Osteoarthritis (OA) is a condition that disproportionally affects postmenopausal women, and the millions affected can attest to the pain, reduced mobility and diminished quality of life that comes from this disease. While the hormonal changes associated with menopause have long been known to accelerate the development and progression of OA, a deeper understanding of the biological mechanisms that underlie this correlation is crucial for developing effective treatments.

A new study led by researchers at Spaulding Rehabilitation, a member of the Mass General Brigham healthcare system, provides new insights into the reasons underlying this sex disparity. The study published January 16th in Nature Aging.

Often called “America’s Nobel Prize,” the National Medal of Science honors the country’s leading researchers. Stem cell biologist Helen Blau was recognized for her work on cellular plasticity and aging.

Helen Blau, PhD, professor of microbiology and immunology and director of the Baxter Laboratory for Stem Cell Biology, had an exciting start to 2025. On Jan. 3, Blau was awarded the National Medal of Science by President Biden at the White House for her work on cellular plasticity — a term describing how specialized cells in the body aren’t fixed in their identity but instead can be coaxed to assume new roles — and her discoveries concerning the biological mechanisms of stem cells, tissue regeneration, aging and rejuvenation of weakened muscles.

“Dr. Blau’s role in advancing knowledge in the fields of regenerative medicine and aging is remarkable,” said Lloyd Minor, MD, the dean of the Stanford School of Medicine and vice president for medical affairs at Stanford University. “Beyond these achievements, she is well-known as an innovator and a dedicated mentor to younger scientists. Stanford Medicine is proud and happy that she has been recognized as one of the country’s most impactful scientists.

Teresa K. Woodruff joined an elite group of Americans who have received two national medals of honor when President Joe Biden announced the latest recipients of the National Medal of Science on Jan. 3.

Arati Prabhakar, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, presented Woodruff with the medal at a ceremony at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, D.C., on the same date.

Established in 1959 by the U.S. Congress and administered for the White House by the National Science Foundation, the National Medal of Science is the highest recognition the nation can bestow on scientists and engineers. A statement from the White House said that “those who earn these awards embody the promise of America by pushing the boundaries of what is possible. These trailblazers have harnessed the power of science and technology to tackle challenging problems and deliver innovative solutions for Americans and for communities around the world.

Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy bestows the nation’s highest scientific honor on Brown, fellow winners, at a White House ceremony.

Emery N. Brown, Edward Hood Taplin Professor of Medical Engineering and Computational Neuroscience in The Picower Institute for Learning and Memory at MIT, has won the National Medical of Science, the nation’s highest recognition for scientists and engineers, the White House announced today.

“This is an enormous pleasure to be recognized by the President with this high honor,” said Brown, who shares this year’s honor with three MIT colleagues and 23 colleagues around the country in total. Senior White House science officials including Arati Prabhakar, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Assistant to the President for Science & Technology, bestowed the medals on the winners.

Four MIT faculty members are among 23 world-class researchers who have been awarded the nation’s highest honors for scientists and innovators, the White House announced today.

Angela Belcher and Emery Brown were each presented with the National Medal of Science at a ceremony this afternoon, and Paula Hammond ’84, PhD ’93, and Feng Zhang were awarded the National Medal of Technology and Innovation.

Belcher, the James Mason Crafts Professor of Biological Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering and a member of the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, was honored for her work designing novel materials for applications that include solar cells, batteries, and medical imaging.

People from minoritized racial and ethnic groups continue to face numerous systemic barriers that impede their ability to access, persist, and thrive in STEMM higher education and the workforce.

To promote a culture of antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion (ADEI) in STEMM, organizations must actively work to dismantle policies and practices that disadvantage people from minoritized groups.

The recent deaths of George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, and Breonna Taylor, in addition to the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on African Americans, are wrenching reminders of the many harms that societal racism, inequality, and injustice inflict on the Black community. These injustices are rooted in centuries of oppression—including slavery and Jim Crow, redlining, school segregation, and mass incarceration—that continue to influence American life, including the biomedical research enterprise. Despite leading an NIH Institute whose mission includes building a diverse scientific workforce, at NIGMS we’ve struggled with what an adequate response to this moment would be, knowing that the systems that mediate the distinct and disparate burdens Black students, postdocs, and scientists face are complex and often aren’t easily moved with the urgency that they demand. With that in mind, below we share thoughts on what each of us who is in the majority or in a position of power can do to help break the cycles of racial disparities that are woven into the fabric of the biomedical research enterprise and that limit opportunities Link to external web site for Black scientists Link to external web site.

Institutional structures, policies, and cultures Link to external web site, including those in the biomedical research enterprise, all contribute to racial inequality and injustice. This fact was laid bare for us by the responses to the request for information (RFI) we issued in 2018 on strategies to enhance successful postdoctoral career transitions to promote faculty diversity. Respondents cited bias and discrimination—including racism—most frequently as a key barrier to postdoctoral researchers attaining independent faculty positions.

Sexual harassment, including gender harassment, presents an unacceptable barrier that prevents women from achieving their rightful place in science, and robs society and the scientific enterprise of diverse and critical talent. As the largest single funder of biomedical research in the world, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) bears a responsibility to take action to put an end to this behavior. In 2019, the NIH began to bolster its policies and practices to address and prevent sexual harassment. This included new communication channels to inform the agency of instances of sexual harassment related to NIH-funded research. This week, the NIH announces a change that will hold grantee institutions and investigators accountable for this misconduct, to further foster a culture whereby sexual harassment and other inappropriate behaviors are not tolerated in the research and training environment.

Last year, an Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD) of the NIH presented a report and recommendations to end sexual harassment. A major theme of this report was the need for increased transparency and accountability in the reporting of professional misconduct, especially sexual harassment. The cases of sexual harassment that surfaced in the wake of the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) 2018 report highlighted a substantial gap in the NIH’s oversight of the research enterprise: There was no straightforward mechanism for the agency to learn of sexual harassment or other misconduct taking place at grantee institutions in the context of NIH-funded research. It was not uncommon for the NIH to discover such cases through the media, amid rightful public outcry. Holding institutions and investigators accountable for this behavior was challenging.

Over the past couple of weeks, our nation has been confronted with ugly truths and hard history revealing how systemic racism rears its head in almost every space. Since the COVID-19 pandemic has slowed down our typical lifestyles, people seem to be listening.

This moment feels very different from other situations when we had to address human rights in the context of race relations in the United States. With that comes a host of emotions that White people have rarely had to deal with because of their racial privilege, and this includes White people working in academia.

Like many Black faculty, and Black people in general, I have received messages and texts from White colleagues apologizing, expressing their guilt and remorse, and asking what they can do to support their Black colleagues and friends.

I am writing these guidelines in response to the recent events that have impacted the Black community, specifically, the Black computing community. As the Department Chair of the Computer & Information Science & Engineering (CISE) Department at the University of Florida, I lead, one of, if not, the nation’s most diverse computing sciences (CS) department. We have the nation’s most Black CS faculty and PhD students. We are one of the top CS departments for the number of female faculty. As a researcher, I have had the honor of producing the nation’s most Black/African-American CS PhDs. I have also had the honor of hiring and promoting the most Black faculty in CS. My experiences span more than 20 years and those experiences are the foundation for these guidelines.