We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.
The committee examining Stanford’s engagement with fossil fuel companies has called for greater oversight of collaborative research programs, but recommended against a prohibition on industry funding because of the potentially “inhibiting effect” on academic freedom at a time when solutions to urgent climate challenges can come from many directions.
The university created the Committee on Funding for Energy Research and Education in December 2022. Its charge was to explore current funding the university receives from fossil fuel companies, approaches of other universities, and the pros and cons of accepting such funds and of alternative approaches. The committee drew from diverse academic backgrounds and broad, relevant experience, and included administration, faculty, and student representatives.
The committee’s final report was submitted by Paul Brest, former dean of Stanford Law School, and Debra Satz, dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences, who served as co-chairs, together with committee members Michelle Anderson, professor of law and professor in the social sciences division in the Doerr School of Sustainability; Inês Azevedo, associate professor of energy science and engineering; and Leif Wenar, professor of philosophy.
“I thank the committee for the time and careful consideration that went into the report,” Stanford President Richard Saller said in accepting the report. “I endorse the findings and look forward to the important research and teaching of the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability.”
The executive cabinet of deans and vice provosts also have received and endorsed the committee’s recommendations.
The committee will discuss the report during a Zoom session with the Stanford community later this summer and will host an in-person event on campus during fall quarter. Details will be announced.
The committee examined affiliates programs, also known as IAPs, which provide insights into industry conditions and challenges, and help researchers anticipate hurdles to implementing the solutions they develop. Participating companies provide unrestricted funding for projects in which, according to the university’s Research Policy Handbook, “multiple faculty engage with multiple companies in a forum for pre-competitive research of mutual interest.”
The committee focused on affiliates programs that receive support from “companies whose core business is the exploration, extraction, and sale of fossil fuels, particularly oil and gas.”
The committee identified 77 affiliates programs across the university, including at least 13 that receive funds from fossil fuel companies. The new Industrial Affiliates Review Committee began an examination in February 2024 of the school’s programs, with a report expected this summer. A separate review of programs in other schools will begin this summer.
The committee noted the “great value to faculty research, to student funding, and ultimately to the university’s contributions to practical knowledge” from industrial affiliates programs, which bring together groups of faculty and companies to explore broad research topics.
The committee concluded that university-mandated dissociation from fossil fuel companies by forbidding them to be corporate affiliates would both violate academic freedom and impede climate solutions.
The university’s 1974 Statement on Academic Freedom states: “Expression of the widest range of viewpoints should be encouraged, free from institutional orthodoxy and from internal or external coercion.” The prohibition of institutional orthodoxy means that the administration may not take positions on political and social issues because that would inhibit faculty members from taking alternate positions.
“Academic freedom is not an enemy of progress on the climate crisis. Indeed, the opposite is true,” the report states. “The scale and seriousness of this crisis, especially given the acute energy poverty remaining in much of the world, requires a robust and diverse community of views, actors, and tools. Academic freedom is an underpinning of good science and the translation of that science for the public interest.”
Rather than dissociate, Stanford should take steps to ensure IAPs operate consistently with institutional policies. “Better guardrails are needed to ensure scientific independence,” the panel wrote.
“We are now a university with one of the world’s greatest schools for the environmental sciences. It should be our university’s mission to search for next-generation solutions to the climate crisis wherever our faculty and our students believe they will be found,” the committee said. While increased research in clean energy sources (for example, renewables such as wind and solar) is essential, “for the foreseeable future, that search may involve fossil fuel industry data, partners, and resources.”
The committee said individual schools that have IAPs should ensure they are “constituted and governed” in accordance with university requirements. “We believe that this value will only be enhanced by ensuring compliance with the requirements of the RPH [Research Policy Handbook] and ensuring that faculty directors have full autonomy in fact and appearance,” the report states.
