Scrape wikipedia-science: 637 new, 883 updated, 1564 total (kb-cron)

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Support_for_Darwinism-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+---
+title: "A Scientific Support for Darwinism"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Support_for_Darwinism"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:07:44.819271+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+A Scientific Support for Darwinism (And For Public Schools Not To Teach "Intelligent Design" As Science) was a four-day, word-of-mouth petition of scientists in support of evolution. Inspired by Project Steve, it was initiated in 2005 by archaeologist R. Joe Brandon to produce a public response to the Discovery Institute's 2001 petition A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.
+The Discovery Institute's petition was publicized in 2005 by media coverage of the Discovery Institute's efforts to introduce intelligent design in science classrooms and the opposition to those efforts in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. Brandon noticed that only about 80 of those appearing on the Dissent petition had expertise in an area relevant to evolution. Therefore, Brandon decided to create a petition of his own of scientists supporting evolution. The petition was hosted at ShovelBums.org, but has since been removed from the site.
+A total of 7,733 scientists signed a statement affirming their support for evolution over a four-day period.
+
+
+== Statement ==
+The statement was entitled A Scientific Support for Darwinism And For Public Schools Not To Teach "Intelligent Design" As Science, and read:
+
+This petition is in response to the Discovery Institute's petition "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" signed, since 2001, by 400 scientists, as of July 2005. That petition is presented to the public as a scientific endorsement of the religion-based concept of intelligent design over Darwinism (read more). Unfortunately, the majority, 83%, of these 'scientists' are not schooled in the fields that utilize evolutionary theory in detail, nor even in science, and they are not qualified to present their ideas in a way other than personal opinion. We feel this petition is misleading the public, and we use this petition to show that:
+Our Petition:
+"We, as scientists trained in fields that utilize evolutionary theory, do not consider Intelligent Design to be a fact-based science appropriate for teaching in public schools because it is theistic in nature, not empirical, and therefore does not pass the rigors of scientific hypothesis testing and theory development. As such, we petition that Intelligent Design not be presented in public schools as a viable science within the scientific curriculum."
+
+"This petition does not represent an atheistic or exclusionary scientific school of thought, and we do not endorse Intelligent Design, or other religious subjects, being prohibited from discussion in the appropriate classroom setting. Indeed many of us belong to religious denominations, and we respect and support individuals' rights to put evolution, the origins of the universe, and life, into a context that they understand as defined by their religion. Science, however, is not designed to explain or debunk religious concepts that are based in faith, and, as such, religion-based concepts should not be taught as science."
+
+
+== Results ==
+
+In four days in the fall of 2005, starting on September 28, 2005, and ending at 4:09 pm Eastern Time, October 1, 2005, the petition supporting "Darwinism" gathered 7,733 verified signatures from concerned scientists. Of these, 6,965 were US residents and 4,066 had PhDs. The "Four Day Petition" was carried out with no outside funding or assistance of any professional society. The effort was carried out by email and word-of-mouth.
+Among the signatories were 21 U.S. National Academy of Sciences members, nine MacArthur Fellowship awardees, and a Nobel laureate. According to Brandon's analysis, of those who signed his petition, there were
+
+3,385 with biology in their title
+850 with anthropology/archaeology
+680 with evolutionary & ecology
+394 from the field of genetics
+270 from geology and related fields
+234 from the fields of physics, astronomy, or space sciences
+111 chemists
+110 psychologists
+75 computer scientists
+50 engineers
+Therefore, about 68 percent of those signing the Brandon petition work in biology-related fields (using the first four categories from the list above).
+This "Scientific Support" petition collected signatures at a rapid pace. The responses to the Brandon petition arrived at a rate 697,000% faster than the signatures collected on the Discovery Institute Darwin Dissent petition.
+
+
+== History ==
+Brandon's original goal was to get 400 petition signatures in four hours. However, Brandon found he was 75 signatures short after four hours, and so he decided to extend his collection period to four days. The emails became more frequent, and at one point, petition responses were arriving every 3.5 seconds. However, the 325 signatures collected in the first four hours can be compared to the Discovery Institute's gathering of 400 signatures of self-identified scientists, most in irrelevant fields, in four years. In the week after the close of the four-day period, another several thousand signatures arrived, but were not included in the official tally.
+One signatory, Steve Brill of Rutgers University, stated,
+
+To be called a scientific theory, Intelligent Design must be at the very least, disprovable. Since there is no way for Intelligent Design to be disproved, it fails the simplest test of scientific theory.
+In a press release on October 20, 2005, announcing the results of the "Four Day Petition", Brandon acadrew attention to the remarks of Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Michael Behe's faculty colleagues in the biological sciences at Lehigh University. Twenty of Behe's peers remarked collectively that
+
+As Michael J. Behe's faculty colleagues... we lend our voices to the chorus of nearly all scientists who conclude that 'Intelligent Design' is not a scientific theory, but rather a loosely veiled attempt to explain natural phenomena by invoking the concept of a supernatural entity. Intelligent Design is not a scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution and has no place in the biology classroom.
