research elsevier articles

ScienceDirect Support Center

To post social content, you must have a display name. The page will refresh upon submission. Any pending input will be lost.

What types of articles are available in ScienceDirect?

ScienceDirect provides an assortment of documents for your scientific research.

Was this answer helpful?

Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch.

Help us to help you:

Thank you for your feedback!

• Why was this answer not helpful?
• It was hard to understand / follow.
• It did not answer my question.
• The solution did not work.
• There was a mistake in the answer.
• Feel free to leave any comments below: Please enter your feedback to submit this form

Related Articles:

• How do I use the advanced search?
• How can I filter when browsing journals / books?
• Why should I create an Elsevier account in ScienceDirect?

For further assistance:

• Open access

Open Access

Elsevier is moving fast to meet the different demands for Open Access

Open access is an integral part of our commitment to a collaborative, inclusive and transparent world of research where authors, researchers and academic institutions can share knowledge and build on each other's work to advance outcomes.

I'm interested in ...

Publishing open access with Elsevier

Elsevier's open access agreements

Elsevier's open access policies

We offer a wide range of open access options to fit the diverse needs of institutions, funders, academic societies and researchers around the world. We listen to our customers and collaborate with them to achieve their research goals. We do so without ever compromising on the things they trust us for: quality, rigorous peer review and research integrity.

By testing and learning from our open access pilot agreements with institutions around the world, we continue to evolve the open access options we offer.

Fundamentally our mission — to help researchers and healthcare professionals advance science and improve health outcomes for the benefit of society — means we will always support researchers accessing the knowledge they need, regardless of the model under which it was published.

Fast facts on open access

Our fast-growing open access offer

• We want to ensure that researchers have as many open access publishing options as they do subscription, reflecting our belief in author choice.
• As one of the fastest-growing open access publishers in the world, nearly all of Elsevier's 2,700 journals now enable open access publishing, including 600 fully open access journals.
• We commit to the transformative journal criteria. We are piloting  transformative journal status for more than 160 journals from across our portfolio. You can see the  full list of transformative journals and targets and visit the relevant individual journal home pages for more information.
• In 2021 Elsevier published 119,000 gold or pay-to-publish OA articles an increase of more than 46% over 2020, making us one of the largest open access publishers in the world.
• We support authors by providing them with advice on how they can comply with funding body open access policies.

Finding the right solutions for our authors, librarians and institutions

• More than 2000 institutions around the world are now able to publish open access through one of our transformational agreements. These include test-and-learn agreements in the Netherlands , Norway , Poland , Hungary , France , Sweden , Ireland , Qatar and Switzerland and individual institutions including the University of California ,  University of Florida , Carnegie Mellon University and California State University.
• As these agreements come into practice, we are learning more about the best way to offer open access, enabling us to better respond to our customers’ needs.

Beyond OA: Other free access initiatives from Elsevier

• We offer free access to relevant research for health emergencies, including the Covid-19 pandemic.
• Patients and caregivers are provided with research papers related to medicine and healthcare upon request to help them better understand the latest research on their conditions.
• We ensure everyone can access a collection of the work from each year’s Nobel Prize winners.
• We open the archives for 140 journals, including Cell Press research journals, after 12 months.
• Through Research4Life , institutions in 120 low- and middle-income countries receive affordable access to nearly 100,400 peer reviewed resources. As a founding member, Elsevier provides over a quarter of that content, as well as access to the abstract and citation database Scopus and training for librarians.
• We automatically apply waivers or discounts to articles in fully gold OA journals for which all authors are based in a low-income country.

Frequently asked questions

1. How many of your journals offer a Gold Open Access option?

Elsevier is one of the fastest-growing Open Access publishers in the world. Nearly all of Elsevier's 2,600 journals now enable Open Access publishing, including 500 journals which are fully Open Access journals.

We recognize that in recent years, a growing number of researchers have chosen to publish Open Access. This shift has challenged every publisher to adapt and respond to new publishing needs, we have done so while ensuring published research remains trusted and high quality.

2. What is your position on Green Open Access?

One of the ways in which Elsevier supports access to research financed through journal subscriptions is through Green Open Access. All Elsevier journals allow authors to use Green Open Access

Elsevier also makes subscription articles completely free to access in specific situations:

• We offer free access to relevant research for health emergencies, including the Covid-19 pandemic .
• Patients and caregivers are provided with papers related to medicine and healthcare upon request to help them better understand the latest research on their conditions.
• Through Research4Life , institutions in 120 low- and middle-income countries receive affordable access to nearly 100,400 peer reviewed resources. As founding member, Elsevier provides over a quarter of that content, as well as access to the abstract and citation database Scopus, and trainings for librarians.

NB: Green Open Access is when authors share a public version of their article, for example in their institution or funder’s repository, which would otherwise only be available to paying subscribers.

3. How do you formulate your prices for publishing and subscriptions?

Elsevier’s APCs are set on a per journal basis, fees range between approximately $150 and $9,900 US Dollars, excluding tax, with prices clearly displayed on our APC price list and on journal homepages.

Adjustments in Elsevier’s APCs are under regular review and are subject to change. We set APCs based on the following criteria which are applied to open access articles only:

• Journal quality (as measured by journal quality Field Weighted Citation Impact Tier);
• The journal’s editorial and technical processes;
• Competitive considerations;
• Market conditions;
• Other revenue streams associated with the journal.

A small percentage of titles may support more than one APC, for example when a journal supports one or more article types that require different APCs.

We do not vary the APC prices for our proprietary journals based on the user license chosen by the author. However, we also publish journals on behalf of learned societies or other third parties that reserve the right to determine their own prices and pricing policies. Any deviations in pricing from Elsevier’s standard APC price list per journal will be clearly displayed on the journal’s homepage.

Download APC prices

Subscription prices

Elsevier publishes subscription articles whose publication is funded by payments that are made by subscribing individuals or institutions. Subscription prices are set independent of open access articles and open access articles are not included when calculating subscription prices. Subscription prices are calculated and adjusted based on the following criteria:

• Article volume
• Journal quality (as measured by journal quality Field Weighted Citation Impact Tier)
• Journal usage
• Editorial processes
• Competitive considerations
• Other revenue streams such as commercial contributions from advertising, reprints and supplements

These criteria are applied only to subscription articles, not to open access articles, when setting list prices. For specific information please see our  subscription price list for librarians and agents.

Purchasing options

Elsevier provides a range of purchasing options for subscription articles which are tailored for a wide variety of people. These include:

• For libraries and institutions:  There are a number of subscription options available which are tailored according to the specific customer situation and reflect a number of factors. For customers who purchase collections these considerations include competitive considerations, market conditions, the number of archival rights they purchase, and agreement specific factors like agreement length, currency and payment terms. Collection prices are adjusted on an annual basis, and any adjustment is based on factors including competitive considerations, market conditions, the number, quality, and usage of subscription articles published, and on technical features and platform capabilities. Open access articles are not included in these calculations.  Click here for more details
• Individuals:  Researchers who are not affiliated to an institution, or who would simply like convenient access to a title not available from their library, can take advantage of our personal access options. These options include credit card based transactional article sale and article rental.
• For more information on our free and low-cost access programs  click here .

4. Can you be more transparent in what you charge?

We are constantly striving to be more transparent in all aspects of what Elsevier does, including pricing. We try to support requests for information within the bounds allowed by financial reporting requirements and competition rules.

