I am under no illusions about the likelihood that any of the recommendations below would be implemented by the current administration, but I still think it is worth reiterating the conclusions of the #PCAST 2023 working group report https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/PCAST_Extreme-Weather-Report_April2023.pdf on Extreme Weather, which I was proud to be a member of. An abridged version of the main recommendations is listed below.

1.1. U.S. climate-modeling centers (supported by NOAA, NSF, DOE, and NASA) should enhance their high-resolution modeling capabilities and state-of-the-art statistical methods to quantify annual extreme weather risks.

1.2. The White House should designate a lead agency to maintain an extreme weather data portal where observations and modeling products are regularly updated and widely accessible.

2.1. Designate an interagency group to inventory and release federal data that are useful to develop and test weather-hazard models and hazard-loss models.

2.2 NOAA, FEMA, and other agencies as the President deems necessary, should develop guidelines for measuring the accuracy of weather-hazard and hazard-loss models and promote the use of skill-scoring hazards.

2.3 Fund research on risk-assessment modeling systems that use extreme weather probabilities, weather-hazard models, and hazard-loss models to quantify the likelihood and economic costs of extreme weather events.

3.1 The White House should develop and publish a National Adaptation Plan to prepare for and mitigate increased risks from extreme weather.

3.2 Fund research on the adaptation of households, real-estate and insurance
markets, and local governments to changing climate and extreme weather risk.

New preprint from the labs of Richard Bayliss and Eileen Kennedy (+ me). Defining a novel mechanism of protein-protein interaction that is phospho-dependent & using structure to design cell penetrating disruptors of the mechanism.
Great work from first author Vanda Gunning and colleagues.

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6862805/v1

The #NSF has reduced spending on the basic sciences by 50% or more in 2025, with similar cuts proposed for next year as well. For instance, through to May 21 of this year, the funding awarded to the mathematical sciences is currently $32 million, compared to the 10-year average of $113 million. These are of course large numbers for an individual person; but with the US population of 340 million, this amounts to spending less than 22 cents per American per year on basic #mathematics research, compared to the 10-year average of 80 cents per American per year. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/22/upshot/nsf-grants-trump-cuts.html

I myself have been fortunate to be supported by a small fraction of this 80 cents for almost the entirety of my professional career, allowing me to conduct research in the summer, invite speakers to my department, and to support graduate students. For now, I can continue these activities at a minimal level using by existing (and relatively modest) NSF grant https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=2347850 , but already I do not have the resources to put into any future long-term projects. For instance, my experiments with using new technologies for mathematical workflows are currently being conducted purely by myself together with contributions from unpaid online volunteers; I am applying for funding from several sources to scale these projects up beyond a proof-of-concept level, but I am expecting the process to be extremely competitive. (1/3)