+Another signatory, biologist Mark Siddall of the American Museum of Natural History stated,
+
+This is not a fight about what the nature of science is. Scientists have already determined that. It's a fight about what our daughters and sons will be taught is the nature of science.
+Siddall added "R. Joe's efforts elicited an overwhelming response from the scientific community—one that cut across lines of faith as deeply as it did across fields of scientific study." Siddall also assisted Brandon in checking that the IP addresses of the respondents corresponded to the institutions they claimed to be affiliated with.
+Brandon's original plan was to compile the signatures that he obtained and pass them on to Judge John E. Jones III who was handling the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, as well as announce the results in a press release. The petition was not completed sufficiently early to submit it as part of an amicus curae brief for the Dover case. However, if the case was to go to the US Supreme Court, the petition could have been submitted as an amicus brief at that time.
+R. Joe Brandon emphasized that this "Four Day Petition" did not mean that scientific issues are settled by majority vote. What Brandon maintains is that this is an indication of the level of scientific consensus that accepts evolution as a viable established scientific theory that has passed a large number of hurdles and is supported by an immense amount of evidence.
+
+
+== See also ==
+Clergy Letter Project
+Creation–evolution controversy
+Intelligent design movement
+Level of support for evolution
+
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_general_science_and_technology_awards-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+---
+title: "List of general science and technology awards"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_general_science_and_technology_awards"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:07:53.617130+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+This list of general science and technology awards is an index to articles about notable awards for general contributions to science and technology. These awards typically have broad scope, and may apply to many or all areas of science and/or technology. The list is organized by region and country of the sponsoring organization, but awards are not necessarily limited to people from that country.
+
+
+== International ==
+
+
+== Africa ==
+
+
+== Americas ==
+
+
+== Asia ==
+
+
+== Europe ==
+
+
+== Oceania ==
+
+
+== See also ==
+Lists of awards
+Lists of science and technology awards
+List of years in science
+
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_science_and_technology_awards-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+---
+title: "Lists of science and technology awards"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_science_and_technology_awards"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:07:50.538078+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+This is a list of notable awards for specific areas of science and technology. Typically these lists give the country of the sponsoring organization, the award name, sponsor name and a description of the award criteria. Some of the awards have broad scope, or cover the intersection of different disciplines, so an award may appear in more than one list. A list of general awards for science and technology is followed by the lists of more specific awards.
+
+
+== General list ==
+List of general science and technology awards
+
+
+== Specific lists ==
+
+
+== Research ==
+
+In July 2020, scientists reported that work honored by Nobel Prizes clusters in only a few scientific fields, with only 36/71 having received at least one Nobel Prize of the 114/849 domains that science could be divided into, according to their DC2 and DC3 classification systems. Five of the 114 domains were shown to make up over half of the Nobel Prizes awarded from 1995 to 2017 (particle physics [14%], cell biology [12.1%], atomic physics [10.9%], neuroscience [10.1%], molecular chemistry [5.3%]).
+This concentration of awards may be partially due to the fact that major scientific prizes, such as the Nobel Prize, are often awarded after a significant time delay, sometimes spanning several decades following a discovery. This delay is considered necessary to ensure the discovery is validated and has a lasting impact on the scientific discipline. Consequently, this delay raises questions about the current representation of emerging sciences and interdisciplinary fields, as recent discoveries may not appear on winners' lists for a long time, while the awards continue to reflect major shifts in fundamental science that have occurred in recent decades.
+
+
+== See also ==
+
+Lists of awards
+List of writing awards § Science writing awards
+List of years in science
+List of science communication awards
+
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Science-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+---
+title: "March for Science"
+chunk: 1/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Science"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:07:39.939284+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The March for Science (formerly known as the Scientists' March on Washington) was an international series of rallies and marches held on Earth Day. The inaugural march was held on April 22, 2017, in Washington, D.C., and more than 600 other cities across the world. According to organizers, the march was a non-partisan movement to celebrate science and the role it plays in everyday lives. The goals of the marches and rallies were to emphasize that science upholds the common good and to call for evidence-based policy in the public's best interest. The March for Science organizers, estimated global attendance at 1.07 million, with 100,000 participants estimated for the main March in Washington, D.C., 70,000 in Boston, 60,000 in Chicago, 50,000 in Los Angeles, 50,000 in San Francisco, 20,000 in Seattle, 14,000 in Phoenix, and 11,000 in Berlin.
+A second March for Science was held April 14, 2018.  230 satellite events around the world participated in the 2nd annual event, including New York City, Abuja, Nigeria, and Baraut, India. A third March for Science took place on May 22, 2019, this time with 150 locations around the world participating.
+The March for Science organizers and supporters said that support for science should be nonpartisan. The march was organized by scientists skeptical of the agenda of the Trump administration, and critical of Trump administration policies widely viewed as hostile to science. The march's website stated that an "American government that ignores science to pursue ideological agendas endangers the world."