For authors:

• We provide the price of publishing Gold Open Access on each journal homepage and in a central list .
• We automatically  notify authors who are entitled to free or discounted Gold Open Access, for example where there is an agreement with their institution or funder.
• We automatically notify authors who are entitled to free or discounted Gold Open Access because they are in a lower- or middle-income country. Our APC waiver policy explains this process.

For librarians:

• We provide a range of information on our website about our pricing competitiveness; how our pricing corresponds to quality; and publishing model uptake across subscription and open access.
• We publicly announce significant agreements, including our open access pilots
• We provide a list of our journal subscription prices
• We describe the process we follow to calculate list prices
• We describe the process to ensure we do not double dip . We also show the number of articles that are published Gold Open Access, and the number which are financed through subscriptions, on each journal homepage, to allow librarians to validate this.

5. Do you double dip? i.e. charge for the same article twice

We do not double-dip. We can be reimbursed for an article in two ways – through an Article Publishing Charge (APC) or a subscription – but we never charge for the same article twice. We have a strict no double-dipping policy.

6. How do you help authors who cannot afford to pay to be published, and why can't you offer that support more widely?

As part of our commitment to inclusion and diversity in science, we believe it is critical to support researchers from low and middle-income countries to publish Gold Open Access, if they wish to do so. When publishing in fully Open Access journals, we fully waive all open access charges for authors from 69 countries ( Group A ) and give a 50% discount for authors from 57 countries ( Group B ).

For other authors, we offer a choice of journals with open access publishing charges ranging from $150 to $9,900. We will also consider requests for accommodations on a case by case basis for authors who are required to publish open access but do not have the financial means to do so. We also provide high quality subscription publishing venues, so authors always have a choice of how they publish.

7. If more authors are publishing Gold Open Access, why don't you reduce your subscription fees?

We see growth in the number of articles published through both gold open access and the subscription model. Subscription volumes rose by over 7% in 2020 compared to the previous year, for instance. However, we still price competitively, despite the fact that our article volumes in both gold and subscription content continue to grow. Elsevier’s average price change has been the lowest amongst major competitors in the last 13 years due to moderate historical price changes and this strong volume growth. At the same time, we maintain high-quality content.

Subscription fees are based on a range of factors, including volumes, the quality of a journal, journal usage and market and competitive considerations. The number of articles published Gold open access has no bearing on the way we price subscription fees.

Explore more

Open access journals Find an overview of all open access journals published by Elsevier.

View the list of gold open access journals

Open access books Find out about our open access book publishing options.

Read more here

Open Archive Elsevier provides free access to archived material in selected Elsevier journals.

View the list of Elsevier open archive journals

Journal Embargo Finder Search tool to find the embargo period for your Elsevier journal.

Find journal embargo periods

Elsevier policies

Learn more about our policies

Open science

Read about open science at Elsevier

CHORUS Elsevier is a founding member and supports the CHORUS service, providing a low-cost compliance service for open access.

Elsevier.com visitor survey

We are always looking for ways to improve customer experience on Elsevier.com. We would like to ask you for a moment of your time to fill in a short questionnaire, at the end of your visit . If you decide to participate, a new browser tab will open so you can complete the survey after you have completed your visit to this website. Thanks in advance for your time.

Structuring your article correctly

Anthony Newman

About this module

One of the key goals when writing a journal article is to communicate the findings clearly. In order to help researchers achieve that objective, scientific papers share a common structure (with slight variations per journal). Clear communication isn’t the only reason these article elements are so important; for example, the title, abstract, and keywords all help to ensure the article is found, indexed, and advertised to potential readers.

In this interactive module, we walk early career researchers through each of the building blocks. We help you understand the type of content each element should contain. We also share tips on how you can maximize their potential, such as key points to consider when writing your article title.

You will come away with the detailed knowledge you need to write an effective scientific article, increasing your chances of publication success.

About the presenter

Senior Publisher, Life Sciences, Elsevier

Anthony Newman is a Senior Publisher with Elsevier and is based in Amsterdam. Each year he presents numerous Author Workshops and other similar trainings worldwide. He is currently responsible for fifteen biochemistry and laboratory medicine journals, he joined Elsevier over thirty years ago and has been Publisher for more than twenty of those years. Before then he was the marketing communications manager for the biochemistry journals of Elsevier.  By training he is a polymer chemist and was active in the surface coating industry before leaving London and moving to Amsterdam in 1987 to join Elsevier.

Guide to reference managers: How to effectively manage your references

How to prepare your manuscript

How to write an abstract and improve your article

Generative AI in the Publishing Community

Author policies on the use of Generative AI

Writing a scientific paper: from clutter to clarity, elements of style for writing scientific journal articles, preparing to write for an interdisciplinary journal, how to get published, how to publish in scholarly journals.

Elsevier Early Career Resources -- Advice for young and ambitious scientists

Elsevier Early Career Resources -- Look for the seed of brilliance

How to Write Great Papers (workshop on edition & publication)

Journal Authors

Author Services

JournalFinder

Elsevier Webshop

ScienceDirect

The future of research revealed

Researchers lay bare the challenges and opportunities they face in a post-covid world.

The research ecosystem has been undergoing rapid and profound change, accelerated by COVID-19. This transformation is being fueled by many factors, including advances in technology, funding challenges and opportunities, political uncertainty, and new pressures on women in research.

At Elsevier, we have been working with the global research community to better understand these changes and what the world of research might look like in the future. The results were published today in Elsevier’s new Research Futures Report 2.0 . The report is free to read and download.

Commenting on the report, Elsevier Research Director Adrian Mulligan said:

The report builds on a previous Research Futures study in 2019 , carried out with the global research agency Ipsos MORI to gather predictions from funders, publishers, technology experts and researchers on what research might look like in 10 years’ time.

The aim of the Research Futures project is to gather the views and opinions of researchers across the world to help us better understand the challenges and opportunities they face. Elsevier will use these insights to look at steps we could take to better support the research community in the future.

One point is clear: we can best prepare for the future by working together.

Publishing moves faster, with more open knowledge.

The Research Futures Report 2.0 shows that the past two years have driven progress in both speed and openness in the communication of research. Around two-thirds (67%) of researchers globally now consider preprints a valued source of communication, up from 43% before the pandemic — a shift likely driven by the increased role of preprints in finding ways to tackle COVID-19.

While preprints are becoming more popular, they have not benefited from the pivotal role of peer review or had any additional value added to them by publishers. For example, 94% of version-of-record articles published in Elsevier journals have content changes made during the editorial process, and 13% of submissions go through major changes, according to 2021 Elsevier data. Also, 54% of respondents said they planned to publish open access, 6% higher than in 2019.

Funding is harder, but new opportunities emerge.

Despite COVID spotlighting the importance of research, funding continues to be a major challenge for researchers, with half (50%) stating there is insufficient funding available in their field. Just one in four (24%) researchers believe there is enough funding for their work; worryingly, this figure has declined from nearly one in three (30%) in 2020. Researchers cite fewer funding sources, increased competition, changing priorities and the diversion of funds to COVID-19 related fields.