Those efforts are now underway:
Doerr School of Sustainability Dean Arun Majumdar and Vice Provost and Dean of Research David Studdert announced the creation of the Industrial Affiliates Review Committee in February 2024 to examine conformity of the school’s programs with the university’s rules for affiliates. Committee members are Lynn Orr, professor emeritus and the former Chester Naramore Dean of the School of Earth Sciences; Ann Arvin, professor emerita and former Vice Provost and Dean of Research; and Brooke Groves-Anderson, director of University Corporate and Foundation Relations.
Studdert also established a broader, campus-wide review that will begin work this summer. Bruce Clemens, the Walter B. Reinhold Professor, Emeritus, at the School of Engineering, and Maureen McNichols, the Marriner S. Eccles Professor of Accounting and Public and Private Management at the Graduate School of Business, will lead that effort.
The committee recommended additional steps the university can take to strengthen collaboration with outside experts, further climate solutions, and protect the university’s reputation. They include:
Policy labs. The report states that “the propagation of outright misinformation about scientific results by an entity affiliated with Stanford – and recall that industrial affiliates are not merely donors, but are often active participants in programs with faculty and students – may be seen to compromise the University’s truth-seeking mission.”
Research by a Law School Policy Lab in Fall 2024, taught by Brest (Law School) and Noah Diffenbaugh (Doerr School of Sustainability) will examine:
o How to determine whether a company has obstructed climate policies in a manner that would justify dissociation consistent with the university’s Statement on Academic Freedom.
o The possibility of developing standards to determine whether participating companies or trade associations have “systematically engaged in propagating disinformation.”
Transition pathways. “We are skeptical that dissociation based on companies’ climate transition pathways could be consistent with the prohibition of institutional orthodoxy in Stanford’s Statement on Academic Freedom,” the committee wrote. “We believe, however, that work on transition pathways by Stanford researchers could be useful to many faculty, students, and others in the field, including the companies themselves.”
The Doerr School of Sustainability plans to build on this recommendation by:
o Helping companies and countries develop transition pathways. This effort will include the launch of a country-level transition pathway-planning initiative in partnership with other academic, government, and nonprofit institutions, including those based in each country.
o Working to build an alliance of companies who have made commitments to achieve net-zero emissions and use the school’s research and education to help to create affordable, reliable, secure, and equitable transitions.
During its review, the committee hosted community-wide forums and small group discussions with students, faculty, staff, alumni, and researchers and other experts “within and beyond Stanford.” Committee members also met with the “Group of Six” student leaders from the Coalition for a True School of Sustainability and the Department of Energy Sciences and Engineering, who had made a series of proposals addressing industry funding of climate research. Faculty, alumni, and industry submitted more than 100 written comments.
“We have listened to patient and respectful disagreement among our faculty colleagues and university staff. We have admired the research, passion, and wise judgments that our students have offered on all sides of these difficult issues,” the panel wrote.
“Through it all, Stanford students, staff, and faculty have shown a commendable resolve to maintain productive, good-faith engagement with each other. We are personally grateful for our community’s patience, hard work, and respectful dialogue during this process. We believe that those same factors will power the next generation of energy and climate solutions.”
I N APRIL HILARY CASS , a British paediatrician, published her review of gender-identity services for children and young people, commissioned by NHS England. It cast doubt on the evidence base for youth gender medicine. This prompted the World Professional Association for Transgender Health ( WPATH ), the leading professional organisation for the doctors and practitioners who provide services to trans people, to release a blistering rejoinder. WPATH said that its own guidelines were sturdier, in part because they were “based on far more systematic reviews”.
Systematic reviews should evaluate the evidence for a given medical question in a careful, rigorous manner. Such efforts are particularly important at the moment, given the feverish state of the American debate on youth gender medicine, which is soon to culminate in a Supreme Court case challenging a ban in Tennessee. The case turns, in part, on questions of evidence and expert authority.
