American Scientist

Reviewers who evaluated any books or any other media for American Scientist from 2013 to 2018 are likely to recall fondly their experience working with Dianne Timblin. As our Books and Culture Editor, Dianne expanded American Scientist’s scope of reviews to include movies, poetry, graphic novels, and other forms of science and creative media, both in print and on our blog, which demonstrated the wide breadth of her interests. Dianne was a thoughtful, conscientious editor, intent on retaining an author’s voice while helping them more clearly convey their intended meaning. She was also a fierce grammarian and a quick and accurate judge of character. She was always willing to jump in and help with any new project, whatever her own workload. Dianne was personable and amiable, but she was also sharp, bright, and tech-savvy. She dove into new technology and encouraged the magazine’s staff—politely, but persuasively—to adopt new systems that would improve our workflow. We still use systems that she championed, and they have made us better.

Dianne passed away from complications related to metastatic breast cancer, after a long and brave fight against the disease. Her absence at the magazine is felt deeply.

All of us whose lives have been touched by cancer have been excited to hear about new advances in treatment, including promising research based on messenger RNA (mRNA). Although mRNA vaccines have been in the news media largely in association with their connection to COVID-19 prevention, the research has much wider potential impact—so much so that the developers of mRNA technology won the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. A number of researchers are now exploring ways that mRNA vaccines could activate the body’s immune defenses to fight many different types of cancers, autoimmune diseases, and other medical conditions. In August 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services abruptly canceled $500 million in grants for mRNA vaccine research. Although these terminations were aimed at mRNA vaccines for respiratory diseases, many researchers fear that the sudden cuts will slow development of the field overall. But researchers are looking for ways to continue the work. In “Messenger RNA Can Do More for Medicine," Wei Tao and Xiangang Huang of Harvard University discuss how mRNA therapies in pill form, rather than injections, could broaden the potential uses of this powerful medicine.

Scientists continue to show dedication to their research, despite such significant ongoing U.S. federal funding cuts. Communication has always been central to the scientific process, and scientists want to express how these cuts will affect research. For several issues, we have been requesting letters from scientists to raise awareness as to why their research is important. We encourage you to continue submitting your letters. As a reminder, please keep your letter submissions to no more than 300 words. Let us know whether you would like us to keep your letter anonymous, or are comfortable sharing your name, your location, or both. Please note that as a nonprofit, American Scientist is not permitted to endorse any specific legislation or candidate, but we can support evidence-based science policy, so please keep your submissions nonpartisan. Focus your letter on why your work is important, effective, and worth carrying out. Send your submissions to editors at amscionline.org with the subject line “Science Is Important.” Letters may be published in print or on our website, and may also be featured on social media.