Looking ahead, researchers expect more money for research to become available from businesses, with 41% believing that corporate funding for research will increase. Government funding has also increased as a proportion of research budgets since 2019, which has led to a growth of funding across various subjects. For example, Materials Science research has seen the biggest growth in funding satisfaction in 2021, with 35% saying available funding is sufficient — almost triple the percentage (12%) who were satisfied with funding levels in 2020.

Women in research face new pressures — and adapt.

While women in research were faster to adapt during the pandemic, they still face unique challenges. Elsevier’s research shows that they are:

• Expecting to collaborate more than they did before the pandemic: 64% expect to increase work with researchers across different scientific disciplines, up from 49% in 2020.
• Embracing technology faster than their male counterparts: 53% of women scientists think the use of technology in research will accelerate over the next 2 to 5 years versus 46% for men.
• More likely to have shared their research with the wider public than men: 60% of women versus 55% of men have shared their research publicly.

Women reported having less time to do research during lockdowns, which could slow or hamper their future career prospects. 62% reported they were finding it difficult to find a good work-life balance during the pandemic, compared to just 50% of male researchers — a trend which could have significant negative long-term effects on the careers of women in research.

Researchers are collaborating more.

As teaching, publishing and funding accelerate and increase the pressure on researchers, how they work has changed — and not necessarily for the worse. Researchers are collaborating more. Just over half (52%) state that they are sharing more research data now than 2 to 3 years ago, and the number of researchers who say they are collaborating more than in the past has grown to 63% from 48% pre-pandemic.

The gains are across geographies and disciplines. Researchers in Computer Science have seen the biggest rise, with 76% agreeing that there is more collaboration involved in their projects than previously — a substantial rise from the 41% who agreed pre-pandemic.

More researchers are embracing AI.

AI has been embraced more than ever during the past two years, though some caution remains. 16% of researchers are extensive users of AI in their research, and while high take-up in Computer Sciences skews that number (64% of computer scientists are heavy users), attitudes across a number of specialties have grown more positive. In Materials Science, which covers the structure and properties of materials and the discovery of new materials and how they are made, 18% are now likely to be extensive users of AI in their research, up from zero a year ago; in Chemistry, the number has grown from 2% to 19% and, in Maths, from 4% to 13% since 2020.

Attitudes towards the use of AI in peer review is perhaps where we have seen the greatest shift in attitude: 21% of researchers agree they would read papers peer reviewed by AI — a 5-percentage point increase from 2019. Those age 55 and under are the most willing to read AI-reviewed articles (21%), while those age 56 and over have increased their willingness compared to a year ago (19%, up from 14% last year). At the same time, most researchers surveyed continue to object to AI peer review, with almost two in three unwilling to read such articles (58 percent) — a similar proportion as in 2020.

Project Methodology

In total, over 2,000 researchers responded to two separate global surveys: 1,173 researchers responded in July-August 2021 and 1,066 in July 2020. Responses have been weighted to be representative of the global researcher population by country (UNESCO/OECD data). Base sizes shown in this report are unweighted unless otherwise stated. The full methodology is available in the report.

Contributors

Adrian Mulligan is Research Director for Customer Insights at Elsevier. He has more than 20 years' experience in STM publishing, much of that time spent in research. He oversees research programs used to drive action in the business and to help shape Elsevier strategy. The Customer Insights team works in partnership with external groups to deepen understanding of the scholarly landscape across the industry. He has presented on a range of research-related topics at various conferences, including STM, ESOF, AAP, SSP, APE and ALPSP. Mulligan's background is in archaeology; he has a BA Honours degree and a master's of science from the University of Leicester . He also has a diploma in Market Research from the Market Research Society .

Related stories

New dataset offers unique insights into peer review

Join the #confidenceinresearch discussion on linkedin.

Trending Articles

• Alanyl-tRNA synthetase, AARS1, is a lactate sensor and lactyltransferase that lactylates p53 and contributes to tumorigenesis. Zong Z, et al. Cell. 2024. PMID: 38653238
• Efficacy and safety of eco-friendly inhalers: focus on combination ipratropium bromide and albuterol in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Panos RJ. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2013. PMID: 23658481 Free PMC article. Review.
• Labour promotes systemic mobilisation of monocytes, T cell activation and local secretion of chemotactic factors in the intervillous space of the placenta. Vikberg S, et al. Front Immunol. 2023. PMID: 36969250 Free PMC article.
• Global incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 371 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. GBD 2021 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Lancet. 2024. PMID: 38642570
• Sequential CD7 CAR T-Cell Therapy and Allogeneic HSCT without GVHD Prophylaxis. Hu Y, et al. N Engl J Med. 2024. PMID: 38657244

Latest Literature

• Am Heart J (2)
• Am J Med (4)
• Arch Phys Med Rehabil (1)
• Cell Metab (4)
• Gastroenterology (8)
• J Neurosci (4)
• Nat Commun (38)
• Oncogene (1)

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Share full article

Yellowstone’s Wolves: A Debate Over Their Role in the Park’s Ecosystem

New research questions the long-held theory that reintroduction of such a predator caused a trophic cascade, spawning renewal of vegetation and spurring biodiversity.

Yellowstone’s ecological transformation through the reintroduction of wolves has become a case study for how to correct out-of-balance ecosystems. But new research challenges that notion. Credit... Elizabeth Boehm/Danita Delimont, via Alamy

Supported by

By Jim Robbins

• April 23, 2024

In 1995, 14 wolves were delivered by truck and sled to the heart of Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, where the animal had long been absent. Others followed.

Since then, a story has grown up, based on early research, that as the wolves increased in number, they hunted the park’s elk herds, significantly reducing them by about half from 17,000.

The wolves’ return and predatory dominance was believed to have had a widespread effect known as a trophic cascade, by decreasing grazing and restoring and expanding forests, grasses and other wildlife. It supposedly even changed the course of rivers as streamside vegetation returned.

Yellowstone’s dramatic transformation through the reintroduction of wolves has become a global parable for how to correct out-of-balance ecosystems.

In recent years, however, new research has walked that story back. Yes, stands of aspen and willows are thriving again — in some places. But decades of damage from elk herds’ grazing and trampling so thoroughly changed the landscape that large areas remain scarred and may not recover for a long time, if ever.

Wolf packs, in other words, are not magic bullets for restoring ecosystems.

“I would say it’s exaggerated, greatly exaggerated,” said Thomas Hobbs, a professor of natural resource ecology at Colorado State University and the lead author of a long-term study that adds new fuel to the debate over whether Yellowstone experienced a trophic cascade.

“You could argue a trophic trickle maybe,” said Daniel Stahler, the park’s lead wolf biologist who has studied the phenomenon. “Not a trophic cascade.”

Not only is the park’s recovery far less robust than first thought, but the story as it has been told is more complex, Dr. Hobbs said.

But the legend of the wolves’ influence on the park persists.

“How in the world does this lovely story — and it is a beautiful story — come to be seen as fact?” Dr. Hobbs wondered. A chapter of a book tried to answer that, concluding that a video called “ How Wolves Change Rivers ,” which has received tens of millions of views, contributed mightily to the tale.

The ecological record is complicated by the fact that, as elk declined, the number of bison increased substantially, continuing some of the same patterns, like heavy grazing in some places. Moreover, Yellowstone is growing warmer and drier with climate change.