This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline “Marking their own homework”
Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents
Nor will it resolve the Democratic Party’s dilemma
What happens next in the Democratic leadership saga may depend on the First Lady
Banning it would be political suicide. But it could get harder to find in conservative states
The Supreme Court weakened regulators and created uncertainty, inviting a “tsunami of lawsuits”
The bird’s plight is a study in unintended consequences
Big decisions arrived on guns, abortion, homelessness, presidential power—and more
Samsung R&D Institute India-Bangalore (SRI-B) is proud to announce that its Network R&D team has received the Best Research Paper Award at the esteemed IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC) 2024 workshop (BlockSecSDN 2024), held on June 13th, 2024 in Denver, Colorado, USA. This recognition marks a significant milestone as it is the first time the Network R&D team has been honoured at a prestigious conference of IEEE.
The award-winning paper, titled "CSI Feedback Prediction using UE Aware Sparse Neural Network Framework," was authored by an outstanding team of researchers: Dr. Sukhdeep Singh, Swaraj Kumar, Rahul Kumar Saha, Shreyanshu Agarwal, and Ashmeet Kaur. Their innovative research addresses critical challenges in network communications, presenting a novel approach to Channel State Information (CSI) feedback prediction using a User Equipment (UE) aware sparse neural network framework.
“We are incredibly proud of our team for achieving this significant accolade,” said Amit Mannan, VP of Network R&D Team for Samsung R&D Institute India-Bangalore. “This award highlights our commitment to advancing cutting-edge research and innovation in the field of ultra-modern next generation networks and communications. The recognition at IEEE ICC 2024 WS is a testament to the dedication and expertise of our researchers.”
The research presented in the paper proposes a transformative method for improving the accuracy and efficiency of CSI feedback prediction, which is crucial for enhancing the performance of wireless communication systems. The novel framework leverages sparse neural networks to adapt to user equipment conditions, thereby optimizing network resource utilization and improving overall connectivity.
Dr. Sukhdeep Singh, the lead author, expressed his gratitude for the recognition, stating, “Winning the Best Research Paper Award at a Tier 1 IEEE conference WS is a tremendous honor. This achievement reflects the hard work and collaborative spirit of our team. We are excited about the potential impact of our research on the future of network communications.”
Samsung R&D Institute India-Bangalore continues to be at the forefront of technological advancements, driving research and development initiatives that contribute to the global technology ecosystem. The institute remains dedicated to fostering innovation and excellence in various domains, including network communications, to create a smarter and more connected world.
Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World
Read our research on:
Full Topic List
Read Our Research On:
2. confidence in zelenskyy and support for ukraine, table of contents.
Here are key takeways about how people around the world see Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the country he leads:
The share of people with confidence in Zelenskyy differs considerably across countries in Europe and North America. Confidence is highest in Sweden, where eight-in-ten have confidence in him. About two-thirds or more in Canada, the Netherlands and the UK also express confidence. However, six-in-ten or more in Greece, Hungary and Italy do not have confidence in Ukraine’s president.
People in Australia, Bangladesh, Japan, the Philippines and South Korea express more confidence than not in Zelenskyy. The opposite is true in Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. Confidence in him is mixed or negative across the Middle East-North Africa region, and in the sub-Saharan African and Latin American countries we polled.
Confidence in Zelenskyy has declined significantly in some countries since 2023 – most notably in Ukraine’s neighboring country of Poland. Among Poles, 48% have confidence in Zelenskyy, down from 70% in 2023 (-22 points). Confidence in him has also decreased by double digits in South Korea (-15) and South Africa (-12). Decreases are smaller but still statistically significant in Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the U.S.
Opinions of Zelenskyy differ by political ideology. In the U.S., for example, liberals are more than twice as likely as conservatives to express confidence in him. People on the ideological left are also more likely to have confidence in Zelenskyy in Australia, Canada, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands and Turkey.
