On Friday evening, Antena3 Noticias echoed an unusual case: “United States is investigating the mysterious murder or disappearance of eleven scientists. All of them were working with sensitive information and several were investigating life in space. Until now there was no official connection between them, but the United States press is starting to connect the dots”. The headline does not lie: indeed, the White House spokesperson has communicated the will to investigate these events and Trump himself has assured that in a week and a half they would report the conclusions. However, the uncritical way in which the news report explained the facts betrays more commercial intent than journalistic.The case is, without a doubt, very juicy: dead scientists, classified information and UFOs. A winning cocktail. But the most rigorous media are distancing themselves from it. It all began with the disappearance of retired General William McCasland at the end of February. He left home equipped with only a weapon and nothing more has been heard of him. Podcasters and content creators on social networks began to collect other old cases, forcing the common points between them and fabricated a pattern retrospectively, without it having existed previously. They built a conspiratorial narrative based on stereotypes: scientists who knew too much, discoveries about extraterrestrial life, and elimination of witnesses. The story goes viral and, following the 'roll it up' method, narrative layers are added: China, state secrets and UFOs. A conspiracy theory is created so perfect that certain right-wing American media could not resist it. And now we have a more powerful media and social ecosystem that has transformed isolated cases into a very attractive conspiratorial narrative. The story works even though the eleven cases are from different years and from very diverse professionals, intentionally unified under the generic label of "they had access to classified information." The noise, therefore, is amplified with a click. And, lo and behold, both the White House and Donald Trump end up talking about it publicly, committing to investigate it and provide an answer. A political communication strategy that allows connecting with audiences who normally distrust institutions. They thus project a sense of absolute control, showing themselves as a relentless government that acts in the face of highly strange and apparently dangerous events. Incidentally, this alleged mystery of the eleven dead scientists allows them to divert attention from much more important and uncomfortable issues that we already know about. It is very possible that, in the coming weeks, the media will talk about this case of the eleven dead scientists, but a critical look that dissects the details and miseries is essential: how the theory passes from internet forums to right-wing media and, from there, to institutional politics. Because instead of journalism there is a great desire to pull the wool over people's eyes.

February 11th, the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, is approaching—a day to think critically, and also with hope. Not because women do science differently, but because even today they encounter obstacles more frequently than their male counterparts. The data from the report Women in Science in Numbers 2025 They help us understand where we are and, above all, where to go from here.

The US government has decided to stop funding research projects from laboratories and hospitals abroad that until now received grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). With this new cutback by the Donald Trump administration in science, thousands of international global health projects and clinical trials on emerging infectious diseases, cancer, and pediatric diseases that were underway between US centers and other institutions around the world are suspended. This has also been announced in Catalonia. The journal Nature In an article warning of a global paradigm shift, the NIH is the main funder of biomedical research worldwide, as confirmed by ARA.