×
Top Canon Promo Codes and Coupons for August 2025

Top Canon Promo Codes and Coupons for August 2025

Tech-news ,

We love Canon’s lineup of mirrorless cameras, which deliver the same great image quality without the bulk. The R5 is a powerhouse of a camera, offering a 45 Megapixel full-frame sensor and can shoot 8K RAW Video. If you don’t need the huge 45 MP sensor of the R5, the smaller, cheaper R6 Mark II Body is a solid choice. Plus, Canon has an online deals hub with rotating offers so you can get the gear you need for all your projects for way less.

Canon is probably best known for their incredible cameras, which includes the generous offer of free standard shipping on all cameras and lens kits and deals from up to $500 off camera lines, including EOS, and PowerShot cameras and accessories. This also includes deals on camera options for as low as $200 and refurbished lens kits starting at $480.

Canon is synonymous with cameras, but they also have powerful printers for your home office needs. There are even printer discounts on new models of MEGATANK, PIXMA, and compact photo printers, so you can get that professional look right from your home.

There are plenty of other Canon discounts and offers live now, so you can save extra on lens kits, printers, cameras, and more.

Today’s Canon Coupons: Up to $500 Off Cameras, Lens Kits, and More

Right now, Canon has some of the lowest prices we’ve seen. Jump on camera deals and “Instant Savings” coupons on mirrorless cameras, including $200 off the EOS R3 Body, $500 off the EOS R5 C Body, plus $200 off the EOS R6 Mark II and $100 off EOS R10 models. If you’re looking to save on Canon PowerShot cameras and accessories, you can get free shipping on your order, plus discounts like $300 off the PICK Active Tracking PTZ Camera. Even better, score up to a whopping $5,000 off in total discounts when you buy refurbished cameras, including $450 off the already-discounted EOS R6 Body. Canon also has discounts of $200 off select RF lens kits and on office essentials, like up to 40% off photo paper, up to $250 off Inkjet printers and MegaTank PIXMA printers.

Get a 10% Off Canon Promo Code When You Upgrade

Canon has deals out on a myriad of products, and while they rarely release a “true” sitewide code, we have a few insider tips for getting a 10% discount. If you’re having gear repaired, you can get a single-use 10% off Canon promo code through the Upgrade Program (valid for 14 days). Canon wants to reward full-time industry professionals with their membership structured by different tiers, which gives professionals huge discounts on and other perks on necessary equipment. To sign up for membership, you have to create a MyCanon account, register existing Canon equipment, and click the Canon Professional Service tab to submit an application. After it’s been processed and approved by the Canon team, a Welcome Kit will be shipped within 7-10 business days. Best of all, Canon Professional Service customers get 10% off online orders. Silver tier is the free program which only requires 10 points.

Exclusive Canon Discounts for Pros and Students

If you’re really serious about upping your camera game, there’s the Gold level membership, which costs $100 a year and gets members 20% off repairs on up to 10 products and complimentary maintenance on up to 5 items. Platinum is next, which is $300 per year and gets you 30% off repair discounts on up to 15 products and maintenance covered on 10 products. The top level is cinema, which costs $1,000 per year and has discounts of 30% off repairs on up to 20 products and maintenance covered on up to 10 products.

If you’re a photography pro, Canon even has an entire deals section for you. This section has exclusive discounts and better price drops than those available for normal customers. Canon Professional Service discounts also extend to Students over 18 years old—with no annual fee or points required to sign up. With the Canon Professional Service Student Membership, you can get a 10% off repair discount on up to 2 products and a 10% discount on one Canon product per year.

Shop These Flash Deals: Up to $900 Off Canon Refurbished Cameras

The phrase stands true—Reduce, Reuse, Recycle—even on camera. You can snag extra discounts on cameras this week, with coupons on certified refurbished models—from $100 off, all the way up to $900 off. Like the refurbished EOS R5 Mark II Body, which is on discount for $271 off. There’s also the refurbished EOS R3 Body, now $900 off, EOS R6 Mark II Body for $1,799 at $180 off, and the refurbished EOS R7 Body for $1,119 with $80 off. All of these discounted Canon items are certified by Canon and come with a one-year limited warranty, for added peace of mind.