+Particular issues of science policy raised by the marchers include support for evidence-based policymaking, as well as support for government funding for scientific research, government transparency, and government acceptance of the scientific consensus on climate change and evolution. The march was part of growing political activity by American scientists in the wake of the November 2016 elections and the 2017 Women's March.
+Robert N. Proctor, a historian of science at Stanford University, stated that the March for Science was "pretty unprecedented in terms of the scale and breadth of the scientific community that's involved" and was rooted in "a broader perception of a massive attack on sacred notions of truth that are sacred to the scientific community."
+
+== Background ==
+
+=== Donald Trump ===
+In 2012, Donald Trump referred to climate change as a hoax. As a presidential candidate, he promised to resume construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and roll back U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations adopted by the Obama administration.
+After Trump's election, his first transition team sought out specific U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) employees who had worked on climate change during the Obama administration. Prior to Trump's inauguration, many climate scientists began downloading climate data from government websites that they feared might be deleted by the Trump administration. Other actions taken or promised by the Trump administration inspired the march, including pulling out of the Paris Agreement, the stances of his Cabinet nominees, the freezing of research grants, and a gag order placed on scientists in the EPA regarding dissemination of their research findings. In February 2017, William Happer, a possible Trump science advisor with skeptical views on human caused global warming, described an area of climate science as "really more like a cult" and its practitioners "glassy-eyed". ScienceInsider reported Trump's first budget request as "A grim budget day for U.S. science" because it contained major funding cuts to NOAA's research and satellite programs, the EPA's Office of Research and Development, the DOE's Office of Science and energy programs, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Institutes of Health, and other science agencies.
+
+=== International solidarity ===
+International sister marches were planned for countries around the world. These both supported American scientists and climate scientists more generally, and protested against other impingements on academic freedom internationally, such as government action against the Central European University in Hungary and the closure of educational institutes and dismissal of academics in the 2016–17 Turkish purges, as well as local issues.
+
+== Planning and participants ==
+
+A major source of inspiration behind the planning of the march was the 2017 Women's March of January 21, 2017. The specific idea to create a march originated from a Reddit discussion thread about the removal of references to climate change from the White House website. In the discussion, an anonymous poster named "Beaverteeth92" made a comment regarding the need for a "Scientist's March on Washington". Dozens of Reddit users responded positively to the proposal. Jonathan Berman, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Texas Health Science Center and a participant in the original conversation, created a Facebook page, Twitter feed and website to organize a march. The Facebook group grew from 200 members to 300,000 in less than a week, growing to 800,000 members.  Individual scientists have both applauded and criticized this development. 
+
+It was announced on March 30 that Bill Nye, Mona Hanna-Attisha, and Lydia Villa-Komaroff would headline the march, and serve as honorary co-chairs. The protest was set to occur on Earth Day, with satellite rallies planned in hundreds of cities across the world.
+For the inaugural march in Washington, D.C., the National Committee consisted of (in alphabetic order):
+Sofia Ahsanuddin, Valorie V. Aquino, Jonathan Berman, Teon L. Brooks, Beka Economopoulos, Kate Gage, Kristen Gunther, Kishore Hari, Sloane Henningsen, Rachael Holloway, Aaron Huertas, Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, Rosalyn LaPier, Julia MacFall, Adam Miller, Lina Miller, Caitlin Pharo, Jennifer Redig, Joanna Spencer-Segal, Lucky Tran, Courtnie Weber, Caroline Weinberg, and Amanda Yang.
+These are the roles of the National Committee along with their teams:

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Science-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+---
+title: "March for Science"
+chunk: 2/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Science"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:07:39.939284+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+During the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the largest scientific organization in the US, scientists held the "Rally to Stand Up for Science" at Copley Square, Boston, on February 19. The same month, the AAAS announced its support for the march. By mid-March, some 100 science organizations endorsed the March for Science, including many scientific societies. Endorsers of the march included the American Geophysical Union, American Association of Geographers, American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Society for Neuroscience, Society for Freshwater Science, American Statistical Association, Association for Psychological Science, American Sociological Association, Electrochemical Society, Entomological Society of America, California Academy of Sciences, and the Monterey Bay Aquarium.
+The University of Delaware Center for Political Communication conducted a survey of 1,040 members of March for Science Facebook groups or pages from March 31 to April 18 to study their motivations for joining the march. Respondents cited the following as reasons for marching:
+
+Before April, enthusiasts found existing knitting patterns for a hat shaped like a brain and proposed it as a symbol of solidarity for the march in analogy with the pussyhat project.
+
+== Participation ==
+
+The primary march, organized by Earth Day Network and March for Science, in Washington, D.C., began at 10 AM with a rally and teach-in on the grounds of the Washington Monument, featuring speeches by concerned citizens alternating with scientists and engineers; including Denis Hayes, co-founder of the first Earth Day in 1970 and Bill Nye. No politicians spoke at the rally. At 2 PM the crowd of thousands, in spite of the steady rain throughout the day, proceeded down Constitution Avenue to 3rd Street, NW between the National Mall and the west front of the United States Capitol.
