Neuroscientist here, who has talked about the US losing science ground to other countries:
The biggest problem for generating future cures for brain diseases is the ongoing utter destruction of US basic neuroscience.
Itâs not about regulation.
Science journalists: how do you handle it when you need to discuss the work of a researcher who is genuinely intellectually significant but also did some Seriously Bad Stuff (e.g. associations with Epstein, known eugenics views, confirmed sexual harassment case, etc.)?
When Frontiers started automating the editorial process, I stayed. I reasoned that as long as the automation could be turned off, human editors can still ensure rigorous, high-quality peer review. This now became impossible - the system has been entirely hijacked by algorithms.