"Summaries of the state of knowledge in different fields": I've been thinking a lot about this one lately. There's so much confusion (and willful disinformation) in the world when it comes to science, and so many journalists don't understand that a single article published in a journal does not mean that there is now a scientific consensus around this - that usually comes years later when a meta-study comes along. In most fields, as an outsider, you basically have to get lucky that one of these meta-studies has cropped up recently and you happen to talk to an expert that can point you at it. In medicine there is the Cochrane organization that does a pretty good job of communicating these findings in a clear way. But why isn't there something like this for all fields of science, constantly updated, so journalists, policy-makers and curious amateurs like myself have a single point of entry when we want to understand the state of the art in a given scientific field? A trustworthy source where I could check what's certain and what's still up in the air when it comes to CRISPR, which variants of string theory have we managed to disprove using colliders, which are still being considered, what do the currently best climate models look like and how certain are we of their accuracy?

It'd be a huge undertaking - continuously interviewing researchers, quantifying and communicating their answers in a way that non-experts can understand. But on the other hand, all the science we're already doing is a huge undertaking, and it's crazy that we let all the knowledge that these experts accumulate just languish in obscure journals targeted only at other experts, and letting the 'state of the art' just be this implicit thing in the heads of dozens of experts, instead of being stated explicitly somewhere accessible.