Their refurbished selection is an awesome way to save tons of money—plus, these cameras are basically indistinguishable from new models. And since they have different restock schedules, you’ll have a better chance at scoring some of their most coveted models, like a Canon EOS Rebel T7 or Powershot G7 X.

Score up to $400 Off With Canon Coupons for Ink and Printers

Wanting to upgrade your WFH setup? Now may be the perfect time to work in style for less. Canon’s rotating printer deals can help you save over $100 on laser, Inkjet, MegaTank, and compact or portable printers, including $366 off Canon’s brand new MegaTank GX6120. These deals also include savings of $70 on PIXMA Inkjet Printers, $100 off the newly launched PIXMA PRO, and up to $200 off Color imageCLASS printers.

Right now, you can get a free Pro Paper Sampler Pack when you spend $80 or more on Professional Ink; plus free standard shipping on all ink cartridges and toner. You can also save 25% more by opting for Value Packs, which offer even more convenience and savings for your MAXIFY & PIXMA line printers. Twin packs contain two of the same inks, while multipacks contain two or more different inks for the same printer— for those busy worker bees who print a lot.

More Canon Discounts and Free Shipping Deals

Canon is offering free shipping on all cameras and lenses, as well as ink and toner for the company’s printers. You can expect other deals for up to $300 off popular items like RF28-70 mm lenses, PIXMA printer, and more during 2025 sale events. Make sure to regularly visit our page for the latest offers and Canon discount codes whenever they are available.

Canon has made shopping even easier by organizing products by special offers, or in product categories with instant savings that don’t require a Canon promo code. As a bonus, hundreds of Canon products qualify for free shipping, including the more practical purchases like printers and ink.

Our Favorite Canon Cameras

Canon has a wide variety of cameras to capture all the details you need in photos and video. If you’re looking for jaw dropping non-stop 8K recording with excellent imaging, the Canon R5 is our favorite. The R6 strikes a balance between shooting for personal and professional purposes with a 24.2 megapixel full-frame. In the deals section, you can always find discounts on new and refurbished cameras, lenses, and kits.

Source link
#Top #Canon #Promo #Codes #Coupons #August

Tag

Related Posts

SAVE $700: As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just $1,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or $700 off its list price of $2,199.

$1,499 at Amazon
$2,199 Save $700

*with on-page coupon*

If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X.

As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just $1,499 from its usual $2,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool.

Mashable Deals

By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.

It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation.

If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s $700 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price.

#Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon">Robot lawn mower deal: This coupon knocks 0 off the Hookii Neomow X at Amazon SAVE 0: As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just ,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or 0 off its list price of ,199. ,499 at Amazon ,199 Save 0 *with on-page coupon* If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks 0 off the Hookii Neomow X. As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just ,499 from its usual ,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool. Mashable Deals By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation. Mashable Deals By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s 0 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price. #Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon

Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just $1,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or $700 off its list price of $2,199.

$1,499 at Amazon
$2,199 Save $700

*with on-page coupon*

If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X.

As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just $1,499 from its usual $2,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool.

Mashable Deals

By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.

It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation.

If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s $700 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price.

#Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon">Robot lawn mower deal: This coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X at Amazon

SAVE $700: As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is on sale for just $1,499 with an on-page coupon at Amazon. That’s a saving of 32% or $700 off its list price of $2,199.

$1,499 at Amazon
$2,199 Save $700

*with on-page coupon*

If mowing the lawn is a chore you’d rather not do, I suggest looking into a robot lawn mower. Yes, they’re expensive, but if you keep your eyes peeled on Amazon, you can often find a sweet deal. Case in point: an on-page coupon knocks $700 off the Hookii Neomow X.

As of July 17, the Hookii Neomow X robot lawn mower is down to just $1,499 from its usual $2,199. That’s a 32% price drop and the cheapest this model has ever been, according to our favorite price-tracking tool.

