#Sciencepolicy

A thought-provoking piece from Nature’s World View argues that scientists should do more than simply publish findings. The public has funded much of modern research, and researchers owe the public a clear explanation of not only what they found but why it matters. Yet the article goes beyond duty, highlighting less obvious benefits that come from engaging the public with science. It also offers practical tips for researchers who want to start communicating more effectively. For Thai readers, the message carries immediate relevance as health and education decisions increasingly depend on public understanding of science, trusted information channels, and the ability to discern evidence in a fast-moving world.

A new controversy has erupted in academic circles after investigators uncovered that a group of international researchers embedded secret instructions—so-called “hidden AI prompts”—within preprint manuscripts to influence AI-powered peer review systems toward more favorable feedback. The revelations were detailed in recent reports, following a data-driven exposé that found 17 preprint articles on the arXiv platform with covert commands instructing AI models to deliver only positive reviews, avoid criticism, and even explicitly recommend the work for its novelty and methodological rigor. This manipulation was achieved through invisible white text or minuscule fonts, remaining undetected by human readers but fully readable by AI engines tasked with the review process (Nikkei Asia, ExtremeTech, Japan Times).

A global scare highlights how covert AI prompts in preprint papers can steer reviews toward praise. Investigations found 17 arXiv preprints containing hidden instructions that urged AI review models to be positive, avoid criticism, and even support publication for novelty and rigor. The prompts used barely legible text unread by humans but readable by AI.

This issue matters beyond a technical trick. As large language models become more common in research tasks, the integrity of peer evaluation could be at risk. For Thailand, where academic quality underpins national progress and international collaboration, the incident raises questions about safeguarding trust in science amid sophisticated digital manipulation.

A major shake-up in the global research community follows MIT’s formal withdrawal of support for a widely circulated AI study. The paper, titled Artificial Intelligence, Scientific Discovery, and Product Innovation, was posted on arXiv in November 2024 and drew attention for claims that AI could dramatically accelerate scientific progress and product development. After a confidential internal review, MIT stated it has no confidence in the data, provenance, or validity of the research, marking a rare public reversal from a leading research university.

In a move that has reverberated throughout the global academic community, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has formally withdrawn its support for a widely circulated research paper on artificial intelligence (AI) authored by a former PhD student in its economics program. The paper, titled “Artificial Intelligence, Scientific Discovery, and Product Innovation,” was first posted to the preprint server arXiv in November 2024 and quickly garnered high-profile attention for purportedly showing how AI can significantly boost scientific discovery and product innovation. However, following a confidential review, MIT has announced it has “no confidence in the provenance, reliability or validity of the data and [has] no confidence in the veracity of the research contained in the paper,” marking a rare and public reversal from one of the world’s top research universities (source).

A shift in U.S. health policy under the current administration raises questions about the future of mRNA research. Health and Human Services leadership signals potential changes in funding that could affect ongoing projects, including studies on mRNA vaccines and immune responses. Once celebrated for accelerating vaccine development during the COVID-19 era, mRNA technology now faces renewed scrutiny. For Thai readers, the implications extend beyond one country, touching global science, public health strategy, and regional collaboration.