Being a scientist is about pursuing knowledge. But is there also a responsibility upon scientists to communicate or apply that knowledge in a way that contributes positively to society? The COVID-19 pandemic has forced us to confront this question head on.
Many states expanded voting by mail for the November 2020 election. There is no evidence to support claims of widespread fraud, but the expected increase in remote voting poses challenges for election officials and voters alike. The scientific evidence related to the use of mail-in voting provides key insights into the coming election and potential issues for voters and election officials.
Reducing methane emissions will have a rapid and significant effect on the rate of climate change. Scientific evidence detailing how best to measure, monitor, and mitigate methane emissions from the oil and gas industry will help set limits to protect health and meet US climate goals.
States may be burdened with a growing number of orphaned wells that should be properly closed and sealed to prevent impacts to water and air quality including the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Scientific studies have shown that the risk of dangerous exposure to pollution and hazards associated with hydraulic fracturing is directly related to an individual’s proximity to a well site. Individuals who live, work, or play near hydraulic fracturing operations are more likely to be exposed to air and water pollutants and experience harmful health effects.
Studies show that hydraulic fracturing can lead to environmental issues such as water contamination, soil contamination, and air pollution including the release of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Presentations by Elizabeth DiGangi, SUNY Binghamton; Annette Lee, St. Cloud State University; and Fatimah Jackson, Howard University at Indiana University on April 1, 2019.
Computer scientists, cryptologists, statisticians and other experts share a number of concerns about voting technology, election security, and the verifiability of election results.
The EPI Center is bringing scientific evidence on key public issues to decision-makers in a way that is timely, clear, and actionable.
Our team provides information on key issues to help shape debate and serve as a resource for policymakers who have questions about where to go for scientific insights.
The AAAS Center for Scientific Evidence in Public Issues (EPI Center) makes it easier for policymakers and other decision-makers to access scientific evidence and information and then integrate that evidence into their decision-making process.