awards. (emphasis added)
Well then, I’m sure this will be as effective as it has been in the past! While the current administration dismantles American science (which undoubtedly requires better management), the congressional Democrats are busy rehashing the same old wheel.
Part the Third: COVID-19 Sequelae
Ralph Baric, from the University of North Carolina, is perhaps the leading coronavirus researcher globally. He has had a distinguished and productive career and is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. However, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appears less impressed:
Accusing him of a “pattern of deception” related to virus studies conducted over a decade ago, the U.S. government has proposed a ban on federal funding for this prominent coronavirus researcher, whose recent work has incited unfounded claims asserting he played a role in initiating the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has already suspended Ralph Baric, a tenured professor at the University of North Carolina (UNC) and a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), from securing further funding for his virology research. Now, it has commenced formal debarment proceedings, potentially barring him from funding for three years or more. As Science finalized this report, UNC announced Baric’s retirement, but he intends to appeal the recommended debarment, likely with the university’s legal support.
Baric received detailed accusations (pdf) in an email from HHS on May 7, one of several documents he shared with Science. HHS alleges that he misled communications with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which has awarded more than $200 million to his lab and collaborators over the past 40 years.
Most of the allegations center on mouse studies conducted with bat coronaviruses in 2014, which HHS claims led to the creation of a virus that had a “gain of function” (GOF), increasing its risks to human health. HHS also accuses Baric of being “not forthcoming” regarding a 2017 grant from the Wellcome Trust, which he should have disclosed to the agency, as it reportedly overlapped with a grant from NIAID.
Much of the shaky political foundation for these accusations is linked to the current Secretary of Health and Human Services:
HHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Its suspension letter does not mention SARS-CoV-2, nor does it allege that Baric contributed to its creation. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his 2023 book, The Wuhan Cover-Up: And the Terrifying Bioweapons Arms Race (the blurbs undeniably label this work as political propaganda), attempted to implicate Baric’s research in the pandemic’s origin, owing to his collaboration with scientists from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) on the 2014 studies. The initial outbreak of COVID-19 occurred in Wuhan, fueling theories that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from WIV—and may have been man-made rather than originating naturally (Editors’ note: The book frequently critiques COVID-19 origin narratives addressed by Science and this reporter.)
Kennedy’s views have increasingly found support among Republican legislators and within President Donald Trump’s administration, despite a lack of direct evidence, with alternative data suggesting the virus likely transferred to humans from an animal at a Wuhan food market. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has often claimed there’s a “lab-leak coverup.” President Trump has publicly supported this theory as well.
Virologist Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during Trump’s first term and early pandemic phase, has gone a step further regarding Baric. “I believe there’s a real chance the virus originated in Chapel Hill,” Redfield stated in a podcast in 2024. He labeled Baric as “the scientific mastermind” behind a Chinese government initiative to engineer the virus. Conversely, another group asserts Baric didn’t create the virus but taught WIV researchers the techniques they utilized.
If SARS-CoV-2 accidentally leaked from a lab in Wuhan, one would expect those working in the facility to be among the first affected by COVID-19. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case. It is plausible that such coronavirus research was conducted in Wuhan due to varying regulatory standards compared to those in the U.S. Ultimately, the precise origins of SARS-CoV-2 may never be fully ascertained. Yet it’s clear that both political and scientific authorities failed to respond effectively to the pandemic. Disturbingly, they still appear to misunderstand the situation, as evidenced by their confused handling of the recent hantavirus outbreak.
Part the Fourth: The Editor of Science Interviews Timothy Snyder
I have been a long-time reader of Science, and this interview is perhaps among the first of its kind to appear in this premier journal of American science. It’s intriguing, to say the least. So, who is Timothy Snyder? Most readers might recognize him as the author of the brief yet impactful book, On Tyranny, published in 2017. He left Yale for the University of Toronto in 2025 amidst the early days of the current administration’s crackdown on American universities. From H. Holden Thorpe, editor of Science, provides insights on resisting from Timothy Snyder:
Recent events in American science have been tumultuous, marked by federal grant cancellations, restrictions on immigration for international scientists, and considerable attempts to cut funding agency budgets by 60%. Even after Congress managed to restore the budgets due to effective lobbying from scientific leadership, universities are still struggling with the sluggish distribution of these appropriated funds. Ongoing attacks on science and the uncertainties stemming from the Trump administration have left many scientists feeling anxious about the future of American science, resulting in an atmosphere of constant upheaval. Additionally, varying opinions within the scientific community regarding the best way forward compound the complexities faced by graduate students, postdocs, and principal investigators in this climate.