+Protesters gathered in over a hundred cities across the globe, with an estimated 70,000 participants in Boston, Massachusetts, and over 150,000 in several cities in California.
+
+== Reception ==
+Professor Robert Proctor of Stanford University said that the March for Science was similar to other efforts by scientists such as Physicians for Social Responsibility; however, the scale was larger because "there's a broader perception of a massive attack on sacred notions of truth that are sacred to the scientific community."
+
+=== Support ===
+On January 26, 2017, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont expressed his support for the march, congratulating "those scientists and researchers who are fighting back". U.S. Representative Bill Foster of Illinois, a physicist and the only current member of Congress with a Ph.D. in a natural sciences field, will join the march, "not as a Democratic member of Congress, but as a scientist." Foster said that he viewed the march as political, but not partisan, saying, "if you see a specific policy that is inconsistent with the known principles of science, every citizen who is also a scientist should speak out."
+In February the AAAS and other science groups announced their support for the march. Rush Holt Jr., the chief executive officer of the AAAS, expressed support for scientist involvement in politics. Holt also emphasizes the importance of "appreciation for and understanding of science in the general population".
+
+What's so interesting is it's the first time, I think, anybody can point to in decades where there has been a spontaneous effort to defend the idea of science. It's not a march pro or con GMOs or pro or con nuclear power. It's about the value of science and the power of evidence. People are understandably and correctly outraged that in so many areas of public policy ideology is crowding out evidence, that evidence seems to be optional in the fashioning of public policy, and that you have officials using phrases like alternative fact.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Science-2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+title: "March for Science"
+chunk: 3/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Science"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:07:39.939284+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Criticism ===
+The march received a torrent of criticism from conservative publications for the perceived left-wing bias and orientation of the event. Donald Trump's science adviser, climate change denier William Happer stated that "there's no reason to assume the president is against science" and dismissed the march as a cult.
+A number of scientists voiced concerns over the march. Theoretical physicist Sylvester James Gates warned that "such a politically charged event might send a message to the public that scientists are driven by ideology more than by evidence".  Writing in The New York Times, Robert S. Young argued that the march will "reinforce the narrative from skeptical conservatives that scientists are an interest group and politicize their data, research and findings for their own ends" and that it would be better for scientists to "march into local civic groups, churches, county fairs and, privately, into the offices of elected officials." Matthew Nisbet, writing for Skeptical Inquirer magazine right after the first march in 2017, states that it is not the least educated but the "best educated and most scientifically literate who are prone to biased reasoning and false beliefs about contentious science issues". In his opinion this will mean that the March will only deepen "partisan differences, while jeopardizing trust and impartiality and credibility of scientists". Nisbet feels that confidence in scientists is strong, and they should "use this capital wisely and effectively".
+Responding to criticism surrounding the political nature of the march, meteorologist and columnist Eric Holthaus wrote that the scientific field "has always been political" and referred to the example of Galileo Galilei's confrontation with the political order. Holthaus wrote that the scientists must also protest when "truth itself is being called into question".
+Discussing science's role in policy and government, Rush Holt points out a fallacy in viewing science and politics as philosophically incompatible: "The ethic in the profession is that you stick to your science, and if you're interested in how science affects public policy or public questions, just let the facts speak for themselves. Of course, there's a fallacy there, too. Facts are, by themselves, voiceless."
+San Francisco Lead Organizer Kristen Ratan debated Jerry Coyne on KQED's Forum regarding his criticism of the March and remarked that the millennial generation is just finding its feet with regard to activism and should be encouraged. Ratan also distinguished between being political and being partisan and suggested that while the March for Science is a political act, it is by no means partisan, which implies blind allegiance to one party over another. Ratan reiterated that the March For Science supports evidence-based policy-making regardless of party or affiliation.
+
+== Follow-up ==
+
+Following the march, the organizers of the March for Science encouraged people to a "Week of Action" with an outline of daily actions.
+The following spring, Science not Silence: Voices from the March for Science Movement, was published by MIT Press. The book, edited by Stephanie Fine Sasse and Lucky Tran, featured stories and images from marches held around the globe. It was selected as one of the "World's Best Human Rights Books" of Spring 2018 by Hong Kong Free Press.
+In July 2018, March for Science created and hosted the SIGNS (Science in Government, Institutions & Society) Summit in Chicago, Illinois. The summit was co-hosted by Field Museum and brought together organizers from satellite marches to connect, strategize, and develop skills to bring back to their communities. The program featured notable figures, including talks by Fabio Rojas, Brian Nord, Adia Benton, and Dana R. Fisher, as well as a poetry reading by Ed Roberson. Many sessions were recorded and are available to view online.