Mashable Deals

By signing up, you agree to receive recurring automated SMS marketing messages from Mashable Deals at the number provided. Msg and data rates may apply. Up to 2 messages/day. Reply STOP to opt out, HELP for help. Consent is not a condition of purchase. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This robot mower uses AI Vision, 3D LiDAR, and visual recognition to distinguish your lawn’s boundaries and avoid obstacles in real time. It may take some time for it to map out your yard initially, but once it’s familiar, you can view the layout on the map, manage your zones, set exclusion areas, draw virtual walls, and more. Mashable’s sister site CNET tested this mower and found that it had some issues in certain areas, so they recommended properly setting boundaries for exclusionary zones.

It’s suitable for flat or slightly sloped lawns up to 24 degrees and can mow up to .75 acres (about 32,000 square feet). A single charge will give you about two hours of operation.

If that sounds like your yard, the Hookii Neomow X could be the ideal mower to take over your lawn care duties this summer. Snag it while it’s $700 cheaper than usual — and don’t forget to check the box next to the on-page coupon price.

#Robot #lawn #mower #deal #coupon #knocks #Hookii #Neomow #Amazon

The Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.

The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.

A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.

“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”

— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society

For more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.

Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.

It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”

The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”

— Casey Dreier

This is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.

“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”

“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”

Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”

Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space">The war on ‘woke science’ comes for space researchThe Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary SocietyFor more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”— Casey DreierThis is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.Georgina TorbetCloseGeorgina TorbetPosts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All by Georgina TorbetNewsCloseNewsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All NewsPolicyClosePolicyPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PolicyPoliticsClosePoliticsPosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All PoliticsScienceCloseSciencePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All ScienceSpaceCloseSpacePosts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed.FollowFollowSee All Space#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space

culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.

The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.

A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.

“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”

— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society

For more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.

Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.

It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”

The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”

— Casey Dreier

This is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.

“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”

“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”

Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”

Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.

#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space">The war on ‘woke science’ comes for space research

The Trump administration is waging a culture war on science, and the latest salvo is in the form of a dry, bureaucratic proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that could threaten the future of US science as we know it.

The proposal would give political appointees unprecedented control over grant funding, the method through which scientists receive federal money to perform groundbreaking space research such as the search for evidence of organic compounds on Mars or the discovery of some of the earliest galaxies in the universe.

A typical proposed rule from the OMB garners less than 100 public comments. This rule has netted over 500,000 comments, the large majority of which appear to be negative, including a response from respected nonprofit The Planetary Society, which has criticized everything from the proposal’s rules around publication to its move away from peer review to its chilling effect on scientists in every field.

“Nearly every proposed aspect of these rule changes has some deleterious or negative consequence for the practice of science,” Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, tells The Verge.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist,” he points out. The biggest obstacle is the restrictions on the funding of open-access publication, which is the method through which space science papers are made freely available to the public.

“There’s concrete harm, even if you’re not a scientist.”

— Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society

For more than a decade, NASA has prided itself on making public the data collected with NASA instruments, as well as the science papers that come from studying that data. The new changes reverse that trend, making science data more difficult for everyone to access. Forbidding the use of grant funding for open-access publication means it’ll be harder for the public to see the research that their tax money helped fund.

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves,” Dreier says.

Then there’s the ability to terminate grants because of the associations or political leanings of the scientists themselves. Consider the data collected by the Mars rovers — precious data that cost billions of dollars and took decades of expertise to acquire — and a scientist, who doesn’t even work for NASA directly, who wants to study that data and has a novel idea for research that their fellow scientists think is worthwhile and important. Hypothetically, the new regulations would allow a partisan non-expert employed by the White House to nix that scientist’s funding because they posted an anti-Trump meme on X years ago.

It gets worse. “You don’t even have to be in violation of a rule” to have your funding cut, Dreier says. Grants can be revoked at any time, for any reason, if they are deemed against the interests of the president’s whims: “There’s a capriciousness that is enabled by these changes, and an opacity of the decision process.”

The problems with the regulations are not just ideological. They largely impose a bureaucratic burden: Is any scientist going to want to set up an international partnership, or attend a conference, or try to publish their data publicly and for free, when doing so requires time and paperwork applying for exemptions that may or may not be granted by a government body that has no expertise or interest in their work? Are they going to set up a potentially fruitful collaboration with other scientists in China, or Russia, or even Canada, when doing so introduces a risk to their own work, knowing their livelihood could be yanked away when the president decides he doesn’t like another nation tomorrow?