This pattern is flipped in several countries. In Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Greece, Mexico, South Korea and Spain, people on the ideological right are more confident in Zelenskyy than those on the left. (Those on the left in Bangladesh are less likely to offer an opinion.)
In several European countries, people who have favorable views of right-wing populist parties are less likely to have a positive view of Zelenskyy. In Germany, for example, supporters of Alternative for Germany (AfD) are about half as likely as those who do not support AfD to express confidence in the Ukrainian leader (31% vs. 61%). In some cases, the pattern is reversed: Spanish supporters of the right-wing populist party Vox are more confident in Zelenskyy than nonsupporters. (For more information on how we categorize populist party support, read Appendix C .)
In four countries – Hungary, Poland, Turkey and the U.S. – we asked people how they view their nation’s level of support to Ukraine in its war with Russia. In Hungary and Turkey, the most common view is that their country is providing about the right amount of support to Ukraine (61% and 46%, respectively).
People in Poland are split, with nearly identical shares saying their country is providing too much (44%) or the right amount of support (45%) to Ukraine. Only 6% say Poland is not providing enough aid to Ukraine.
In the U.S., 31% of Americans say their country is providing too much support to Ukraine, 24% say it is not providing enough and 25% say it is giving about the right amount. The U.S. is the only place surveyed where there are significant differences on this question by ideology: 51% of Americans who place themselves on the right say the U.S. is providing too much support to Ukraine, compared with only 13% among those on the left.
Related: Americans’ views of Ukraine and U.S. involvement with the Russia-Ukraine war
Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings
Weekly updates on the world of news & information
What are americans’ top foreign policy priorities, large shares see russia and putin in negative light, while views of zelenskyy more mixed, americans hold positive feelings toward nato and ukraine, see russia as an enemy, how young adults want their country to engage with the world, 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
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 .
© 2024 Pew Research Center
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Thesis is a type of research report. A thesis is a long-form research document that presents the findings and conclusions of an original research study conducted by a student as part of a graduate or postgraduate program. It is typically written by a student pursuing a higher degree, such as a Master's or Doctoral degree, although it can also ...
Abstract. This guide for writers of research reports consists of practical suggestions for writing a report that is clear, concise, readable, and understandable. It includes suggestions for terminology and notation and for writing each section of the report—introduction, method, results, and discussion. Much of the guide consists of ...
Research reports are recorded data prepared by researchers or statisticians after analyzing the information gathered by conducting organized research, typically in the form of surveys or qualitative methods. A research report is a reliable source to recount details about a conducted research. It is most often considered to be a true testimony ...
A research report is a well-crafted document that outlines the processes, data, and findings of a systematic investigation. It is an important document that serves as a first-hand account of the research process, and it is typically considered an objective and accurate source of information.
An outline of the research questions and hypotheses; the assumptions or propositions that your research will test. Literature Review. Not all research reports have a separate literature review section. In shorter research reports, the review is usually part of the Introduction. A literature review is a critical survey of recent relevant ...
Writing a Research Report: Presentation. Tables, Diagrams, Photos, and Maps. - Use when relevant and refer to them in the text. - Redraw diagrams rather than copying them directly. - Place at appropriate points in the text. - Select the most appropriate device. - List in contents at beginning of the report.
There are five MAJOR parts of a Research Report: 1. Introduction 2. Review of Literature 3. Methods 4. Results 5. Discussion. As a general guide, the Introduction, Review of Literature, and Methods should be about 1/3 of your paper, Discussion 1/3, then Results 1/3. Section 1: Cover Sheet (APA format cover sheet) optional, if required.
This handout provides a general guide to writing reports about scientific research you've performed. In addition to describing the conventional rules about the format and content of a lab report, we'll also attempt to convey why these rules exist, so you'll get a clearer, more dependable idea of how to approach this writing situation ...
A research report is a collection of contextual data, gathered through organized research, that provides new insights into a particular challenge (which, for this article, is business-related). Research reports are a time-tested method for distilling large amounts of data into a narrow band of focus. Their effectiveness often hinges on whether ...
