Ohio State News

Western troops have been expelled from Africa’s Sahel – so why are Italy’s Carabinieri still there?

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 11:46:32 -0400

Originally published in

By Kaitlyn Rabe
Lecturer in Geopolitics, The Ohio State University

Western forces have largely beat a hasty retreat from Africa’s coup-prone Sahel region in recent years.

In 2022, French forces departed Mali as insurgents made incursions into the capital, Bamako. A United Nations peacekeeping mission also left, with the security void filled by Russian forces. Burkina Faso and Chad followed suit, ordering French troops out in 2023 and 2025, respectively.

But Niger presents a different scenario. While the junta that came to power there in 2023 has expelled many Western forces from its borders, there is one exception: a contingent of about 350 Italian troops.

As a geopolitical security analyst who has advised the European Parliament on counterinsurgency in the Sahel, I believe that the Italian model – deploying a small numbers of highly skilled technical troops to train local personnel – offers an alternative to a large-scale Western military presence that led to serious local blowback.

The context of anti-Western sentiment

Between 2020 and 2023, six countries in the Sahel saw civilian governments replaced with military leaders. Many of these coupists capitalized on public discontent over deteriorating economies and security conditions to overthrow their predecessors.

But they also leaned into growing anti-Western sentiment.

From around 2013, Sahelian countries, including Mali and Niger, allowed military personnel from the United States, France and other Western countries to assist in efforts to counter jihadist and separatist movements throughout the region.

Despite the initial welcome for such interventions, local populations largely came to view these troops as ineffective vestiges of the colonial era. As such, they welcomed the anti-Western rhetoric of coup plotters.

Yet the military men who took over faced the same instability that undermined the governments they replaced. To compensate for the lack of Western military support, many governments in the region turned to Russia’s Wagner Group, now named the “Africa Corps,” for security needs.

Best known for its presence in Mali, the military group now controlled by the Russian Ministry of Defense has seemingly shifted tactics. Gone are brutal attacks against extremist groups and civilians alike, replaced by a more conservative, defense-focused strategy that some have argued places a greater burden on African forces.

Such developments have led NATO countries to worry about their dwindling influence amid growing instability along the security bloc’s southern flank – an area that comprises the Middle East and North Africa region, as well as the Sahel. The security situation has also spurred internal displacement and external migration.

Furthermore, the withdrawal of the U.N.’s peacekeeping mission from Mali, as well as the forced departure of the U.N. resident coordinator from Niger in 2023, indicates a growing local rejection of the status quo on international aid and security operations in the region.

A surge of violence

For civilians throughout the Sahel, the implications of the dangerous status quo are alarming. Since 2020, the area has accounted for the world’s largest increase in the number of fatalities linked to militant Islamic groups.

Niger, which houses the world’s eighth-largest reserves of uranium, is not immune to this surge of violence. On Jan. 29, 2026, the Islamic State Sahel Province took credit for an attack against the Diori Hamani civilian airport of Niamey, as well as the adjacent military airbase. Although no civilian or military deaths were reported, the attack signaled a potential shift in IS-Sahel’s strategy in Niger and an emboldened strategy of attacking larger cities and infrastructure.

While the Russian foreign ministry claimed joint responsibility for neutralizing the attack along with the Nigerien armed forces, a contingent of Italian forces and its gendarmerie, known as the Carabinieri, were also present.

Since the withdrawal of all other Western and U.N. groups, the Italians, including the Carabinieri, have become the only Western force still in Niger.

Gendarmeries like the Carabinieri operate differently from conventional army forces. They mix military force with policing functions – a setup unfamiliar to countries such as the U.S. and the U.K. that tend to keep these roles separate.

Such a combination of mandates makes them ideal for certain tasks, such as training domestic military forces and quelling unrest in acute situations.

The Carabinieri also have experience investigating complex crimes – a skill developed over years as the special forces in high-profile mafia cases. This is particularly useful in the Sahel, as the tactics of jihadist groups progressively resemble those of organized criminal networks.

Over the years, Italy’s Carabinieri have been invited by foreign governments emerging from armed conflict or fighting low-intensity conflicts to train local forces and help maintain order. Afghanistan, Kosovo and the Palestinian Authority have all turned to the Carabinieri as an effective and efficient alternative to traditional peacekeeping forces.

In the case of Niger, such an invitation reportedly arrived in Italy around December 2016, when the then-government requested a contingent of 470 Italian military personnel, including the Carabinieri. The plan was to reinforce control over Nigerien territory, thereby stabilizing one of the main transit countries for migrants attempting to reach the Italian and European coasts.

Notably, this invitation was extended even after the change of government in Niger in 2021.