“There’s no really good argument for that, unless you’re trying to use it as a means of control over the scientists themselves.”

— Casey Dreier

This is a separate, though perhaps even more dangerous, attack on science than the proposed cuts to NASA funding that are affecting programs like the operation of the Mars rovers. Under the proposed OMB rules, the contracts through which NASA builds spacecraft and collects data would remain, but the grants for scientists to analyze that data would be under political threat.

“There’s a distinction between data collection and science,” Dreier says. Building amazing tools like the Mars rovers or the James Webb Space Telescope and using them to collect data is only the first step in making progress: “The science is what happens when you pay a scientist to sit down and look at the data, interpret it, model it, test it, and then present it and go through the process of arguing about it.”

“What are we collecting data for, if we’re not going to support the scientists to study it?”

Despite the significant public pushback against the move, including a Senate hearing with the director of the OMB, Russell Vought, in which Democratic senators described the effects of the rule as “absurdity” and “bias,” the OMB does not seem disposed to back down and withdraw its proposed rule. Instead, it will likely face a series of legal challenges, including from a group of 24 governors and attorneys general who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and a violation of the separation of powers.

What is at stake here is bigger than slashed funds or a temporary refocusing on Earthly concerns over space research. “This is not a budget cut,” Dreier points out. Budget cuts are easy to understand and easy to argue against. What is happening here is more pernicious: “This is a surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science that is buried under procedural rules and boring-sounding language.”

Update July 17th: The OMB proposal has received over 500,000 comments, not 50,000 as stated in a previous version of this story.

Follow topics and authors from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.
#war #woke #science #space #researchNews,Policy,Politics,Science,Space
It turns out that even San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie, who once declared that the city should be a testbed for emerging tech, has his limits. Especially when that emerging tech creates a massive hours-long traffic jam that leaves thousands at a standstill.

Mayor Lurie has asked state regulators to bolster rules for autonomous vehicles nearly two weeks after Waymo robotaxis became immobile in heavy July 4 traffic, ran out of power, and blocked key streets, further compounding the gridlock. The traffic jam, which trapped municipal shuttles, became a citywide problem that affected thousands of people.

In his letter to the state Department of Transportation, which was viewed by TechCrunch, Lurie pointed to two events — a widespread power outage in December and the Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show on July 4 that attracted 100,000 spectators — both of which led to dozens of stranded Waymo vehicles and paralyzed traffic. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported on the letter.

The events, he said in the letter, “demonstrated that California’s current regulatory framework does not adequately address how autonomous vehicles operate during major incidents, planned or not. California’s challenge now is not just whether autonomous vehicles can operate safely under normal conditions, but also whether they can perform reliably during extraordinary ones.”

Lurie said autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be able to demonstrate four “core operational capabilities” and asked the California Department of Transportation to establish statewide standards to prevent future problems like the July 4 gridlock incident.

Under Lurie’s vision, companies would be required to immediately remove or relocate robotaxis from active travel lanes to keep people moving and be required to be able to adapt in real time, adjusting their routes, service area, and pickup and drop-off locations. Companies would also have to share real-time operations data with local agencies, including service disruptions, the locations of immobile robotaxis, and recovery efforts as well as demonstrate through testing that they can handle large influxes of people and traffic.

TechCrunch has reached out to Waymo for comment. The article will be updated once the company responds.

Any company that wants to operate a robotaxi service in California has to successfully navigate two testing and deployment permit processes, one administered by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the other by the Public Utilities Commission. California’s existing regulatory framework is stricter than that of other states like Texas and Arizona, but that hasn’t dissuaded companies from trying to operate there.

San Francisco and the wider area that stretches south into Silicon Valley have long been a testbed for autonomous vehicle technology. Six companies, including Nuro, Waymo, and Zoox, hold driverless testing permits, which allow the vehicles to drive without a human safety operator behind the wheel.

