But who is the antisemite here? Is it a coincidence that the 40 of the 60 colleges named (I went through the list myself) appear either on Hillel’s list of top colleges, or on Reform Judaism’s list of the same? And that many of those not listed on “top 50” sites still have some of the largest populations of Jewish students? For example, Union College is on the investigation list; their Jewish population is about 12% of the total enrollment.
Is it a coincidence that the schools with the largest Jewish populations are being targeted? If funding is cut to these schools, where will these students go? Who is hurt the most here?
January 31, 2025. Regardless of the Rescission memo, a lawsuit was filed by 22 States and the District of Columbia, and a temporary restraining order was issued to keep government funding in place. “Although that OMB Memo was rescinded on January 29, 2025, the plaintiffs in the above-referenced case allege that the funding pause directed by the OMB Memo is still in effect, including because of recently issued Executive Orders by the President.”
Feb 7, 2025. With evidence that Trump is still not complying with court orders to restore funding, 23 states filed to enforce the restraining order. Among the complaints is that IRA funding has not been restored.
This move would would gut Universities and healthcare research in the U.S.
Feb 7, 2025, Friday. The NIH announces that “indirect costs” paid for by grants will be limited to 15%. Currently this rate varies from 25% to 70%; for R1 Universities it is closer to the higher number.
Feb 10, 2025. Twenty-two states including Massachusetts filed a complaint, Mass vs NIH, noting that “In Federal fiscal year 2024, UMass Amherst will receive approximately $44.8 million dollars in funding from NIH. Of that total amount, approximately $13.1 million dollars are for indirect costs, based on the NIH Federal indirect cost rate of 61%.”
Feb 10, 2025. A temporary restraining order is granted, forbidding cuts to indirect costs for the 22 states that joined the suit.
Funding for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion within federal grants.
This includes the Broader Impacts of NSF grants and PIER (Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research) plans of DOE grants.
Jan 20, 2025 (inauguration day “gift”), executive order “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” is issued. Eliminates, within 60 days, “all ‘equity action plans,’ ‘equity’ actions, initiatives, or programs, ‘equity-related’ grants or contracts; and all DEI or DEIA performance requirements for employees, contractors, or grantees.”
DOE response: “…All open solicitations have been or will be amended to remove the PIER Plan requirement and associated review criterion. For proposals that have already been submitted to the Office of Science, no action on the part of the applicant is required, but applicants will have the option to resubmit a new application with the removal of the PIER plan.” In other words, rebudget. There is no mention of existing grants, but these seem to be covered under the order restraining implementation of M-25-13.
NSF response: The words diversity, equity, inclusion do NOT appear anywhere on this website, nor do “broader impacts”. They do state that “The review criteria remain consistent. Guidance on reviews and panel summaries has not changed. Program directors do not comment on activities outside of the purview of the panel. The reviews and panel summaries are advisory to NSF. As has always been the practice at NSF, we will consider this advisory material in conjunction with agency-wide guidance and applicable federal standards when making funding decisions.” In other words, reviews will still take broader impacts that include DEI into account, but program managers can opt not to fund based on administration guidelines.
Suppression of information I – Gender
Executive Order 14168 , so-called “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” provides an excellent example of scientific disinformation and suppression of information. It redefined the meaning of sex and gender, cancelled the existence of (among others) the trans community, and required multiple agencies to remove information in conflict with its orders, resulting particularly in the removal of information critical to the health and well-being of women and non-binary members of our society. Many websites disappeared overnight. On Feb 4, Doctors for America filed a lawsuit to restore these sites. On Feb 11, a federal judge in DC issued a temporary restraining order that the websites named in the suit be restored by 11:59 pm. A quick scan makes it seem that the administration is complying with this one.
Suppression of Information II – Climate and Climate justice
For decades, every NSF grant had to include a section on “broader impacts” which more often than not meant some sort of DEI effort by the PI. The Washington Post reported that “NSF staff have been combing through thousands of active science research projects, alongside a list of keywords, to determine if they include activities that violate Trump’s executive orders.” They have flagged hundreds, if not thousands, of words, that disqualify a grant from being funded.
Roughly one thousand keywords are being “flagged’ in grants, including the word ‘women’ [but not ‘men’], ‘Latina’ or ‘Latinx person’ (but not Latino),’transgender,’ ‘LGBT[QIA+],’ ‘climate change’, ‘clean energy,’ ‘netzero’, BIPOC, ‘anti-racist’, ‘ethnicity’, ‘bigot’, ‘advocate,’ ‘trauma,’ ‘bias’….