Many may receive mixed messages from their institutions, suggesting it’s best to stay out of political matters by enforcing rigid protest restrictions or advocating a neutral campus environment to avoid drawing federal scrutiny or funding losses. At the same time, they might face pressure from peers to engage in the latest protests, asserting a moral obligation to defend science.
To navigate these mixed signals, I’ve begun seeking perspectives from experts. I had the chance to speak with Timothy Snyder, a Toronto University professor studying historical authoritarian movements. His 2017 bestseller, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, serves as a guide for resisting in these times. The first lesson, arguably the most recognized, is “do not obey in advance,” which is frequently cited by those advocating for more resistance during the current administration’s pressures on universities and associations. Snyder offers 19 additional lessons, and I discussed with him the importance of balancing them, especially “protect institutions” and “remember professional ethics,” in relation to the scientific process and community.
The interview can be viewed here (36:05) and is certainly worth reflecting upon. Pericles and Trotsky were right to assert that whether scientists engage with politics is irrelevant; politics will certainly engage with them regardless.
Part the Fifth: Wither Food
Over the past five days in the Kingdom of Fife, I’ve seen lush agricultural lands that appear to be highly productive. Yet, James Rebanks poses the pertinent question: Could Britain face food shortages? The answer, alarmingly, is yes:
Modern agriculture relies heavily on a steady and secure supply of fossil fuels, making it vulnerable to fluctuations in the Middle East. The soaring costs of fuel and fertilizer are two significant burdens for British farmers. Sowing crops demands substantial fuel—whether for plowing, drilling, spraying, or harvesting, drying, and refrigerating. Farmers benefit from some tax relief on fuel in the form of red diesel which helps keep consumer food prices down. However, in wartime, this relief proves insufficient. The price of red diesel for my farm was 70-75p per litre prior to President Donald Trump’s first military intervention, and it has since surged to between £1-£1.15 per litre.
Furthermore, synthetic fertilizer represents the largest individual expense for many farmers. In recent decades, our global food production system has grown increasingly reliant on ammonia and sulfur sourced from the Middle East. Notably, around a third of the global trade in raw materials for synthetic fertilizers passes through the Strait of Hormuz, so any crisis in that region causes fertilizer prices to skyrocket.
Currently, we are in planting season. Farmers face two choices amid escalating costs: buy less fertilizer and accept lower yields, or purchase fertilizer at inflated prices and pass these expenses to consumers. Either decision results in significantly increased food prices.
Various farmers I’ve spoken with this week have indicated that the war has raised their costs of crop production in the UK by £150-£250 per hectare, translating to an additional £30,000-£50,000 in operational costs for a typical 200-hectare arable farm. Given these circumstances, many nitrogen-demanding crops, such as wheat, barley, and oilseed rape, may no longer be viable for planting this year. Farmers are hesitant to incur debts of tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds to establish a crop, particularly when they may not see a reasonable return on this investment. Jack Highwood, a farmer in Kent, stated that he used to cultivate 300-400 acres of arable crops, primarily milling wheat—“enough to feed Kent for a week.” However, he has ceased planting crops because the costs now surpass market prices.
We must either learn to adopt sustainable practices or face hunger as a consequence. Thankfully, this is not an insurmountable issue if we can overcome institutional barriers. We’ll revisit this topic in the coming weeks, discussing How the World Eats: A Global Food Philosophy authored by the incomparable Julian Baggini.
Thank you for joining me in reading! I look forward to reconnecting next week, following the local primary elections in my area.
Travel note: If your book budget is tight or your luggage is nearly full, it’s wise to avoid Topping & Company Booksellers of St. Andrews.