Write up a state-of-the-art research report. Understand how to use scientific language in research reports. Develop a structure for your research report that comprises all relevant sections. Assess the consistency of your research design. Avoid dumbfounding your reader with surprising information.
Use the section headings (outlined above) to assist with your rough plan. Write a thesis statement that clarifies the overall purpose of your report. Jot down anything you already know about the topic in the relevant sections. 3 Do the Research. Steps 1 and 2 will guide your research for this report.
Research Reports. Research reports present the results of formal investigations into the properties, behavior, structures, and principles of material and conceptual entities. Almost any physical phenomenon or concept may be investigated in a research framework. The following are some key differences between formal research, and other less ...
How to Write an Academic Report - Examples and Tips. Writing a report should be concise and to the point. It should also be relevant to the topic. Make sure to check your work with someone and read it aloud. Proofreading is also important because computer programs cannot catch every mistake. You may even want to wait a day before you read it ...
First, an introduction provides a brief background on the topic and introduces the reader to your perspective. The second section is the body of the report, which should include the research findings and supporting evidence. Finally, the conclusion, which summarizes your arguments and the implications of your study for future research.
Reporting quantitative research results. If you conducted quantitative research, you'll likely be working with the results of some sort of statistical analysis.. Your results section should report the results of any statistical tests you used to compare groups or assess relationships between variables.It should also state whether or not each hypothesis was supported.
Qualitative research analyzes data from direct field observations, in-depth, open-ended interviews and written documents. Inductive analyses yield patterns and themes that generate hypotheses and offer a basis for future research. ... There are a variety of checklists about how to report qualitative studies (3-6). The Canada Communicable ...
Table of contents. Step 1: Introduce your topic. Step 2: Describe the background. Step 3: Establish your research problem. Step 4: Specify your objective (s) Step 5: Map out your paper. Research paper introduction examples. Frequently asked questions about the research paper introduction.
Definition: Research Paper is a written document that presents the author's original research, analysis, and interpretation of a specific topic or issue. It is typically based on Empirical Evidence, and may involve qualitative or quantitative research methods, or a combination of both. The purpose of a research paper is to contribute new ...
Research Report: A research report is a document prepared by an analyst or strategist who is a part of the investment research team in a stock brokerage or investment bank . A research report may ...
Open research reports. JSTOR hosts a growing curated collection of more than 50,000 open research reports from 187 think tanks and research institutes from around the world. These publications are freely accessible to everyone on JSTOR and discoverable as their own content type alongside journals, books, and primary sources. We update research ...
A research report is an end product of research. As earlier said that report writing provides useful information in arriving at rational decisions that may reform the business and society. The findings, conclusions, suggestions and recommendations are useful to academicians, scholars and policymakers.
Insights & Research Our unmatched research and thought leadership platform delivers actionable insights to help our clients make informed business decisions. ... All analysis in this report is based only on the four largest data center markets by inventory in each global region, as follows: North America: Northern Virgina, Dallas-Ft. Worth ...
When Hindenburg Research published a report into Gautam Adani's sprawling business empire in January 2023, accusing Asia's then richest man of fraud going back decades, the impact was ...
The committee's final report was submitted by Paul Brest, former dean of Stanford Law School, ... Research by a Law School Policy Lab in Fall 2024, taught by Brest (Law School) and Noah ...
Research must be "thoroughly scrutinised and reviewed to ensure that publication does not negatively affect the provision of transgender health care in the broadest sense," it stated.
Dr. Sukhdeep Singh, the lead author, expressed his gratitude for the recognition, stating, "Winning the Best Research Paper Award at a Tier 1 IEEE conference WS is a tremendous honor. This achievement reflects the hard work and collaborative spirit of our team. We are excited about the potential impact of our research on the future of network ...
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.