Large numbers of elk in the north of the park had caused significant ecological changes — vegetation disappeared, trampled streams led to extensive erosion, and invasive plant species took hold. Riparian vegetation, or the grasses, the trees and the shrubs along riverbanks and streams, provides a critical habitat for birds, insects and other species to flourish and to maintain biodiversity in the park.

Once elk numbers dwindled, willows and aspens returned along rivers and streams and flourished. The beaver, an engineer of ecosystems, reappeared, using the dense new growth of willows for both food and construction materials. Colonies built new dams, creating ponds that enhanced stream habitats for birds, fish, grizzlies and other bears as well as promoting the growth of more willows and spring vegetation.

But wolves were only one piece of a larger picture, argue Dr. Hobbs and other skeptics of a full-blown trophic cascade at Yellowstone. Grizzly bears and humans played a role, too. For eight years after wolves re-entered the park, hunters killed more elk than the wolves did.

“The other members of the predator guild increased, and human harvest outside of the park has been clearly shown to be responsible for the decline in elk numbers the first 10 years after the wolves were introduced,” Dr. Hobbs said.

The changes attributed to the presence of stalking wolves, some research showed, weren’t only the result of fewer elk, but of a change in elk behavior called “the ecology of fear.” Scientists suggested that the big ungulates could no longer safely hang out along river or stream banks and eat everything in sight. They became extremely cautious, hiding in places where they could be vigilant. That allowed a return of vegetation in those places.

Dr. Hobbs and others contend that subsequent research has not borne that theory out.

Another overlooked factor is that around the same time wolves were returning, 129 beavers were reintroduced by the U.S. Forest Service onto streams north of the park. So it wasn’t just wolf predation on elk and the subsequent return of wolves that enabled an increase in beavers, experts say.

Some researchers say the so-called trophic cascade and rebirth of streamside ecosystems would have been far more robust if it weren’t for the park’s growing bison herd. The bison population is at an all-time high — the most recent count last summer found nearly 5,000 animals. Much larger than elk, bison are less likely to be vulnerable to wolves, which numbered 124 this winter.

The park’s bison, some researchers say, are overgrazing and otherwise seriously damaging the ecosystems — allowing the spread of invasive species and trampling and destroying native plants.

The heavily grazed landscape is why, critics say, some 4,000 bison, also a record, left Yellowstone for Montana in the winter of 2023-24, when an unusually heavy snow buried forage. Because some bison harbor a disease, called brucellosis, that state officials say could infect cattle, they are not welcome outside the park’s borders. (There are no documented cases of transmission between bison and cattle.)

Montana officials say killing animals that may carry disease as they leave the park is the only way to stem the flow. During a hunt that began in the winter of 2023, Native Americans from tribes around the region took part. All told, hunters killed about 1,085 bison; 88 more were shipped to slaughter and 282 were transferred to tribes. This year, just a few animals have left the park.

The Park Service is expected to release a bison management plan in the coming months. It is considering three options: to allow for 3,500 to 5,000 animals, 3,500 to 6,000, or a more natural population that could reach 7,000.

Richard Keigley, who was a research ecologist for the federal Geological Survey in the 1990s, has become an outspoken critic of the park’s bison management.

“They have created this juggernaut where we’ve got thousands of bison and the public believes this is the way things always were,” he said. “The bison that are there now have destroyed and degraded their primary ranges. People have to realize there’s something wrong in Yellowstone.”

Dr. Keigley said the bison population in the park fluctuated in the early years of the park, with about 229 animals in 1967. It has grown steadily since and peaked last year at 5,900.

“There is a hyperabundant bison population in our first national park,” said Robert Beschta, a professor emeritus of forest ecosystems at Oregon State University who has studied Yellowstone riparian areas for 20 years. He pointed to deteriorating conditions along the Lamar River from bison overgrazing.

“They are hammering it,” Mr. Beschta said. “The Lamar ranks right up there with the worst cattle allotments I’ve seen in the American West. Willows can’t grow. Cottonwoods can’t grow.”

A warmer and drier climate, he said, is making matters worse.

Such opinions, however, are not settled science. Some park experts believe that the presence of thousands of bison enhances park habitats because of something called the Green Wave Hypothesis.

Chris Geremia, a park biologist, is an author of a paper that makes the case that a large numbers of bison can stimulate plant growth by grazing grasses to the length of a suburban lawn. “By creating these grazing lawns bison and other herbivores — grasshoppers, elk — these lawns are sustaining more nutritious food for these animals,” he said.

Dr. Geremia contends that a tiny portion — perhaps one-tenth of one percent — of the park may be devoid of some plants. “The other 99.9 percent of those habitats exists in all different levels of willow, aspen and cottonwood,” he said.

The Greater Yellowstone Coalition, a conservation organization, favors a bison population of 4,000 to 6,000 animals. Shana Drimal, who heads the group’s bison conservation program, said that park officials needed to monitor closely changing conditions like climate, drought and bison movement to ensure the ecosystems wouldn’t become further degraded.

Several scientists propose allowing the bison to migrate to the buffer zones beyond the park’s borders, where they are naturally inclined to travel. But it remains controversial because of the threat of disease.

“The only solution is to provide suitable winter range outside the park where they should be tolerated,” said Robert Crabtree, a chief scientist for the Yellowstone Ecological Research Center, a nonprofit. “When they migrate outside the park now it’s to habitat they evolved to prefer — and instead we kill them and ship them away.”

Advertisement

Breaking ice, and helicopter drops: winning photos of working scientists

Nature ’s annual photography competition attracted stunning images from around the world, including two very different shots featuring the polarstern research vessel..

By Jack Leeming

23 April 2024

This article is also available as a pdf version .

Scientists often take images from their work – whether they produce medical scans, microscopic captures, or computer screenshots of tricky pieces of code during the course of their work. By continuing our Working Scientist photography competition, we aim to celebrate and highlight the very best images created by our audience in the pursuit of research.

We received more than 200 entries this year from researchers working around the world. The winner and the four runners-up were selected by a jury of Nature staff, including three of the journal’s picture editors. All will receive a prize of £500 (US$620), in the form of Amazon vouchers or a donation to charity, as well as a year’s subscription to Nature .

This image, taken on top of the icebreaker research vessel Polarstern , shows the delicate process of retrieving an instrument called a CTD (short for conductivity, temperature, depth) that had become trapped under sea ice off the coast of northeastern Greenland.

CTDs, which are anchored to the sea floor, measure how ocean properties such as salinity and temperature vary with depth. At some point, the sea ice had closed over the top of this one, forcing the Polarstern to skirt carefully around the equipment, breaking the ice to rescue it from the freezing ocean.

Credit: Richard Jones

“You’re crashing into ice and breaking through it. So it wasn’t particularly calm sailing for the majority of the trip,” remembers Richard Jones, who took the image in September 2017 and is the winner of Nature ’s 2024 Working Scientist photography competition. His research aims to improve estimates of the rate at which ice is being lost from the world’s glacial ice sheets.

Jones, a glaciologist at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, highlights the photographic contrast between icebreaker and ice that he’d become used to in his five weeks aboard the Polarstern . “All you really see is blue and white. And sometimes that might feel pretty monotonous, but the colours from the CTD instrument and the orange of the crane contrast the scene and also complement it quite nicely.”

Here are the rest of the winning images from the competition.