But the area has also become the launch point for commercial services, which requires other permits from the DMV and CPUC.

Waymo is the largest, with an estimated 1,000 robotaxis operating in the Bay Area today. But there are plenty of others either testing or poised to launch commercial operations, including Amazon-owned Zoox as well as a premium robotaxi service that will be operated by Uber. Tesla has a branded robotaxi service but it doesn’t use driverless vehicles, nor does it have the permits to do so. Instead, Tesla has a charter transportation permit, which allows its own drivers to pick up and drop off riders throughout San Francisco in vehicles equipped with its advanced driver-assistance system rather than fully autonomous software.

Waymo’s scale has made it the focal point for regulators in San Francisco and beyond. The company now operates in 11 cities and has said it completes more than 500,000 paid rides every week. In San Francisco, Lurie noted that Waymo had agreed to restrict its service on July 4 near the waterfront and had even assigned a representative to the city’s emergency center. But that wasn’t enough to keep the Waymos out of the heavy traffic that occurred outside of that district.

Lurie said these voluntary actions are no longer enough — a reflection of just how big Waymo’s fleet has become. He said the four proposed requirements “will not undermine autonomous vehicles; they will strengthen them.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#San #Francisco #mayor #pushes #tougher #rules #Waymo #traffic #fiasco #TechCrunchrobotaxis,Waymo">San Francisco mayor pushes for tougher rules after the Waymo traffic fiasco | TechCrunch It turns out that even San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie, who once declared that the city should be a testbed for emerging tech, has his limits. Especially when that emerging tech creates a massive hours-long traffic jam that leaves thousands at a standstill. Mayor Lurie has asked state regulators to bolster rules for autonomous vehicles nearly two weeks after Waymo robotaxis became immobile in heavy July 4 traffic, ran out of power, and blocked key streets, further compounding the gridlock. The traffic jam, which trapped municipal shuttles, became a citywide problem that affected thousands of people. In his letter to the state Department of Transportation, which was viewed by TechCrunch, Lurie pointed to two events — a widespread power outage in December and the Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show on July 4 that attracted 100,000 spectators — both of which led to dozens of stranded Waymo vehicles and paralyzed traffic. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported on the letter. The events, he said in the letter, “demonstrated that California’s current regulatory framework does not adequately address how autonomous vehicles operate during major incidents, planned or not. California’s challenge now is not just whether autonomous vehicles can operate safely under normal conditions, but also whether they can perform reliably during extraordinary ones.” Lurie said autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be able to demonstrate four “core operational capabilities” and asked the California Department of Transportation to establish statewide standards to prevent future problems like the July 4 gridlock incident. Under Lurie’s vision, companies would be required to immediately remove or relocate robotaxis from active travel lanes to keep people moving and be required to be able to adapt in real time, adjusting their routes, service area, and pickup and drop-off locations. Companies would also have to share real-time operations data with local agencies, including service disruptions, the locations of immobile robotaxis, and recovery efforts as well as demonstrate through testing that they can handle large influxes of people and traffic. TechCrunch has reached out to Waymo for comment. The article will be updated once the company responds. Any company that wants to operate a robotaxi service in California has to successfully navigate two testing and deployment permit processes, one administered by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the other by the Public Utilities Commission. California’s existing regulatory framework is stricter than that of other states like Texas and Arizona, but that hasn’t dissuaded companies from trying to operate there. San Francisco and the wider area that stretches south into Silicon Valley have long been a testbed for autonomous vehicle technology. Six companies, including Nuro, Waymo, and Zoox, hold driverless testing permits, which allow the vehicles to drive without a human safety operator behind the wheel. But the area has also become the launch point for commercial services, which requires other permits from the DMV and CPUC. Waymo is the largest, with an estimated 1,000 robotaxis operating in the Bay Area today. But there are plenty of others either testing or poised to launch commercial operations, including Amazon-owned Zoox as well as a premium robotaxi service that will be operated by Uber. Tesla has a branded robotaxi service but it doesn’t use driverless vehicles, nor does it have the permits to do so. Instead, Tesla has a charter transportation permit, which allows its own drivers to pick up and drop off riders throughout San Francisco in vehicles equipped with its advanced driver-assistance system rather than fully autonomous software. Waymo’s scale has made it the focal point for regulators in San Francisco and beyond. The company now operates in 11 cities and has said it completes more than 500,000 paid rides every week. In San Francisco, Lurie noted that Waymo had agreed to restrict its service on July 4 near the waterfront and had even assigned a representative to the city’s emergency center. But that wasn’t enough to keep the Waymos out of the heavy traffic that occurred outside of that district. Lurie said these voluntary actions are no longer enough — a reflection of just how big Waymo’s fleet has become. He said the four proposed requirements “will not undermine autonomous vehicles; they will strengthen them.” When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.#San #Francisco #mayor #pushes #tougher #rules #Waymo #traffic #fiasco #TechCrunchrobotaxis,Waymo

