In light of one of the most polarizing elections happening a few days ago, we introduce some of the biggest science controversies in the past weeks.
The new role of AI: a Nobel Prize debate
Artificial intelligence (AI) pioneers John J. Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton were awarded the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics for their work in developing key machine learning methods, a decision that sparked many questions about the future of the prize. AI research blurs boundaries across scientific fields including computer science and mathematics, making many question whether the Nobel committee made the right decision in considering AI as part of the field of physics.
Supporters argue that AI’s capabilities in data analysis, modeling and predictive ability can transform physics research. They additionally believe that the Nobel committee’s decision reflects science’s drive towards interdisciplinarity; consequently, tools that drive physics research forward can easily be included in physics as a field.
Opponents fear that by awarding advancements in AI a Nobel Prize in physics, the Prize’s scientific focus will be diluted by overextending the definition of physics. In general, this controversy challenges the boundaries of what is considered “pure science” and has pushed forth a debate that could change the way Nobel categories are defined as science becomes more and more interdisciplinary.
Restrictions on scientific education
The National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT), on Oct. 16, 2024, issued a strong statement expressing concern at “recent efforts to ban ‘controversial’ science concepts from textbooks and curricula.” A multitude of incidents across the country in the past years sparked this debate. In Florida, the Department of Education removed references to climate change and vaccine efficacy from academic textbooks in math and science. In Kentucky, some schools have already restricted instruction about reproductive health.
These events reflect a general trend of political alignments in states determining what content schools can teach in a science class. Educators argue that these restrictions severely undermine scientific literacy and create a knowledge gap in students from states where these topics are banned. The NABT’s statement emphasizes that educational policies should be motivated by scientific accuracy as opposed to ideological influence. By restricting “controversial” subjects, these policies risk depriving students of a well-rounded understanding of scientific principles.
A change in gene editing regulations in South Africa
South Africa’s national health research guidelines changed their language to explicitly permit gene editing research for eventual creation of genetically edited children. It is the first country to effect this change, as regulations around genome editing are a hotly debated subject. Proponents argue that gene editing has immense potential for eradicating genetic diseases and advancing healthcare on a national or even global scale, but many are worried about unintended health consequences associated with gene editing. Additionally, “normalizing” the use of gene therapy could result in equity issues between those who have access to this new advancement in healthcare and those who do not. South Africa has set a global precedent for genome editing policy, possibly prompting other nations to follow suit and define similar regulations as well.