+
+== See also ==
+
+== References ==
+
+== External links ==
+
+Official website
+Earth Day Network (April 22, 2017). "March for Science Earth Day 2017 in Washington, D.C." Retrieved April 25, 2017 – via YouTube. (5:39:07)
+Rucht, Dieter (February 8, 2018). Standing Up For Science (Documentary). Retrieved February 23, 2018 – via YouTube. (00:45:28)

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve-0.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/2
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:01:07.464517+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:07:41.273242+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve-1.md

@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/2
 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve"
 category: "reference"
 tags: "science, encyclopedia"
-date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:01:07.464517+00:00"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:07:41.273242+00:00"
 instance: "kb-cron"
 ---
 

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Online-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+---
+title: "Science Online"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Online"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:07:42.353184+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Science Online was an annual conference held in Durham, North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina and Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, that focused on the role of the internet in science and science communication.  It was attended primarily by bloggers and science journalists from North America.
+The conference was held annually, beginning in 2007.  Notable attendees included PZ Myers, Jennifer Ouellette, Rebecca Skloot, Carl Zimmer and others.  The conferences were covered as local news by publications such as The Charlotte Observer, as well as "new media" like Boing Boing, professional journalist organizations like the Columbia Journalism Review and science-oriented publications like Scientific American.
+In October 2014, the ScienceOnline foundation, which organized the conferences, announced that it had become insolvent and consequently was shutting down.
+
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptics_in_the_Pub-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+---
+title: "Skeptics in the Pub"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptics_in_the_Pub"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:07:46.084198+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Skeptics in the Pub (abbreviated SITP) is an informal social event designed to promote fellowship and social networking among skeptics, critical thinkers, freethinkers, rationalists and other like-minded individuals. It provides an opportunity for skeptics to talk, share ideas and have fun in a casual atmosphere, and discuss whatever topical issues come to mind, while promoting skepticism, science, and rationality.
+
+
+== Format ==
+"Skeptics in the Pub" is not a protected term, anyone can set one up. There also is no formal procedure to organising an event; organisers can fill in activities as they see fit. There are, however, some common approaches across the world in hosting such events that make them more successful.
+The usual format of meetings includes an invited speaker who gives a talk on a specific topic, followed by a question-and-answer session. Other meet-ups are informal socials, with no fixed agenda. The groups usually meet once a month at a public venue, most often a local pub. By 2012 there were more than 100 different "SitP" groups running around the world.
+
+
+== History ==
+
+
+=== London ===
+The earliest and longest-running event is the award-winning London meeting, established by Australian philosophy professor Scott Campbell in 1999. Campbell based the idea around Philosophy in the Pub and Science in the Pub, two groups which had been running in Australia for some time.
+The inaugural speaker was Wendy M. Grossman, the editor and founder of The Skeptic magazine, in February 1999; this first talk attracted 30 attendees. The London group claims to be the "World's largest regular pub meeting," with 200 to 400 people in attendance at each meeting.
+Campbell ran the London group for three years while there on a teaching sabbatical, and was succeeded after his return to Australia by two sci-fi fans and skeptics, Robert Newman and Marc LaChappelle. Nick Pullar, who made a television appearance as "Convener of Skeptics in the Pub" on the BBC spoof show Shirley Ghostman, then led the group from 2003 to 2008.
+As of 2011, the London group was co-convened by Sid Rodrigues, who has co-organised events in several other cities around the world. This group has conducted experiments on the paranormal as part of James Randi's One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge and co-organised  An Evening with James Randi & Friends.
+Some of the speakers at London Skeptics in the Pub have been Simon Singh, Victor Stenger, Jon Ronson, Phil Plait, David Colquhoun, Richard J. Evans, S. Fred Singer, Ben Goldacre, David Nutt, and Mark Stevenson.
+
+
+=== Around the world ===
+The ease of use of the internet, via social networking sites and content management systems, has led to more than 100 active chapters around the world, including more than 30 in the US and more than 40 in the UK. In 2009, D. J. Grothe described the rise of Skeptics in the Pub across cities in North America and elsewhere as a prominent example of "Skepticism 2.0". SITPs were often founded outside the realm of existing skeptical organisations (mostly centred around magazines), with some successful meetings growing out to become fully-fledged membership organisations.
+"Skeptics in the Pub" would later serve as the template for other skeptical, rationalist, and atheist meet-ups around the globe, including The James Randi Educational Foundation's "The Amazing Meeting", Drinking Skeptically, The Brights, and the British Humanist Association social gatherings.
+Since 2010 Edinburgh Skeptics in the Pub has extended the Skeptics in the Pub concept over the whole Edinburgh International Festival Fringe, under the banner Skeptics on the Fringe and from 2012 done the same at the Edinburgh International Science Festival with the title At The Fringe of Reason.  The Merseyside Skeptics Society and Greater Manchester Skeptics (forming North West Skeptical Events Ltd) hosted three two-day conferences, QED, in February 2011, March 2012 and April 2013.  Glasgow Skeptics has also hosted two one-day conferences, as of July 2011.