testbed for emerging tech, has his limits. Especially when that emerging tech creates a massive hours-long traffic jam that leaves thousands at a standstill.

Mayor Lurie has asked state regulators to bolster rules for autonomous vehicles nearly two weeks after Waymo robotaxis became immobile in heavy July 4 traffic, ran out of power, and blocked key streets, further compounding the gridlock. The traffic jam, which trapped municipal shuttles, became a citywide problem that affected thousands of people.

In his letter to the state Department of Transportation, which was viewed by TechCrunch, Lurie pointed to two events — a widespread power outage in December and the Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show on July 4 that attracted 100,000 spectators — both of which led to dozens of stranded Waymo vehicles and paralyzed traffic. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported on the letter.

The events, he said in the letter, “demonstrated that California’s current regulatory framework does not adequately address how autonomous vehicles operate during major incidents, planned or not. California’s challenge now is not just whether autonomous vehicles can operate safely under normal conditions, but also whether they can perform reliably during extraordinary ones.”

Lurie said autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be able to demonstrate four “core operational capabilities” and asked the California Department of Transportation to establish statewide standards to prevent future problems like the July 4 gridlock incident.

Under Lurie’s vision, companies would be required to immediately remove or relocate robotaxis from active travel lanes to keep people moving and be required to be able to adapt in real time, adjusting their routes, service area, and pickup and drop-off locations. Companies would also have to share real-time operations data with local agencies, including service disruptions, the locations of immobile robotaxis, and recovery efforts as well as demonstrate through testing that they can handle large influxes of people and traffic.

TechCrunch has reached out to Waymo for comment. The article will be updated once the company responds.

Any company that wants to operate a robotaxi service in California has to successfully navigate two testing and deployment permit processes, one administered by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the other by the Public Utilities Commission. California’s existing regulatory framework is stricter than that of other states like Texas and Arizona, but that hasn’t dissuaded companies from trying to operate there.

San Francisco and the wider area that stretches south into Silicon Valley have long been a testbed for autonomous vehicle technology. Six companies, including Nuro, Waymo, and Zoox, hold driverless testing permits, which allow the vehicles to drive without a human safety operator behind the wheel.

But the area has also become the launch point for commercial services, which requires other permits from the DMV and CPUC.

Waymo is the largest, with an estimated 1,000 robotaxis operating in the Bay Area today. But there are plenty of others either testing or poised to launch commercial operations, including Amazon-owned Zoox as well as a premium robotaxi service that will be operated by Uber. Tesla has a branded robotaxi service but it doesn’t use driverless vehicles, nor does it have the permits to do so. Instead, Tesla has a charter transportation permit, which allows its own drivers to pick up and drop off riders throughout San Francisco in vehicles equipped with its advanced driver-assistance system rather than fully autonomous software.

Waymo’s scale has made it the focal point for regulators in San Francisco and beyond. The company now operates in 11 cities and has said it completes more than 500,000 paid rides every week. In San Francisco, Lurie noted that Waymo had agreed to restrict its service on July 4 near the waterfront and had even assigned a representative to the city’s emergency center. But that wasn’t enough to keep the Waymos out of the heavy traffic that occurred outside of that district.

