Would you rather know the exact date of your natural death or the exact cause?

Is p<0.05 enough? Chapin Lenthall-Cleary of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, argues p<0.05 isn't enough to claim statistical significance. A much stricter standard, he says, makes it "much harder to do nefarious stuff like p-hacking." Our Rigor Takes series shares researchers' strongest opinions on rigor. Watch the full clip to see how Dr. Konrad Kording, C4R P.I. and Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, replies. Where do you set your threshold and why? Follow along for more Rigor Takes from leading researchers and educators. #RIgorTakes #Statistics

At some point, the issue isn’t whether a tool can get the job done; it's how much effort it saves you. Altium Develop is designed for that stage. It gives engineers a complete path from design and review to release.

You cannot fire scientists, halt ongoing research and clinical trials, drive away the next generation and then declare a “golden age” of American science. These cannot fundamentally coexist. As we head into the elections here is a breakdown breakdown of the damage done to the U.S. scientific ecosystem so far: Defense research labs lost roughly 14% of their staff. The Pentagon itself warned of “potentially grave consequences for the future of national defense.” NIH staffing fell by 1/5. More than 2,000 biomedical research grants were delayed or canceled, affecting work on cancer, Alzheimer’s and other major diseases affecting the health of American public. HHS announced a wind-down of mRNA vaccine development at BARDA, affecting 22 projects worth nearly $500 million through cancellations, cuts and restructuring and halting new mRNA projects under the program. The National Science Foundation lost roughly 1/3 of its staff and withheld more than $1 billion in funding. The Energy Department lost more than 1,000 scientists and technical staff. Grant awards from its two major science offices fell by more than $500 million during the administration’s first year. NASA lost 20% of its employees with Ph.Ds. Foreign Ph.D. applications at leading universities fell 21%. Schools reduced admissions as funding uncertainty made it harder to support future scientists and removing a pathway for sustaining scientific excellence globally. Meanwhile, a proposed rule would give political appointees greater control over who receives research funding, screening applications for supposedly “anti-American values.” Thankfully Congress rejected the massive proposed budget cuts and courts forced funding restorations. But neither can replace the time and investment already made. We can’t just simply flip the switch back on. And while the federal government can still spend roughly $200 billion on research - we continue to witness the dismantling of the capacity to turn funding into discovery. And make no mistake - other countries are happy to step in - including China - who are recruiting the talent we are losing. The treatments we will need in 20 years depend on the research we conduct today. So do our security, our prosperity and our ability to maintain our lead globally. Vote tomorrow because science depends on it.