ArticleGeoHealth2026
Rebuilding GeoHealth: Science, Governance, and Resilience After 2025.
Article in GeoHealth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent U.S. federal policy changes have created disruption and uncertainty for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners in GeoHealth, the interlocking sciences connecting Earth systems to human health and wellbeing. The termination of billions of dollars in research and implementation funding, the dismantling of data systems and regulatory authority, and reductions in scientific workforce capacity have had cascading domestic and global consequences. These changes affect research and public health workflows, health outcomes, and the institutions that create evidence-based policy. This contributes to growing polarization in trust of science and reduces its policy relevance. In this Article, we assess the implications of these changes for GeoHealth governance and identify strategies to stabilize and rebuild the field. While federal leadership is crucial for scientific funding and policy coordination, the dependence of the research and science-policy communities on federal resources has created an unacceptable exposure to political volatility and influence. We propose reforms to limit disruption of funded research, expand partnerships with state and local governments, strengthen statutory protections for scientific infrastructure, and develop more reciprocal international collaborations that reduce systemic dependence on U.S. capacity. We also highlight the need to realign academic incentives to support public engagement, actionable research, and evidence-based policy. These recommendations aim to inform policymakers, research institutions, and funding agencies on the scope of and possible responses to the current crisis in order to preserve the benefits of coordinated federal science while building a more resilient and accountable system of research, policy, and practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.