Lurie said these voluntary actions are no longer enough — a reflection of just how big Waymo’s fleet has become. He said the four proposed requirements “will not undermine autonomous vehicles; they will strengthen them.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#San #Francisco #mayor #pushes #tougher #rules #Waymo #traffic #fiasco #TechCrunchrobotaxis,Waymo">San Francisco mayor pushes for tougher rules after the Waymo traffic fiasco | TechCrunch

It turns out that even San Francisco mayor Daniel Lurie, who once declared that the city should be a testbed for emerging tech, has his limits. Especially when that emerging tech creates a massive hours-long traffic jam that leaves thousands at a standstill.

Mayor Lurie has asked state regulators to bolster rules for autonomous vehicles nearly two weeks after Waymo robotaxis became immobile in heavy July 4 traffic, ran out of power, and blocked key streets, further compounding the gridlock. The traffic jam, which trapped municipal shuttles, became a citywide problem that affected thousands of people.

In his letter to the state Department of Transportation, which was viewed by TechCrunch, Lurie pointed to two events — a widespread power outage in December and the Golden Gate Bridge fireworks show on July 4 that attracted 100,000 spectators — both of which led to dozens of stranded Waymo vehicles and paralyzed traffic. The San Francisco Chronicle first reported on the letter.

The events, he said in the letter, “demonstrated that California’s current regulatory framework does not adequately address how autonomous vehicles operate during major incidents, planned or not. California’s challenge now is not just whether autonomous vehicles can operate safely under normal conditions, but also whether they can perform reliably during extraordinary ones.”

Lurie said autonomous vehicle manufacturers should be able to demonstrate four “core operational capabilities” and asked the California Department of Transportation to establish statewide standards to prevent future problems like the July 4 gridlock incident.

Under Lurie’s vision, companies would be required to immediately remove or relocate robotaxis from active travel lanes to keep people moving and be required to be able to adapt in real time, adjusting their routes, service area, and pickup and drop-off locations. Companies would also have to share real-time operations data with local agencies, including service disruptions, the locations of immobile robotaxis, and recovery efforts as well as demonstrate through testing that they can handle large influxes of people and traffic.

TechCrunch has reached out to Waymo for comment. The article will be updated once the company responds.

Any company that wants to operate a robotaxi service in California has to successfully navigate two testing and deployment permit processes, one administered by the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and the other by the Public Utilities Commission. California’s existing regulatory framework is stricter than that of other states like Texas and Arizona, but that hasn’t dissuaded companies from trying to operate there.

San Francisco and the wider area that stretches south into Silicon Valley have long been a testbed for autonomous vehicle technology. Six companies, including Nuro, Waymo, and Zoox, hold driverless testing permits, which allow the vehicles to drive without a human safety operator behind the wheel.

But the area has also become the launch point for commercial services, which requires other permits from the DMV and CPUC.

Waymo is the largest, with an estimated 1,000 robotaxis operating in the Bay Area today. But there are plenty of others either testing or poised to launch commercial operations, including Amazon-owned Zoox as well as a premium robotaxi service that will be operated by Uber. Tesla has a branded robotaxi service but it doesn’t use driverless vehicles, nor does it have the permits to do so. Instead, Tesla has a charter transportation permit, which allows its own drivers to pick up and drop off riders throughout San Francisco in vehicles equipped with its advanced driver-assistance system rather than fully autonomous software.

Waymo’s scale has made it the focal point for regulators in San Francisco and beyond. The company now operates in 11 cities and has said it completes more than 500,000 paid rides every week. In San Francisco, Lurie noted that Waymo had agreed to restrict its service on July 4 near the waterfront and had even assigned a representative to the city’s emergency center. But that wasn’t enough to keep the Waymos out of the heavy traffic that occurred outside of that district.

Lurie said these voluntary actions are no longer enough — a reflection of just how big Waymo’s fleet has become. He said the four proposed requirements “will not undermine autonomous vehicles; they will strengthen them.”

When you purchase through links in our articles, we may earn a small commission. This doesn’t affect our editorial independence.

#San #Francisco #mayor #pushes #tougher #rules #Waymo #traffic #fiasco #TechCrunchrobotaxis,Waymo

Post Comment