In this October issue of nature, plenty of the “usual” topics, namely AI and Trump.2.0 wrecking balls, along with two cosmology entries that related to my trip to the early universe last week, and a pros-and-cons opposition about animal testing,
a discussion on the nature of the “little red dots” that have been recently observed and whose nature remains open, the most popular explanation (I was given during lunch) being black holes surrounded by gas (even though I cannot understand why the gas is not attracted by the black hole!) [and would have produced a more exciting cover!]
a review of the recent book Discordance: The Troubled History of the Hubble Constant by Jim Baggott, entitled Why we still don’t understand the Universe — even after a century of dispute! A review that regrets that more time is spent on the Hubble “constant” (which varies with time!) rather than more controversial issues like dark matter and dark energy (And strangely bemoans that the book is focussed on scientific developments, missing sociological ones. Duh?! (Bonus for a picture of suit-and-tie Edwin Hubble sitting at the centre of a telescope),
two entries on the well-being [or lack thereof] of PhD students, with nothing particularly surprising (eg, inclusivity and respect help!), and Brazil, Australia and Italy ranking top locations but in a comparative study that does not mention France (as often in international comparisons found in Nature) despite the place being in the top 10 countries delivering PhD degrees, not that I believe PhD students are particularly well-treated in French academia!, the (unexplained) surprise being Italy ranking so high given the close resemblance between the two countries (low stipends, shortage of postdoc and permanent positions, high teaching loads for the advisor, limited travel budgets),
a conference (purposedly) made of AI-written papers reviewed by AI referees, Agents4Science 2025, how universities are rushed into adapting to AI-fluent students, whose skills are changing, and the rise in fake authors produced by paper mills, with a limited range of acceptable solutions,
why Trump 2.0‘s blackmail on pharmaceutical companies is counter-productive and likely to slow down progress, and why his massive increase of highly qualified scientists is shooting (or nuking) USelf in the foot, given the huge proportion) of im/emigrated Nobel prize winners (for physics, chemistry, and medicine), along the (post-) Nobel prize in economics is a direct or indirect reply to this regression by awarding the Prize to economists who worked on the importance of creativity and science on growth (not very surprising at first look!)