That said, as noted above, review panels continue to operate as they always have after a brief pause. Program managers must take their input into consideration, but also must consider other federal policies. See NSF Implementation of Recent Executive Orders
The effect of export controlson collaborative international research
This is an older topic. Export controls put in place by ITAR and EAR control and limit the types of exports (including data) and interactions that can occur in regards to scientific equipment and exchange. At some national labs, this has restricted the access of international collaborators to the extent that some collaborations are just not possible; this has been the case for more than 20 years now. More recently, Universities have been called on to meet tighter standards in regards to exporting scientific equipment and knowledge, although there are exceptions contained in the regulations for “fundamental research” or “educational exception”. Some useful links are below.
It seems that UMass has jettisoned its leadership in the energy transition. The administration proposes to use “renewable diesel” to power its cogeneration plant, instead of rapidly electrifying the campus, to get to carbon neutrality. It won’t work. Worse, at the faculty senate meeting on Dec 6, 2024, the administration claimed that “renewable diesel” is net zero. It isn’t.
Renewable diesel has been around a long time, but its modern use in the US stems from the “renewable fuels standard.” It is not the same as “biodiesel,” which here in the Northeast usually refers to locally sourced waste oil used to power diesel engines, but is more generally an additive to diesel fuel. “Renewable diesel” primarily comes from soy, palm or rapeseed (canola) oils, from crops planted for that purpose. Sometimes it comes from so-called “waste” oils. It is refined in converted fossil fuel refineries to make diesel that is chemically identical to fossil fuel diesel.
I cannot find any reports that suggest “renewable diesel” should be used in power (or heating) plants as part of the energy transition. It was expected to play at least a temporary role in air and sea transportation, replacing fossil-based aviation and diesel fuel. All literature on “renewable diesel” refers to its use in transportation.
Additionally, no reputable sources ever claimed “renewable diesel” was “net zero.” The carbon cost of land use changes, fertilization, monoculture, refinement, and transportation, always drives the carbon impact up, not to mention other environmental and economic impacts of using agricultural land to grow fuel oil. Even made from so-called “waste” oil, its lifecycle carbon impact is not net zero.
As a replacement transportation fuel, “renewable diesel” compares unfavorably with other choices. See Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change, particularly concerning is its comparison with corn ethanol. A recent study published in PNAS on the “Environmental outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard” focused primarily on corn ethanol, and showed that “the carbon intensity of corn ethanol produced under the RFS is no less than gasoline and likely at least 24% higher.” The land-use impacts of soy, palm, and rapeseed (the primary stocks for “renewable diesel”) are worse than that of corn, so we can reasonably expect the carbon intensity of “renewable diesel” to be worse than that of corn ethanol as well.
From a direct emissions standpoint, when used in a power plant, “renewable diesel” should be expected to burn essentially the same as diesel, which releases somewhere between 73-75 kg CO2 per mmBTU (distillate fuel oils #1,2,4). This is dirtier than methane (“natural” gas) previously used by UMass, which releases 53 kg CO2 per mmBTU. (GHG Emission Factors from https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/ghg-emission-factors-hub).
“Renewable diesel” also has exactly the same air quality impacts as diesel. The air in our valley will get significantly worse if UMass goes ahead with this plan.
Here’s the loophole that allows UMass to make the outrageous claim that this fuel is “net zero:” According the protocols for GHG reporting, all emissions are put into 3 categories: scope 1, 2, and 3. Because calculating the emissions from biofuels accurately is still nearly impossible, their direct emissions, which for any other fuel are reported as “scope 1,” are reported separately from any of the scopes, but along with the “scope 1” emissions. Ultimately the plans are to include their emissions in scope 3, but there is as yet no standard for doing that. So they do not contribute to “scope 1” but nonetheless get reported along with scope 1 emissions. If UMass is going to use biofuels they need to tell us what the direct emissions are, separate from scope 1, as required by the GHG protocols. This is particularly important for renewable diesel, which also has significant air quality impacts.
UMass is buying its “renewable diesel” from Neste: they are a major petroleum company in Finland with refineries in Europe and Asia. At the faculty senate meeting, the administration claimed that the fuel we would get from them would be 100% from waste products and net zero. This is impossible given the recent exponential growth of renewable diesel production (see plot near the bottom of the linked page). Even Neste doesn’t claim their product is 100% from waste, and nowhere do they say it is “net zero,” claiming instead a still unbelievable 75% reduction in CO2. No one ever expected biofuels to be net zero.How could UMass claim that this one is?
It is worth noting that Neste’s greenwashed website looks a lot like Enviva’s did. Enviva is a pelleted biomass producer that was until recently the largest in the world. They claimed to be sustainable, to use only wood waste products, to never cut forests for pelleting. In fact they were clearcutting forests (in some cases permanently converted to industrial use) in the US Southeast, and then shipping pellets to converted coal plants in Europe and Asia. Their “sustainable” [not] business grew up over a few years and then crashed this year even more quickly after an excellent series of articles on Mongabay.com (the world’s largest environmental news service). Enviva is still in business, but has declared bankruptcy and is being sued by their investors for fraud. The story has the world reconsidering the use of biomass.