Credit: Ryan Wagner

Reaching the beak

Conservation biologist Ryan Wagner snapped this photo of field biologist Sonia Vallocchia feeding a recently caught kiwikiu ( Pseudonestor xanthophrys ), in January this year. It was taken on Haleakalā volcano on the Hawaiian island of Maui. Wagner, a PhD student at Washington State University Vancouver, was on an expedition to the island as a science communicator, hoping to raise awareness of the plight of the endangered birds.

“Only 130 of these birds remain on Earth,” explains Wagner. “Their numbers have crashed due to avian malaria, which is spread by invasive mosquitoes. As climate change warms the island, mosquitoes have advanced upslope into the high-elevation refuges where native birds survive. A single mosquito bite can kill a kiwikiu.”

He hopes that ornithologists such as Vallocchia, who works for the Maui Forest Birds Recovery Project in Makawao, will help to save these birds by bringing some of them (by helicopter) to the Maui Bird Conservation Center, also in Makawao. There, they will be treated for malaria and join a captive breeding programme, he says.

Credit: Luiz L. Saldanha/Kimberly P. Castro

Library of leaves

PhD student Kim Castro took this photo of her colleague, postdoctoral researcher Luiz Leonardo Saldanha, in a herbarium that they both work in regularly. It’s shared between the University of Zurich and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich. Both Castro and Saldanha investigate the medicinal plants of the Amazon at the Department of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany at the University of Zurich, although the two have very different approaches: whereas Saldanha investigates their chemical diversity, Castro looks at how the plants are perceived by Indigenous communities in the Amazon, specializing in how the plants smell.

A herbarium, Saldanha says, is “like a library — but instead of books, there are plants here”. Saldanha posed with this particular sample ( Palicourea corymbifera , collected in 1977) because it comes from his home country, Brazil, but is used by the Indigenous Desano people in Colombia as a medicinal herb. “So it creates a commonality between South American countries,” he says.

Credit: Herton Escobar/University of São Paulo Images

Mountain drop-off

In this dramatic image, taken from below the still-spinning, deafening blades of a military helicopter, scientists shelter with their equipment after being dropped off at the top of a remote mountain in northern Amazonia. They are taking part in a biodiversity-research expedition to Serra Imeri, an isolated mountain range that rises through the forest canopy near the border of Brazil and Venezuela, in November 2022.

“A total of 14 scientists and dozens of military support personnel took part in the expedition, which lasted for 11 days and resulted in the discovery of several new species of amphibians, reptiles, birds and plants,” says photographer Herton Escobar, a science journalist who works with the scientists pictured, at the University of São Paulo in Brazil.

Credit: Emiliano Cimoli

Go with the floe

Emiliano Cimoli, a remote-sensing scientist at the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania, Australia, took the second photograph featuring the research vessel Polarstern in this year’s collection of winning images. Here, Carolin Mehlmann and Thomas Richter, mathematicians at the University of Magdeburg, Germany, are measuring the depth of snow across a giant ice floe drifting in the middle of the Arctic Ocean.

The image was taken during a two-month voyage organized by the Alfred Wegener Institute, based in Bremerhaven, Germany, in August 2023. The goal of the expedition was to evaluate interactions between the ice physics, biology, hydrography, biogeochemistry and biodiversity of the Arctic ecosystem, from the sea ice to the sea floor.

Nature 628 , 919-921 (2024)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01181-7

• Privacy Policy
• Use of cookies
• Legal notice
• Terms & Conditions
• Accessibility statement

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Researchers detect a new molecule in space

Press contact :.

Previous image Next image

New research from the group of MIT Professor Brett McGuire has revealed the presence of a previously unknown molecule in space. The team's open-access paper, “ Rotational Spectrum and First Interstellar Detection of 2-Methoxyethanol Using ALMA Observations of NGC 6334I ,” appears in April 12 issue of The Astrophysical Journal Letters .

Zachary T.P. Fried , a graduate student in the McGuire group and the lead author of the publication, worked to assemble a puzzle comprised of pieces collected from across the globe, extending beyond MIT to France, Florida, Virginia, and Copenhagen, to achieve this exciting discovery. 

“Our group tries to understand what molecules are present in regions of space where stars and solar systems will eventually take shape,” explains Fried. “This allows us to piece together how chemistry evolves alongside the process of star and planet formation. We do this by looking at the rotational spectra of molecules, the unique patterns of light they give off as they tumble end-over-end in space. These patterns are fingerprints (barcodes) for molecules. To detect new molecules in space, we first must have an idea of what molecule we want to look for, then we can record its spectrum in the lab here on Earth, and then finally we look for that spectrum in space using telescopes.”

Searching for molecules in space

The McGuire Group has recently begun to utilize machine learning to suggest good target molecules to search for. In 2023, one of these machine learning models suggested the researchers target a molecule known as 2-methoxyethanol. 

“There are a number of 'methoxy' molecules in space, like dimethyl ether, methoxymethanol, ethyl methyl ether, and methyl formate, but 2-methoxyethanol would be the largest and most complex ever seen,” says Fried. To detect this molecule using radiotelescope observations, the group first needed to measure and analyze its rotational spectrum on Earth. The researchers combined experiments from the University of Lille (Lille, France), the New College of Florida (Sarasota, Florida), and the McGuire lab at MIT to measure this spectrum over a broadband region of frequencies ranging from the microwave to sub-millimeter wave regimes (approximately 8 to 500 gigahertz). 

The data gleaned from these measurements permitted a search for the molecule using Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) observations toward two separate star-forming regions: NGC 6334I and IRAS 16293-2422B. Members of the McGuire group analyzed these telescope observations alongside researchers at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (Charlottesville, Virginia) and the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 

“Ultimately, we observed 25 rotational lines of 2-methoxyethanol that lined up with the molecular signal observed toward NGC 6334I (the barcode matched!), thus resulting in a secure detection of 2-methoxyethanol in this source,” says Fried. “This allowed us to then derive physical parameters of the molecule toward NGC 6334I, such as its abundance and excitation temperature. It also enabled an investigation of the possible chemical formation pathways from known interstellar precursors.”

Looking forward

Molecular discoveries like this one help the researchers to better understand the development of molecular complexity in space during the star formation process. 2-methoxyethanol, which contains 13 atoms, is quite large for interstellar standards — as of 2021, only six species larger than 13 atoms were detected outside the solar system , many by McGuire’s group, and all of them existing as ringed structures.  

“Continued observations of large molecules and subsequent derivations of their abundances allows us to advance our knowledge of how efficiently large molecules can form and by which specific reactions they may be produced,” says Fried. “Additionally, since we detected this molecule in NGC 6334I but not in IRAS 16293-2422B, we were presented with a unique opportunity to look into how the differing physical conditions of these two sources may be affecting the chemistry that can occur.”

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• McGuire Lab
• Department of Chemistry

Related Topics

• Space, astronomy and planetary science
• Astrophysics

Related Articles

Found in space: Complex carbon-based molecules

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Three from MIT awarded 2024 Guggenheim Fellowships

Read full story →

A musical life: Carlos Prieto ’59 in conversation and concert

Two from MIT awarded 2024 Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowships for New Americans

MIT Emerging Talent opens pathways for underserved global learners

The MIT Edgerton Center’s third annual showcase dazzles onlookers

3 Questions: A shared vocabulary for how infectious diseases spread

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram

Automated machine learning robot unlocks new potential for genetics research

This technology will save labs time and money while enabling large-scale experiments.

