New this week: A collection of R&D reform ideas designed to improve efficiency and generate more breakthrough science. Some gems in here:

RT @PostOpinions: "Regardless of how the Iran situation turns out, the appeal of nuclear weapons is growing elsewhere.". What’s making some….

New piece from our team @scientistsorg reflecting on the perils of relying on pollution regs to drive an energy transition and lessons to be drawn. Recommended:.

RT @kyleichan: Chinese universities ranked above MIT, Oxford, Stanford in the new 2025 Nature Index:. Zhejiang, USTC, Peking, Tsinghua, Nan….

RT @nukestrat: Honored to co-author the second in a series of articles in @washingtonpost about nuclear risks and challenges facing us. Thi….

RT @AnnieJacobsen: A MUST read: "Why we should worry about nuclear weapons again." by Jon Wolfsthal, Hans Kristensen, Matt Korda . "We unde….

From Jon Wolfsthal, @nukestrat, and @mattkorda: the first in a series for @PostOpinions on the overlooked but intensifying risk dynamics associated with nuclear weapons:.

RT @KumarAGarg: This is awesome. I like this combo. Also, more non-profits should consider mergers + acquisitions. It can be win-win.

It's a new era at FAS. Today we bring MetroLab Network aboard because we realized we can do more together than separately. Cannot wait to work with @KateMGarman and her team on the state and local science & tech agenda. @MetroLabNetwork + @scientistsorg = 👊. More below 👇.

Wildfire danger is worse, and different, than it used to be. Bipartisan legislation would get us on the path to solving it. From @JAdamCampbell3 in @StarTribune:

RT @nukestrat: 1) The amazing Garwin has died! An immense person, creater of the hydrogen bomb, a reservoir of knowledge and tireless defen….

The list of pay-fors includes options that 1) eliminate unnecessary spending, and 2) predominantly would affect higher-earning populations. While some of these proposals present tradeoffs, it is time to examine the opportunity cost of our assumptions.

While we view these policies as essential to America’s reinvigoration, they also represent enormous investments that must be paid for at a time when fiscal constraints are likely to tighten. To pay for the agenda, we need to find an estimated $70-$175 billion annually.

Our innovation agenda spans R&D, translational capability and scale-up, FDI, STEM immigration, and tariff/export controls:

And that requires an agenda to address the major drivers of growing costs in health, education, childcare and housing.

We've seen that our collective conviction to stretch at the bleeding edge of science and emerging tech is dependent on political consensus and a policy agenda that also has to deliver more opportunity for more communities.

And for those of us who sit squarely in the community that thinks about innovation and R&D as the lifeblood of the American economy and national security, that fracturing has vast implications. We can’t pursue the innovation vision in isolation.

In reflecting on Trump’s trade/economic agenda, one observation stands out: the loose consensus around maximizing growth and redistributing the gains has fractured, because in practice, America failed to do either by underinvesting in the foundational policies that enable both.

Two things about this piece excite me: . 1) An effective case for pairing these priorities together needs to be made, and . 2) laying out a realistic menu of pay-fors shows exactly how this is all quite feasible!.