Last Monday at 10.30AM I eagerly queued up at the International Red Cross site of Padova, the town where I live and work, to receive a first vaccination shot against Covid-19. I duly received my dose and went back home with some relief. Little did I know that my relief would turn to anger very soon. 
My anger arose when I soon heard the news that the treatment with the vaccine I had been given, Astra-Zeneca, was being temporarily stopped, following the detection of a possible adverse reaction. But you should read on before you conclude that I am an idiot (as you indeed should, if the above was all there is to it).

Tens of millions of people across the U.S. have received a coronavirus vaccine. So far, the majority of doses have been either the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine, both of which use mRNA to generate an immune response. These gene-based vaccines have been in the works for decades, but this is the first time they have been used widely in people.

Beta-blockers are a class of medications that reduce the heart rate, the heart's workload and the heart's output of blood, which, together, lower blood pressure.

Blood pressure is only a risk factor for heart disease, it is not a disease in itself, yet when people hear about a medical issue with a vital organ it can have profound psychological impacts. Some people report feeling depressed or having fitful sleep after taking beta blockers. Plus anxiety, drowsiness, hallucinations and nightmares. When one medicine has so many diverse correlations without any biological plausibility, it is probably not the medicine, it is more likely the implications of the medicine.

For as much talk as there is about bullying and drama in schools, for most teens the experience of interacting with peers is not only positive, it is essential training for dealing with others later in life.

And if a new national poll is an indication, government lockdowns and societal pressure during the COVID-19 pandemic may have lasting impacts on the mental health of young people.

MacKenzie Scott does not give Science 2.0 any money. I wish she did. For a minute fraction of her $57 billion we could increase the science literacy for Americans quite a lot. 

I am not criticizing her, just a few months ago she pledged $4 billion to nearly 400 groups, from food banks to community colleges. She didn't have to do that, no rich person does, it is wonderful she did. 

It would even be great if funding science nonprofits carried the same cultural cachet as funding environmental lawyers, who rake in $2 billion a year from progressive foundations and corporations.

You know what is a terrible call to action? Telling people their food is safe. Chemophobia and corporate conspiracies are where the money is at.

It's become increasingly hypocritical for wealthy countries to declare a hard stop on CO₂ emissions before poor countries even have centralized energy for cooking and water, but a new simulation finds that Draconian caps on quality of life in developing nations may not be needed.

In lab tests, solar often seems to work great, yet in actual use its efficiency drops sharply. A phenomenon known as singlet fission can help but it is hindered by unexplained energy losses during the reaction.

Basic research is needed because solar energy could grow to be one of the most important fossil-free and eco-friendly sources of electricity. Unless it doesn't work as advertised for taxpayers who fund it.