#topic introduction

Already, President Trump has proposed major budget reductions for the EPA; NOAA, which conducts weather research and includes the National Weather Service; and other such agencies, in order to feed greater defense spending. He is expected to repeal the 2015 Clean Power Plan soon, which restricts the greenhouse gas emissions of power plants. Given his oath to reduce government regulation, what has been set in motion, and the support of the Republican majorities in Congress, it is quite clear that Donald Trump intends to set back efforts in reducing pollution, addressing climate change, and other past targets of the EPA.

What environmental effects is our country, as well as the rest of the world, likely to experience as a result of the Trump Administration's policies? Are there ways that their policies might change direction or that our environment might be protected despite the deregulation and downsizing?

Read more:

What are the differences between effective and ineffective teaching programs? What benefits do applications of technology have over traditional teaching methods, and what is the proper place of technology in education?

Read More:

Already, scientists across the country are planning a rally in Washington, D.C. on Earth Day. Coming off the heels of the Inauguration Day Women’s March, the March for Science carries many intents that scientists hope to share with the country, including respect for evidence-based research and open communication thereof. While hopes are high for many, however, some researchers disagree with the march and see it as overly political or otherwise contrary to the philosophy of science.

How should scientists communicate with the public? Do they need to take forceful measures to draw attention to important issues or maintain an air of non-partisan rationality? And what other obstacles are holding back scientists from sharing their research and passion for science?

Read More:

Washington Post: Federal agencies ordered to restrict their communications

There remain, however, contentious debates regarding the cost and safety of nuclear plants. Large nuclear facilities cost about $9 billion to build in the US and show no signs of becoming cheaper, in contrast to natural gas and solar power (along with needed storage), which have greatly dropped in price in recent years. Furthermore, disasters like the meltdowns at Chernobyl and Fukushima have painted nuclear plants in the public eye as fatal accidents waiting to happen.

On the other hand, these worries may be invalidated by development of new technologies for nuclear power. Designs for "small modular reactors" are in progress and promise to both be far cheaper to install than current large nuclear plants and have fewer vulnerabilities that could risk a meltdown.

How should we proceed with nuclear power? Is this energy source too dangerous to use, or do its benefits outweigh its risks? Can we count on new technologies to solve these problems of cost and safety?

Read more:

Bloomberg: China’s Nuclear Power Capacity Set to Overtake U.S. Within Decade

Bloomberg: The Dream of Cheap Nuclear Power Is Over

To prevent further development of antibiotic resistant bacteria, we need to reduce our collective use of antibiotics. Collective effort solutions, however, face the incredible difficulty of convincing many people to take an action that may harm or inconvenience them personally in the short term. If antibiotic usage is reduced, doctors won't be able to treat their patients as effectively and farmers won't be able to grow their livestock to such great size and quantities as they do now. But if usage is not reduced, they may experience the same consequences many times over in the future.

What actions need to be taken to counteract the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria, and by whom? What challenges must humanity address such comprehensive problems like the dilemma of antibiotics, and how can they overcome them?

Read More:

Antibiotic Resistance Is Everyone's Problem