Carabinieri as a model

In 2023, when the Nigerien government forced the military, economic, and even media presences of France, the U.N. and the U.S. from the country, the Italians were permitted to stay.

The reasons, I believe, are threefold.

The first relates to the fact that Italy lacks the same reputation as a colonizing power that France – and also the U.S. – maintains among many governments and populations of the Global South.

Italy has a colonial past, of course, and its government forces committed atrocities in areas under Italian dominion in East Africa between the 1880s and 1941.

But as a result of its defeat in World War II, Italy was forced out of its overseas territories earlier than some of its European peers. Having avoided the subsequent turbulent decolonization movements experienced by, say, France, Great Britain or Belgium throughout the 1950s and ’60s, Italy has largely been able to avoid postcolonial animosity, enabling it to maintain ambiguous ties with African and Arab states.

The second reason for the Italians’ continued presence in Niger rests on ongoing diplomatic relations and strategically timed comments from the Italian government that have reassured current Nigerien authorities. Following the 2023 coup d’état, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani called for a return to democracy, in line with other international voices. But he refused the idea of a Western-imposed military intervention even before one had been formally proposed.

Finally, the targeted, highly specialized nature of Italian operations has made them useful for Nigerien forces. The Italians’ willingness and ability to cooperate with local authorities – along with the relatively large footprint that a small number of troops can leave – have left the Italians, and the Carabinieri more specifically, with a reputation for effectiveness. Moreover, their reduced size relative to the much larger U.S. and French operations has dampened any opposition from locals.

While the security void of departing Western forces has been partially filled by other actors, notably the Russian Africa Corps, the increased instability across neighboring countries has shown these forces’ limits. In that environment, this small contingent of Italian forces may well make Italy the only actor in a position to negotiate for Western interests in the area.

Kaitlyn Rabe, Lecturer in Geopolitics, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

From Hormuz to the cockpit: Warfare, criminal activity undermine GPS

Wed, 24 Jun 2026 09:02:10 -0400

Originally published in

By Zak Kassas
Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The Ohio State University

Few people want to get lost when traveling. But if there are places where being lost feels especially unsettling, they tend to be the sea, desert and sky. These environments share a defining feature: the absence of distinctive visual cues. Where horizons blur, landmarks disappear and every direction can look deceptively similar. Knowing where you are depends on information that you cannot see for yourself.

For most of human history, finding your way in such environments required skill, judgment and constant attention. Satellite navigation marked a fundamental shift. The advent of GPS has made navigation almost effortless: Press a button and voilà, location and heading appear instantly.

GPS’s great strength is that under benign conditions, it works remarkably well in precisely the environments where being lost would be most dangerous. Civilian systems routinely achieve meter‑level accuracy. This accuracy, however, masks a growing vulnerability.

Over the past few years, deliberate GPS interference has surged worldwide, disrupting maritime and aviation operations at an unprecedented scale. I’m an electrical engineer who studies alternative methods of electronic navigation. My lab and others around the world are developing these alternatives as backup for when GPS is unavailable or unreliable.

When GPS is silent – or lies

Jamming overwhelms weak satellite signals with noise or radio frequency signals, blocking GPS position and time altogether.

Spoofing is more insidious: Counterfeit signals surreptitiously replace authentic ones, misleading GPS receivers about location and timing while appearing to crews and automated systems to operate normally.

Interference arises from three sources: military activity, criminal exploitation and accidental misuse. In conflict zones, GPS disruption has become a routine tool of warfare, used to protect assets, degrade surveillance and counter drones. This activity is well documented across Ukraine, the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea, the eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. It routinely spills over to affect civilian ships and aircraft, and civilian life.

Accidental GPS jamming has caused serious disruption at international airports by making it difficult for aircraft and air traffic controllers to track traffic in and out of the airports. Intentional GPS spoofing was even used in a highway heist to steal US$1 million worth of restaurateur Guy Fieri’s tequila.

Making matters worse, spoofed GPS data does not remain confined to a single system. Ships use the Automatic Identification System to broadcast their locations and to see what other ships are nearby to avoid collisions. The system broadcasts a ship’s GPS position information along with the ship’s name, course and speed, classification and call sign.

GPS spoofing effectively corrupts Automatic Identification System signals, sending false position information to nearby vessels, shore authorities, insurers and commercial tracking services. This activity can create fleets of “ghost ships” that appear real to others navigating nearby.

Criminals use GPS interference to block or alter Automatic Identification System information to evade oversight. Illegal fishing fleets, oil smugglers, sanctions evaders and maritime sand thieves have been repeatedly linked to falsified or disrupted Automatic Identification System and GPS signals.