University of Minnesota Twin Cities researchers have constructed a robot that uses machine learning to fully automate a complicated microinjection process used in genetic research.

In their experiments, the researchers were able to use this automated robot to manipulate the genetics of multicellular organisms, including fruit fly and zebrafish embryos. The technology will save labs time and money while enabling them to more easily conduct new, large-scale genetic experiments that were not possible previously using manual techniques

The research is featured on the cover of the April 2024 issue of GENETICS , a peer-reviewed, open access, scientific journal. The work was co-led by two University of Minnesota mechanical engineering graduate students Andrew Alegria and Amey Joshi. The team is also working to commercialize this technology to make it widely available through the University of Minnesota start-up company, Objective Biotechnology.

Microinjection is a method for introducing cells, genetic material, or other agents directly into embryos, cells, or tissues using a very fine pipette. The researchers have trained the robot to detect embryos that are one-hundredth the size of a grain of rice. After detection, the machine can calculate a path and automate the process of the injections.

"This new process is more robust and reproducible than manual injections," said Suhasa Kodandaramaiah, a University of Minnesota mechanical engineering associate professor and senior author of the study. "With this model, individual laboratories will be able to think of new experiments that you couldn't do without this type of technology."

Typically, this type of research requires highly skilled technicians to perform the microinjection, which many laboratories do not have. This new technology could expand the ability to perform large experiments in labs, while reducing time and costs.

"This is very exciting for the world of genetics. Writing and reading DNA have drastically improved in recent years, but having this technology will increase our ability to perform large-scale genetic experiments in a wide range of organisms," said Daryl Gohl, a co-author of the study, the group leader of the University of Minnesota Genomics Center's Innovation Lab and research assistant professor in the Department of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development.

Not only can this technology be used in genetic experiments, but it can also help to preserve endangered species through cryopreservation, a preservation technique conducted at ultra-low temperatures.

"You can use this robot to inject nanoparticles into cells and tissues that helps in cryopreservation and in the process of rewarming afterwards," Kodandaramaiah explained.

Other team members highlighted other applications for the technology that could have even more impact.

"We hope that this technology could eventually be used for in vitro fertilization, where you could detect those eggs on the microscale level," said Andrew Alegria, co-lead author on the paper and University of Minnesota mechanical engineering graduate research assistant in the Biosensing and Biorobotics Lab.

• Medical Devices
• Personalized Medicine
• Medical Imaging
• Educational Technology
• Artificial Intelligence
• Robot calibration
• Computational neuroscience
• Industrial robot
• Molecular biology
• Weight machine
• Computer vision

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Minnesota . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Andrew D Alegria, Amey S Joshi, Jorge Blanco Mendana, Kanav Khosla, Kieran T Smith, Benjamin Auch, Margaret Donovan, John Bischof, Daryl M Gohl, Suhasa B Kodandaramaiah. High-throughput genetic manipulation of multicellular organisms using a machine-vision guided embryonic microinjection robot . GENETICS , 2024; 226 (4) DOI: 10.1093/genetics/iyae025

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• New Circuit Boards Can Be Repeatedly Recycled
• Collisions of Neutron Stars and Black Holes
• Advance in Heart Regenerative Therapy
• Bioluminescence in Animals 540 Million Years Ago
• Profound Link Between Diet and Brain Health
• Loneliness Runs Deep Among Parents
• Food in Sight? The Liver Is Ready!
• Acid Reflux Drugs and Risk of Migraine
• Do Cells Have a Hidden Communication System?
• Mice Given Mouse-Rat Brains Can Smell Again

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Your Health

• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.
• Public Health

Helping women get better sleep by calming the relentless 'to-do lists' in their heads

Yuki Noguchi

Katie Krimitsos is among the majority of American women who have trouble getting healthy sleep, according to a new Gallup survey. Krimitsos launched a podcast called Sleep Meditation for Women to offer some help. Natalie Champa Jennings/Natalie Jennings, courtesy of Katie Krimitsos hide caption

Katie Krimitsos is among the majority of American women who have trouble getting healthy sleep, according to a new Gallup survey. Krimitsos launched a podcast called Sleep Meditation for Women to offer some help.

When Katie Krimitsos lies awake watching sleepless hours tick by, it's almost always because her mind is wrestling with a mental checklist of things she has to do. In high school, that was made up of homework, tests or a big upcoming sports game.

"I would be wide awake, just my brain completely spinning in chaos until two in the morning," says Krimitsos.

There were periods in adulthood, too, when sleep wouldn't come easily, like when she started a podcasting company in Tampa, or nursed her first daughter eight years ago. "I was already very used to the grainy eyes," she says.

Now 43, Krimitsos says in recent years she found that mounting worries brought those sleepless spells more often. Her mind would spin through "a million, gazillion" details of running a company and a family: paying the electric bill, making dinner and dentist appointments, monitoring the pets' food supply or her parents' health checkups. This checklist never, ever shrank, despite her best efforts, and perpetually chased away her sleep.

"So we feel like there are these enormous boulders that we are carrying on our shoulders that we walk into the bedroom with," she says. "And that's what we're laying down with."

By "we," Krimitsos means herself and the many other women she talks to or works with who complain of fatigue.

Women are one of the most sleep-troubled demographics, according to a recent Gallup survey that found sleep patterns of Americans deteriorating rapidly over the past decade.

"When you look in particular at adult women under the age of 50, that's the group where we're seeing the most steep movement in terms of their rate of sleeping less or feeling less satisfied with their sleep and also their rate of stress," says Gallup senior researcher Sarah Fioroni.

Overall, Americans' sleep is at an all time low, in terms of both quantity and quality.

A majority – 57% – now say they could use more sleep, which is a big jump from a decade ago. It's an acceleration of an ongoing trend, according to the survey. In 1942, 59% of Americans said that they slept 8 hours or more; today, that applies to only 26% of Americans. One in five people, also an all-time high, now sleep fewer than 5 hours a day.

Popular myths about sleep, debunked

"If you have poor sleep, then it's all things bad," says Gina Marie Mathew, a post-doctoral sleep researcher at Stony Brook Medicine in New York. The Gallup survey did not cite reasons for the rapid decline, but Mathew says her research shows that smartphones keep us — and especially teenagers — up later.

She says sleep, as well as diet and exercise, is considered one of the three pillars of health. Yet American culture devalues rest.

"In terms of structural and policy change, we need to recognize that a lot of these systems that are in place are not conducive to women in particular getting enough sleep or getting the sleep that they need," she says, arguing things like paid family leave and flexible work hours might help women sleep more, and better.

No one person can change a culture that discourages sleep. But when faced with her own sleeplessness, Tampa mom Katie Krimitsos started a podcast called Sleep Meditation for Women , a soothing series of episodes in which she acknowledges and tries to calm the stresses typical of many women.

Shots - Health News

Many grouchy, error-prone workers just need more sleep.

That podcast alone averages about a million unique listeners a month, and is one of 20 podcasts produced by Krimitsos's firm, Women's Meditation Network.

"Seven of those 20 podcasts are dedicated to sleep in some way, and they make up for 50% of my listenership," Krimitsos notes. "So yeah, it's the biggest pain point."

Krimitsos says she thinks women bear the burdens of a pace of life that keeps accelerating. "Our interpretation of how fast life should be and what we should 'accomplish' or have or do has exponentially increased," she says.