+
+
+== See also ==
+
+Camp Quest
+CSICon
+European Skeptics Congress (ESC)
+List of public house topics
+New Zealand Skeptics
+SkeptiCamp
+Skepticon
+Skeptic's Toolbox (sponsored by the Center for Inquiry)
+Question, Explore, Discover (QED)
+The Amaz!ng Meeting (TAM)
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+
+Official website
+Skeptics in the Pub Online official website
+Skeptics in the Pub Workshop – QED: Question, Explore, Discover

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_Up_for_Science_2025-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+---
+title: "Stand Up for Science 2025"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_Up_for_Science_2025"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:07:47.411205+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Stand Up for Science are a series of protests that first occurred on March 7, 2025, and then again March 7, 2026. It is now also a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization formed in February 2025 as an endeavor to combat policy changes administered in Donald Trump's second term as president. The Stand Up for Science non-profit organized the Bethesda Declaration, the EPA Letter of Dissent and the NASA Voyager Declaration.
+
+
+== Background ==
+Stand Up for Science was founded by JP Flores, Emma Courtney, Sam Goldstein, Leslie Bernsten, and Colette Delawalla in February 2025. Amid the first 47 days of Donald Trump's second term, concerns emerged within scientific and medical communities regarding certain policy changes.
+The policy changes of concern included: the termination of grants related to transgender research and diversity initiatives at the National Institutes of Health, the review of thousands of National Science Foundation grants containing keywords such as "women" and "diversity", the dismissal of hundreds of probationary employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service, a proposed indirect cost cap at the National Institute of Health, attempted closure of facilities housing the Alaska and Hawaii Volcano Observatories, as well as concerns about the withdrawal of the United States from several climate initiatives.
+These changes immediately began to affect researchers and their ongoing work, as many were forced to prematurely end their studies. In the wake of mass cancellations of grants and studies, the co-organizers determined that an organized response was needed in order to combat the aforementioned policy changes. 
+Lead organizers utilized their vast networks to gather early-career scientists and graduate students that collectively expressed frustration at the lack of organized response to recent policies affecting scientific research.  In the early stages, lead organizing members drafted several key objectives beyond broadly opposing the Trump administration's specific policy decisions. These objectives included: the opposition of freezes on scientific grants and the dismissal of government scientists, the advocating for expanded funding for scientific research, calling for the reinstatement of diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility initiatives within government-funded science, and ultimately, demanding an end to political interference in scientific processes.
+
+
+== Declarations ==
+On June 9th, 2025, federal employees at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) stood up for the health and safety of the American people and faithful stewardship of public resources by authoring and signing the Bethesda Declaration.
+Stand up for Science partnered with the Environmental Protection Agency in order to draft and host the EPA's Declaration of Dissent. Published on June 30th, 2025, the letter publicly accuses Administrator Lee Zeldin’s administration of recklessly undermining the EPA mission in at least the following five ways: exchanging ethics for political favor, ignoring scientific consensus to benefit corporate polluters, reversing EPA's progress in America's most vulnerable communities and dismantling the Office of Research and Development.
+On Monday, July 21st, 2025, on the 56th anniversary of the moon landing, NASA employees exercised their expression of Formal Dissent by authoring, signing, and submitting the Voyager Declaration to Interim Administrator Sean Duffy and members of Congress who oversee the management of NASA.
+
+
+== Demonstrations ==
+Stand Up for Science managed to garner over 100 volunteers to help organize and facilitate demonstrations against the devastating cuts to federal research funding and infrastructure.
+
+
+=== Washington D.C. ===
+The Washington, D.C. demonstration held on March 7, 2025, at the Lincoln Memorial featured numerous high-profile speakers including former Director of the National Institutes of Health and human genome researcher Francis Collins, astronomer Phil Plait, Nobel Prize–winning biologist Victor Ambros, former NASA administrator Bill Nelson, and scientific television personality Bill Nye. Cancer survivor Emily Whitehead shared her experience as the first recipient of CAR T-cell therapy that saved her life when she was five years old. Several speakers addressed the attacks on institutions such as the Environmental Protection Agency and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including Congressman Bill Foster, Dr. Gretchen Goldman from the Union of Concerned Scientists, and volcanic researcher Denali Kincaid who highlighted the threat against multiple of the nations volcano observatories and other natural disaster related programs.
+
+
+=== Satellite ===
+Outside of Washington, D.C., significant protests occurred in other cities with strong scientific communities. According to organizers, parallel demonstrations occurred in more than 30 additional U.S. cities and international solidarity events were reported in several other countries that included more than 30 locations in France. Scientists unable to attend these events were encouraged by organizers to walkout of their workplaces. Philadelphia hosted a demonstration centered around City Hall, consisting of members of the medical institutions and healthcare education systems in the city. University of Pennsylvania infectious disease specialist Dr. Cedric Bien-Gund articulated his concern about effects on transgender and nonbinary patients. Similarly, thousands of protesters gathered at The Seattle Mural at Seattle Center in Seattle, where Washington State Governor Bob Ferguson confirmed his support for science. Further protests were held at the Michigan State Capitol, Hamilton College in Kirkland, New York, the Boston Common, the Tennessee State Capitol, and Schenley Plaza in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
+Many protestors carried signs with scientific themes and criticisms of specific public figures including President Donald Trump, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Elon Musk, which included slogans such as "science is the vaccine for ignorance", "Edit Elon out of USA's DNA", and "In evidence we trust".
