As an industry giant invests in science fairs, we all invest (for better or worse) in biotech
By Carl Zimmer,
STAT
| 05. 26. 2016
Untitled Document
At the American Museum of Natural History, the venerable Science Talent Search announced Thursday that it was changing sponsors for the second time in its 74-year history.
In 1942 Westinghouse became the corporate partner for the nation’s largest research competition for high school students. In 1998, Intel took over as a sponsor for the next 18 years. Now it’s handing off to Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.
That’s a telling sequence — one that speaks to how science fairs have been a microcosm for how we look to science to help our country thrive, and how we’ve looked to different kinds of science along the way.
Continue reading on STAT
Image via Flickr
Related Articles
By Jallicia A. Jolly, Sydney Curtis and Nicole Sessions, Ms. Magazine | 10.17.2025
Pronatalism is an old idea with roots in eugenics and nationalism, that is now fashionable among far-right influencers and policymakers. They talk of “moral decay” and see low birth rates as a threat to the future of humanity. In the mainstream media...
By Matthew Ormseth and Summer Lin, Los Angeles Times | 10.02.2025
The father of some 22 children discovered by Arcadia police in May also owns a property in El Monte where authorities found evidence of illegal gambling and drug activity, court records show.
Guojun Xuan, 65, told detectives all but two...
By Katherine Bourzac, Nature | 09.25.2025
A judge in New York rejected a request on 23 September to disqualify the use of cutting-edge DNA sequencing as evidence in a case against an alleged serial killer. The ruling paves the way for a type of DNA analysis...
By Emma McDonald Kennedy
| 09.25.2025
In the leadup to the 2024 election, Donald Trump repeatedly promised to make IVF more accessible. He made the commitment central to his campaign, even referring to himself as the “father of IVF.” In his first month in office, Trump issued an executive order promising to expand IVF access. The order set a 90-day deadline for policy recommendations for “lowering costs and reducing barriers to IVF,” although it didn’t make any substantive reproductive healthcare policy changes.
The response to the...