This problem is larger than UMass. The exponential growth in the demand for “renewable diesel” noted above is very troubling. Every major oil company appears to be retooling their refineries to make the stuff. Where is it going? Are other power plants converting, lured by this newest greenwashing scam? I’ll edit this post when I figure it out – but it seems for now to be a secret. The sad fact is that this reporting loophole is allowing companies to continue their business as usual without regard to the planetary destruction that is now well underway.
UMass needs to reconsider its use of “renewable diesel” and return to its original plan to electrify the campus.
In the midst of our climate crisis there is some hope and good news. Every day, more people become a part of the solution. Fueled by passion and enabled by IRA funding, volunteers and paid professionals from grassroots organizations are increasingly providing the support and know-how to help homeowners, renters, schools, places of worship, municipalities and businesses make the change to clean energy. With an increasing awareness that we are out of time to make this change, there is also an increasing awareness that the energy transition is, in very personal ways, a good thing. A great thing! Electric cars are more reliable and never need an oil change. Heatpumps, which replace both air-conditioners and furnaces, often mean less expensive and more comfortable heating, not to mention healthier homes. They now include window-mounted units that renters can purchase instead of clunky AC units that provide no heat. Induction stoves are a joy to cook on. Solar panels on your roof mean lower energy costs, and backup batteries mean the heat stays on during a power outage that will be more frequent with our increasingly unstable climate.
At the same time, rebates and incentives offered by Massachusetts and the Federal Government mean that your next heating system will be the cheapest ever.
This is how you, as an individual, can participate. Electrify everything! Have a plan to replace every fossil-fuel driven accessory in your life with an electric equivalent.
The success of this strategy of course relies on the electric grid becoming greener – but that is also happening!
If you want to know more, I recommend Saul Griffith’s book, Electrify.
The planet is in trouble. By now we should all know that. Societal emission of green-house gases, unabated, is changing our tiny speck of planet in ways that will, at very least, make large areas uninhabitable in our children’s lifetime.
Still, I have personally maintained hope. Recent changes in federal and state legislation, and a growing army of grass-roots groups and activists, are working to green our economy; decarbonize our buildings; speed the installation of solar and wind energy; electrify our transportation; and do all of this while centering environmental justice for the communities most at-risk.
I’m also a Physicist, one who marvels at every aspect of creation and still goes out at night to just stare at the stars. I value research and exploration and the innovation that springs from them.
It is now clear that “biomass,” as currently used, is not a viable source of energy. Its use in power plants speeds the destruction of the planet. In many cases, burning wood or woody products to make electricity is worse than burning coal, emitting more in the way of green-house gases and deforesting large areas to do so. Claims of “no deforestation” by biomass producers are increasingly shown to be lies; for example,forests in South Carolina are regularly clear cut to make wood pellets burned in plants in the U.K., EU and Asia (link). Worldwide, governments are rethinking the use of biomass for electricity production. Australia outlawed its use at the end of last year. Sadly, other nations have yet to follow suit.
As scientists, we must reject the madness of burning the Amazon to power a spaceport. We can, and must, do better.
On October 21, the Physics Department’s own Professor Jennie Traschen hosted a public affairs radio show on WMUA titled “Women and Minorities in Physics.” I was pleased and honored to participate in this one-hour discussion with another faculty member and four undergraduate students. Particularly in light of Chancellor Kumble Subbaswamy’s diversity initiative, and the ongoing under-representation of women and members of minority groups in physics and on campuses nationwide, the show was timely, and I hope, informative. You can listen to it here.
I would like to encourage you to take a moment to consider the causes of persistent under-representation of women and minority members in STEM.
To the extent that biases implicit in our culture are to blame, I encourage you to take one of the many tests that are available through Project Implicit at Harvard. I recommend particularly the gender-science implicit association test that you can get to from this page. Recognizing that there is a problem, and understanding the nature of the problem, are essential first steps in solving a problem.
We all have implicit biases: recognizing this and understanding the nature of these biases is critical to increasing diversity in physics.
In the spring of 2014, Susan Metz of the Stevens Institute of Technology spoke on “Moving Beyond Fixing the Women to Changing the Culture in Academic STEM Fields.” This excellent talk addressed directly and scientifically the impact of implicit bias on women. It was well attended, but unfortunately not by the physics faculty. Fortunately Dr. Metz’s slides are linked on the UMass College of Natural Sciences Women in Science webpage.
For an overview of my research, please visit this website.
If you are looking for Timetagger software or instructions for building hardware, please see “Hardware and Software” page, linked above. The Timetagger is an FPGA-based multi-channel timing unit useful for FRET, ALEX, FCS, DLS, and related techniques.