+Across France, scientific communities hosted more than 30 related events mobilized under the name "Stand up for Science France" in solidarity with their American counterparts. Many French scientists who were part of the demonstrations expressed concerns at the changes in United States policy that would restrict international scientific communication, data sharing, budgets, and climate change-related findings. The French initiative included numerous demonstrations and academic conferences throughout France.
+
+
+== See also ==
+Environmental policy of the second Donald Trump administration
+March for Science
+Protests against the second presidency of Donald Trump
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+Official website – Stand Up for Science

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scientific_Activist-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+---
+title: "The Scientific Activist"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scientific_Activist"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:07:43.543283+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Scientific Activist was a blog that covered science, politics, and science policy. The Scientific Activist gained international recognition in February 2006 when it published information that led to the immediate resignation of Bush administration NASA appointee George Deutsch. Deutsch — who had been accused of censoring scientific information at NASA — claimed to have graduated from Texas A&M University on his résumé, but the blog discovered that Deutsch had not, in fact, completed his degree there.
+In July 2006, The Scientific Activist was named one of Nature's "Top five science blogs."
+
+
+== Notes and sources ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+The Scientific Activist, current site
+The Scientific Activist, original site (archives January 11—June 21, 2006)

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists'_Warning_to_Humanity-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+title: "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity"
+chunk: 1/5
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists'_Warning_to_Humanity"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:07:48.834304+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" was a document written in 1992 by Henry W. Kendall and signed by about 1,700 leading scientists. Twenty-five years later, in November 2017, 15,364 scientists signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice" written by William J. Ripple and seven  co-authors calling for, among other things, human population planning, and drastically diminishing per capita consumption of fossil fuels, meat, and other resources. The second notice has more scientist cosigners and formal supporters than any other journal article ever published.
+
+== First publication ==
+In late 1992, the late Henry W. Kendall, a former chair of the board of directors of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), wrote the first warning, "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity", which begins: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course." A majority of the Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences signed the document; about 1,700 of the world's leading scientists appended their signature.
+It was sometimes offered in opposition to the Heidelberg Appeal—also signed by numerous scientists and Nobel laureates earlier in 1992—which begins by criticizing "an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress, and impedes economic and social development." This document was often cited by those who oppose theories relating to climate change.
+In contrast, the UCS-led petition contains specific recommendations: "We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water.  ...  We must stabilize population."
+
+== Second Notice ==
+In November 2017, 15,364 scientists signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice" written by lead author professor of ecology, William J. Ripple of Oregon State University, along with 7 co-authors calling for, among other things, limiting population growth, and drastically diminishing per capita consumption of fossil fuels, meat, and other resources. The second notice included 9 time-series graphs of key indicators, each correlated to a specific issue mentioned in the original 1992 warning, to show that most environmental issues are continuing to trend in the wrong direction, most with no discernible change in rate. The article included 13 specific steps humanity could take to transition to sustainability.
+The second notice has more scientist cosigners and formal supporters than any other journal article ever published. The full warning was published in BioScience and it can still be endorsed on the Scientists Warning website.
+
+== 2019 warning on climate change and 2021 and 2022 updates ==
+In November 2019, a group of more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries named climate change an "emergency" that would lead to "untold human suffering" if no big shifts in action take place:
+
+We declare clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency. To secure a sustainable future, we must change how we live. [This] entails major transformations in the ways our global society functions and interacts with natural ecosystems.
+The emergency declaration emphasized that economic growth and population growth "are among the most important drivers of increases in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion" and that "we need bold and drastic transformations regarding economic and population policies".
+A 2021 update to the 2019 climate emergency declaration focuses on 31 planetary vital signs (including greenhouse gases and temperature, rising sea levels, energy use, ice mass, ocean heat content, Amazon rainforest loss rate, etc), and recent changes to them. Of these, 18 are reaching critical levels. The COVID-19 lockdowns, which reduced transportation and consumption levels, had very little impact on mitigating or reversing these trends. The authors say only profound changes in human behavior can meet these challenges and emphasize the need to move beyond the idea that global heating is a stand alone emergency, and is one facet of the worsening environmental crisis. This necessitates the need for transformational system changes and to focus on the root cause of these crises, the vast human overexploitation of the earth, rather than just addressing symptom relief. They point to six areas where fundamental changes need to be made:
+
+(1) energy — eliminating fossil fuels and shifting to renewables; (2) short-lived air pollutants — slashing black carbon (soot), methane, and hydrofluorocarbons; (3) nature — restoring and permanently protecting Earth's ecosystems to store and accumulate carbon and restore biodiversity; (4) food — switching to mostly plant-based diets, reducing food waste, and improving cropping practices; (5) economy — moving from indefinite GDP growth and overconsumption by the wealthy to ecological economics and a circular economy, in which prices reflect the full environmental costs of goods and services; and (6) human population — stabilizing and gradually reducing the population by providing voluntary family planning and supporting education and rights for all girls and young women, which has been proven to lower fertility rates.
