A longtime White House reporter describes what's lost when the relationship between the press and the president is bad and once-routine press briefings aren't held.
More women on corporate boards means more opportunities for women, and better performances by businesses.
This reorganization may provide roadmaps for other nonprofits to follow if they face abuse allegations in the #MeToo era.
New laws in Albania show one approach to dealing with disinformation – and highlight some pitfalls of selective regulation.
As National Eating Disorders Awareness Week is observed Feb. 24-March 1, here are some things to consider.
Blacks are at higher risk for many diseases. This is partly due to poverty, discrimination and lack of access to care. But there may be something different about the higher rates of Alzheimer's.
An economics professor investigates why college men are more likely to push back when they don't get the grades they want.
An ugly spat involving some supporters of Bernie Sanders harkens back to old tropes about the labor movement. But the Culinary is showing itself to be a model for unions in the 'right-to-work' era.
Bloomberg released three women from their nondisclosure agreements after Sen. Warren challenged him on the topic at the Nevada Democratic debate.
Films of the battle for Iwo Jima, being digitized 75 years after they were made, offer connections and lessons for Americans of today.
Penn State researchers who call themselves the 'Happy Birthday Club' suggest that we shouldn’t make judgments about our singing abilities based on familiar tunes that happen to be really hard.
Pathogens rapidly evolve resistance to antibiotics. AI could keep us a step ahead of deadly infections.
Because most people want to be perceived as generous, sometimes monetary incentives for doing a good deed are counterproductive.
New research shows that low-income students who qualify for the federal Pell Grant tend to go to non-selective colleges – and why that hurts their chances of graduation.
Letters of recommendation have grown supersized and one-sided in their praise. In one study, only 1-2% of letters fell below the good-to-excellent range. How can a reviewer find out who's really good?