She only started sleeping better, she says, when she deliberately cut back on activities and commitments, both for herself and her two kids. "I feel more satisfied at the end of the day. I feel more fulfilled and I feel more willing to allow things that are not complete to let go."

SCIENCE & ENGINEERING INDICATORS

Publications output: u.s. trends and international comparisons.

• Report PDF (1.4 MB)
• Report - All Formats .ZIP (8.9 MB)
• Supplemental Materials - All Formats .ZIP (4.1 MB)
• MORE DOWNLOADS OPTIONS
• Share on X/Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn
• Send as Email

Executive Summary

Key takeaways:

• The United States remains a highly influential nation in science and engineering (S&E) research, as measured by the volume of peer-reviewed scholarly publications and the rate of citations to those publications.
• In 2022, China remained the largest producer of publications, followed by the United States, then by India. China’s top scientific field in terms of number of articles produced was engineering (25% of all publications), whereas the top field in the United States was health sciences (37%), and India’s top field was computer and information sciences (21%).
• Analysis of funding acknowledgments shows that from 2018 to 2022, the scientific fields most frequently acknowledging federal funding are chemistry, biological and biomedical sciences, astronomy and astrophysics, and physics.
• The United States, the European Union (EU-27), and China currently produce a high number of highly cited articles, relative to their overall production.
• Open access (OA) has become an increasingly important feature of the publication landscape, in terms of output and impact, as shown by the growth of fully OA articles.
• International collaborations with U.S. authors of S&E publications have increased over the last 15 years, and China is the most frequent U.S. partner.
• International collaboration in the fast-growing field of artificial intelligence helps show an important research network and the most important collaborations in terms of absolute and relative size.

The primary method of disseminating research findings is through publication of peer-reviewed journal articles and conference proceedings (i.e., publication output ). Data on publication output indicate a continued increase in global research activity, a growth in the proliferation and impact of some categories of OA research, and an internationally connected research ecosystem.

Global publication output reached 3.3 million articles in 2022, based on data from the Scopus database of S&E publications. The regions, countries, or economies with the largest volume of S&E publications in 2022 were China, with 27% of global output, and the United States, with 14%. From 2012 to 2022, the global yearly publication total grew by 59%. In terms of growth for these two largest producers, China and the United States had noticeably different expansion in their levels of overall production (growing by 173% and 6%, respectively).

Beyond differences at the level of region, country, or economy, the number of OA publications has increased dramatically in the last 10 years. In 2022, nearly 1.6 million articles were OA (classified in one of four OA categories), compared with about 1.5 million traditional closed-access journal articles. Just 10 years prior, OA articles accounted for around a third of all articles with a known access status. This growth is also clear with respect to impact, where OA research as a whole has a higher proportion of highly cited articles relative to the size of OA scholarship.

When an article is cited by a high number of subsequent articles by other authors, it is deemed to have exceptional scientific impact. Analyzing the distribution of highly cited articles based on the authors’ locations, the United States has a long-standing record of producing a disproportionate share of such articles, although its share has decreased in recent years. China’s share of those articles grew consistently over the past 20 years, and its scientific impact is on par with that of the EU-27. That impact varies by scientific discipline. In 2020, publications by authors in the United States in materials science, geosciences, and physics had relatively higher scientific impact than those in other fields. For publications by authors in China for the same year, those in the social sciences tended to have higher scientific impact than those in any other field.

International collaborations continue to grow in their share of global scientific publications. From 2012 to 2022, the share of articles from authors affiliated with institutions in multiple regions, countries, or economies increased by 19%. In 2022, the United States was involved in a high number of international collaborations (40% of U.S. articles produced included an international coauthor). Other top producers like China (19%), India (24%), and the United Kingdom (67%) varied in the concentration of international collaborations among their respective total outputs.

Related Content

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What Are Americans’ Top Foreign Policy Priorities?

Protecting the u.s. from terrorism and reducing the flow of illegal drugs are top issues overall, but democrats and republicans have very different priorities, table of contents.

• Differences by partisanship
• Differences by age
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to better understand Americans’ long-range foreign policy priorities. For this analysis, we surveyed 3,600 U.S. adults from April 1 to April 7, 2024. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .

Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology .

Americans have a lot on their plates in 2024, including an important election to determine who will remain or become again president. But the world does not stop for a U.S. election, and multiple conflicts around the world as well as other issues of global prominence continue to concern Americans.

When asked to prioritize the long-range foreign policy goals of the United States, the majority of Americans say preventing terrorist attacks (73%), keeping illegal drugs out of the country (64%) and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction (63%) are top priorities. Over half of Americans also see maintaining the U.S. military advantage over other countries (53%) and preventing the spread of infectious diseases (52%) as primary foreign policy responsibilities.

About half of Americans say limiting the power and influence of Russia and China are top priorities. A recent annual threat assessment from the U.S. intelligence community focused heavily on those countries’ strengthening military relationship and their ability to shape the global narrative against U.S. interests.

Fewer than half of Americans say dealing with global climate change (44%) and getting other countries to assume more of the costs of maintaining world order (42%) are top priorities. The partisan gaps on these two issues are quite large:

• 70% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say climate change should be a top priority, while 15% of Republicans and Republican leaners say this.
• 54% of Republicans say getting other countries to assume more of the costs of maintaining world order should be a top priority, compared with 33% of Democrats.

About four-in-ten Americans see limiting the power and influence of North Korea and Iran as top priorities. (The survey was conducted before Iran’s large-scale missile attack on Israel on April 13.) And about a third say the same about the U.S. being a leader in artificial intelligence, a technology that governments around the world are increasingly concerned about .

When it comes to goals that focus on international engagement, like strengthening the United Nations and NATO or finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, fewer than a third of Americans mark these as top foreign policy priorities.

Related: Fewer Americans view the United Nations favorably than in 2023

Only about a quarter of Americans prioritize promoting human rights in other countries, leading other countries in space exploration and reducing military commitments overseas. And similar shares say supporting Ukraine (23%) and Israel (22%) are top issues.

At the bottom of this list of foreign policy priorities are promoting global democracy ( a major policy push from the Biden administration ) and aiding refugees fleeing violence around the world – about two-in-ten Americans describe these as top concerns. These assessments come amid a recent global surge in asylum claims . Still, in Center surveys, democracy promotion has typically been at the bottom of Americans’ list of foreign policy priorities, even dating back to George W. Bush’s and Barack Obama’s administrations .

Overall, a majority of Americans say that all 22 long-range foreign policy goals we asked about should be given at least some priority. Still, about three-in-ten Americans say supporting Israel (31%), promoting democracy (28%) and supporting Ukraine (27%) should be given no priority.

The long-range foreign policy priority questions were also asked in 2018 and 2021, and since then there have been some significant shifts in responses:

• Since 2018, the public has become significantly more likely to say limiting the power and influence of China (+17 percentage points) and finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (+11) are top foreign policy priorities.
• Americans have also increased the emphasis they place on limiting the power and influence of Russia, particularly in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (+8 points since 2021).
• On the decline since 2018 are strengthening the UN and aiding refugees (-8 points each), reducing foreign military commitments (-6), and promoting and defending human rights in other countries (-5).
• Preventing the spread of infectious diseases is down 19 percentage points since 2021 – during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic – and about back to where it was in 2018.