+At the 30th anniversary of the World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, a second update to the climate emergency declaration concluded that "We are now at 'code red' on planet Earth".

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists'_Warning_to_Humanity-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+---
+title: "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity"
+chunk: 2/5
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists'_Warning_to_Humanity"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:07:48.834304+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== 2022 warning on population ==
+In October 2022, Eileen Crist, William J. Ripple, Paul R. Ehrlich, William E. Rees, and Christopher Wolf all contributed to the Scientists' warning on population, published by Science of the Total Environment as "part of the ongoing series of scientists' warning publications," to address the negative impacts of population size and growth on the climate and biodiversity, which they posit "continues to be ignored, sidestepped, or denied." It calls for two actions that, if heeded, will stop population growth before the end of this century. Firstly, the authors issue a global appeal to all adults to have no more than one child as part of the transformative changes needed to mitigate both climate change and biodiversity loss. Secondly, the warning urges policy-makers to "implement population policies with two key female empowerment components," primarily improving education for young women and girls and providing high-quality family-planning services to all. It emphasizes that "the combination of institutional support to plan one's child-bearing choices and educational attainment, including enhanced opportunity for higher education for women, yields immediate fertility declines." It also posits that a sustainable human population, which according to environmental analysts is "one enjoying a modest, equitable middle-class standard of living on a planet retaining its biodiversity and with climate-related adversities minimized," is between 2 and 4 billion people.
+The warning also advocates for combatting poverty, patriarchy and overconsumption by the affluent, and calls for a global wealth tax to be levied primarily against "wealthy nations, industries and people who have benefitted the most from humanity's massive-scale historical and contemporary use of fossil fuels" in order to expand "clean sanitation and water availability, food sovereignty, and electrification via renewables." It stresses that poverty alleviation must include the provision of basic public services, in particular healthcare and education.
+
+== Scientists' Warning series ==
+Following the publication of the World Scientists' Warning to Humanity (1992) and its update (2017), the Alliance of World Scientists (AWS) encouraged researchers to develop discipline-specific Scientists' Warning papers addressing focused environmental, ecological, and societal risks. These peer-reviewed articles form a recognised Scientists' Warning series, each explicitly framed as a contribution to the broader Warning movement. The AWS maintains an index of these articles on its official website.
+Listed in reverse chronological order (most recent first).

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists'_Warning_to_Humanity-4.md

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+title: "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity"
+chunk: 5/5
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists'_Warning_to_Humanity"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:07:48.834304+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== See also ==
+
+== References ==
+
+=== Excerpts and notes ===
+
+=== Citations ===
+
+=== Bibliography ===
+Bose, Priyom (July 7, 2022), "Scientists appeal for global population control", News Medical, retrieved November 4, 2022
+Carrington, Damian (November 5, 2019), "Climate crisis: 11,000 scientists warn of 'untold suffering'", The Guardian, retrieved November 8, 2019
+Crist, Eileen; Ripple, William J.; Ehrlich, Paul R.; Rees, William E.; Wolf, Christopher (2022), "Scientists' warning on population" (PDF), Science of the Total Environment, 845 157166, Bibcode:2022ScTEn.84557166C, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157166, PMID 35803428, S2CID 250387801
+Kendall, Henry W. (18 November 1992), World Scientists Warning To Humanity (PDF), ucsusa.org, retrieved 2011-08-26
+Ripple, William J.; et al. (13 November 2017), "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice" (PDF), BioScience, 67 (12): 1026–1028, doi:10.1093/biosci/bix125, archived from the original (PDF) on 15 December 2019, retrieved 12 July 2018
+Ripple, William J.; et al. (November 5, 2019), "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency", BioScience, doi:10.1093/biosci/biz088, hdl:1808/30278, retrieved November 8, 2019
+Ripple, William J.; et al. (July 28, 2021), "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency 2021", BioScience, 71 (9): 894–898, doi:10.1093/biosci/biab079, hdl:1808/30278, retrieved July 29, 2021
+Ripple, William J; et al. (26 October 2022), "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency 2022", BioScience, 72 (12): 1149–1155, doi:10.1093/biosci/biac083, hdl:1808/30278
+Suzuki, David (January 6, 2018), "15,000 Scientists Issue Urgent Warning: Humanity Is Failing to Safeguard the Planet", AlterNet, retrieved January 15, 2018
+Weston, Phoebe (2019-11-05), "11,000 scientists declare global climate emergency and warn of 'untold human suffering'", The Independent, retrieved 2019-11-07
+
+== External links ==
+World Scientists Warning to Humanity (2017)
+"World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" (1992)
+Our Best Point the Way Archived 2008-02-19 at the Wayback Machine (2001)
+ScientistsWarning.org (2018-Present)
+ScientistsWarning.TV (2014-Present)
+New commentary on the famous 'Warning to Humanity' paper brings up global inequalities. Phys.org. April 8, 2019.