These are among the findings from a Pew Research Center survey conducted April 1-7, 2024.

The survey of 3,600 U.S. adults shows that foreign policy remains a partisan issue. Republicans prioritize the prevention of terrorism, reducing the flow of illegal drugs into the country, and maintaining a military advantage over other nations. Meanwhile, Democrats prioritize dealing with climate change and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), but also preventing terrorist attacks.

There are also stark age differences on many of the policy goals mentioned, but for the most part, young adults are less likely than older Americans to say the issues we asked about are top priorities. The exceptions are dealing with climate change, reducing military commitments overseas, and promoting and defending human rights abroad – on these issues, 18- to 29-year-olds are significantly more likely than older Americans to assign top priority.

Even with these priorities, foreign policy generally takes the backset to domestic policy for most Americans: 83% say it is more important for President Joe Biden to focus on domestic policy, compared with 14% who say he should focus on foreign policy.

Americans are even less likely to prioritize international affairs than they were in 2019, when 74% wanted then-President Donald Trump to focus on domestic policy and 23% said he should focus on foreign policy.

Americans’ foreign policy priorities differ greatly by party. The largest divide, by a significant margin, is the 55 percentage point gap between Democrats and Republicans on dealing with global climate change (70% vs. 15%, respectively, see it as a top priority).

Supporting Ukraine, aiding refugees, reducing the spread of diseases, protecting human rights, and strengthening the UN are also issues on which Democrats are at least 20 points more likely than Republicans to prioritize. For example, 63% of Democrats say reducing the spread of infectious diseases is a top priority, compared with 41% of Republicans.

Republicans prioritize supporting Israel, reducing the flow of illegal drugs and maintaining a military advantage over other countries – among other security and hard power issues – significantly more than Democrats do. For example, more than half of Republicans (54%) say getting other countries to assume more of the costs of maintaining world order should be a top focus in foreign policy. Only a third of Democrats say the same.

The priority assigned to several issues is divided even further by ideology within parties. Take support for Israel and Ukraine as examples. Supporting Israel is generally a higher priority for Republicans than Democrats, but within the Republican Party, 48% of conservatives say it’s a top concern, while 18% of moderates and liberals agree. Previous Center research shows that conservative Republicans are especially likely to favor military aid to Israel .

Supporting Ukraine, something Democrats emphasize more than Republicans, is a top priority particularly for liberal Democrats (47%), while about three-in-ten moderate and conservative Democrats agree (29%). Democrats have also shown more willingness than Republicans to provide aid to Ukraine in its conflict with Russia.

Generally, the partisan differences on the importance of several foreign policy issues have gotten smaller since 2021 , when most of these questions were last fielded. This is especially true for items related to the relative power of major countries, like the U.S. maintaining a military advantage and limiting the power and influence of both Russia and China.

However, finding a solution to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians – a priority that saw no partisan difference at all when it was last asked about in 2018 – has an emerging partisan gap today. The share of Democrats who call this a top priority has more than doubled, while the share of Republicans has changed little.

Age differences persist on foreign policy issues. Older Americans prioritize most of the issues we asked about at higher rates than those ages 18 t0 29.

On four issues, there is at least a 40 percentage point gap between Americans ages 65 and older and young adults ages 18 to 29. The oldest Americans are more likely to prioritize reducing the flow of illegal drugs, limiting the power and influence of China and Iran, and maintaining a U.S. military advantage.

Those in the oldest age group are also more concerned than their younger counterparts on an additional 11 issues, ranging from support for Israel to U.S. leadership in space exploration.

For their part, young adults are more likely to say dealing with global climate change, reducing U.S. military commitments overseas, and promoting and defending human rights in other countries should be top foreign policy priorities.

Even starker patterns appear when looking at partisanship within two age groups – adults ages 18 to 49 and those 50 and older.

Among Democrats, older adults place particularly high priority on supporting Ukraine, strengthening NATO, and limiting the power and influence of Russia amid its war with Ukraine. Older Democrats are also more likely than younger ones to prioritize preventing the development of WMDs, curbing the spread of diseases, strengthening the UN and promoting democracy around the world, among other issues.

Among Republicans, those ages 50 and older are more likely than those ages 18 to 49 to prioritize supporting Israel, limiting the power and influence of Iran and China, getting other countries to assume more foreign policy costs, reducing the amount of illegal drugs entering the U.S., preventing terrorism, and maintaining a military advantage.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Environment & Climate
• Global Health
• Human Rights
• International Affairs
• United Nations
• War & International Conflict

A growing share of Americans have little or no confidence in Netanyahu

Fewer americans view the united nations favorably than in 2023, rising numbers of americans say jews and muslims face a lot of discrimination, younger americans stand out in their views of the israel-hamas war, how u.s. muslims are experiencing the israel-hamas war, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

The AI-fueled stock market bubble will crash in 2026, research firm says

• The AI-fueled stock market bubble will burst in 2026, according to Capital Economics.
• The research firm said rising interest rates and higher inflation will weigh down equity valuations.
• "We suspect that the bubble will ultimately burst beyond the end of next year, causing a correction in valuations."

An artificial intelligence-fueled stock market bubble will burst in 2026, according to Capital Economics.

The research firm has said that a stock market bubble, driven by investor excitement towards artificial intelligence, would drive the S&P 500 to as high as 6,500 by 2025, led by technology stocks.

But starting in 2026, those stock market gains should unwind precipitously as higher interest rates and an elevated inflation rate start to weigh down equity valuations.

"Ultimately, we anticipate that returns from equities over the next decade will be poorer than over the previous one. And we think that the long-running outperformance of the US stock market may come to an end," Capital Economics' Diana Iovanel and James Reilly said.

Their bearish stock market call is somewhat counter-intuitive, as the economists expect the growing adoption of AI will spark a boost in economic growth driven by increases in productivity. That economic boost should result in higher inflation than most expect and, in tandem, higher interest rates.

Higher interest rates and inflation are ultimately bad news for stock prices, as evidenced by the recent stock market decline , which was sparked by a surprisingly hot March CPI inflation report.

"We suspect that the bubble will ultimately burst beyond the end of next year, causing a correction in valuations. After all, this dynamic played out around both the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s and early 2000s and the Great Crash of 1929," Iovanel and Reilly said. 

The expected bursting of the stock market bubble should lead to a decade of investment returns that favor bonds over stocks. 

"We expect stronger returns as government bond yields settle at higher levels," Capital Economics said of the fixed-income market. 

Capital Economics forecasts that between now and the end of 2033, US stocks will deliver average annual returns of just 4.3%, which is well below the long-term average return of about 7% after inflation. Meanwhile, Capital Economics said it expects US Treasurys will return 4.5% in the same period, slightly edging out equity gains. 

Those projected returns are in stark contrast to the average annual returns of 13.1% delivered by US stocks over the past decade.

"American exceptionalism may end in the coming years," Iovanel and Reilly said.

But there is one major risk to their outlook, according to the analysts, and that's the inherent difficulty of accurately timing the top of a stock market bubble, and how long the unwinding of the bubble might last.

"When and how the AI-fueled equity bubble bursts is a key risk to our forecast. In particular, one downside risk is that the aftermath of the bursting of the bubble lasts longer than one year, as was the case following the dot com bubble," Iovanel and Reilly said.

• Main content