Deadly consequences

GPS intereference is not new, and the U.S. government warned about it decades ago, but the scale of its impact has significantly accelerated over the past few years. GPS spoofing and jamming incidents affecting civil aviation increased by about 500% from January to August 2024.

Maritime authorities reported hundreds of ships affected daily, with groundings and collisions in 2024–25 publicly linked to interference of GPS and other satellite navigation systems, including in the Baltic Sea and the Strait of Hormuz.

The consequences have claimed lives. In December 2024, Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 was struck by a Russian air-defense system, killing 38 people after the flight was diverted due to GPS interference. At sea, GPS interference in the Strait of Hormuz has caused oil tanker collisions.

Disruption has also forced runway closures, mass flight diversions and emergency procedures at Newark Liberty, Dallas-Fort Worth and Denver international airports.

Even senior officials are not immune: In 2025, GPS jamming forced an aircraft carrying the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to make an emergency landing.

Strait of Hormuz: Navigation danger zone

Recent incidents in the Strait of Hormuz during the U.S.-Iran war mark a decisive escalation in the risk posed by GPS interference. The strait sits at the intersection of intense geopolitical conflict and one of the world’s most critical maritime choke points. Around 20% of global petroleum trade transits these narrow waters each day, alongside dense commercial traffic. There’s little margin for navigational error. Here, even modest mistakes in position or timing can rapidly escalate into collisions, groundings or environmental disasters.

The Iran war has led to sustained spoofing across the Persian Gulf. Ships have reported positions via Automatic Identification System that place them on land or otherwise miles from their true locations without triggering alarms.

In the confined waters of the Strait of Hormuz, where ships pass one another in close proximity, GPS interference erodes situational awareness precisely where it matters most.

Crucially, interference in Hormuz is persistent rather than episodic. Reports show jamming and spoofing used systematically over extended periods, not merely as short-term responses to specific incidents. This pattern suggests that GPS disruption has become routine practice rather than a niche capability in electronic warfare.

Once normalized in one of the world’s busiest sea-lanes, such practices are difficult to contain geographically. The result is a navigation environment in which people can no longer fully trust position, timing and identity at sea. The consequences extend far beyond the confines of the Persian Gulf.

Beyond GPS

The normalization of GPS disruption exposes a deeper issue: Modern navigation resilience has been built around the assumption that GPS signals are usually available and trustworthy. As that assumption erodes, attention has shifted from hardening GPS toward security through diversification. This means drawing navigation information from fundamentally different signals.

For a backup to satellite navigation, several countries, including the U.K., France, Saudi Arabia, Russia, South Korea and China, are deploying or modernizing long-range radio navigation, or LORAN, a system that dates back to World War II.

Another alternative that has gained increased interest over the past decade or so is using signals never intended for navigation, referred to as signals of opportunity. In contrast to dedicated navigation systems, such as long-range radio navigation, this approach uses existing infrastructure and preserves scarce radio spectrum. A particularly fruitful type of signal to exploit is terrestrial cellular.

My lab has demonstrated this type of navigation with ground vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, high‑altitude balloons and aircraft, including in GPS‑jammed environments. We developed specialized receivers that exploit signals from existing LTE and 5G cellular networks.

We have demonstrated sub‑meter accuracy on UAVs, near-lane‑level accuracy on ground vehicles, and meter-level accuracy on aircraft and high-altitude balloons, without cooperation from cellular network providers.

Another approach leverages the rapid proliferation of constellations of low Earth orbit communication satellites. Compared with GPS signals from medium Earth orbit, low Earth orbit satellites offer stronger signals, are numerous, transmit in a much wider swath of the spectrum, and their signals are more resilient to wide-area disruption.

We demonstrated meter-level positioning accuracy exploiting signals transmitted by Starlink satellites. We then developed receivers that can passively listen to signals emitted from multiple low Earth orbit satellite constellations.

Since then, my lab has demonstrated navigation with low Earth orbit satellites across the U.S. In our latest experiment, we successfully navigated a vessel in the Arctic seas, off the coast of Greenland.

These results point to a pragmatic solution: Navigation resilience will come from a diversity of techniques. We and others are already demonstrating the technologies to do so. Whether they are put into practical use is now a matter of policy, regulation and timing.

Zak Kassas, Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

China surpasses US in research spending

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 15:43:09 -0400

Originally published in

By Caroline Wagner
Professor of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University

China’s rapid rise in science has hit a milestone. The country’s investment in research and development has reached parity with – and by purchasing power measures has surpassed – that of the United States, according to a March 2026 report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Both nations have crossed the US$1 trillion threshold on research spending.

For 80 years, the U.S. operated the most productive scientific and technological enterprise in human history. Breakthroughs and advances that came from American labs included the internet; the mRNA vaccine; the transistor and its children, semiconductors and microprocessors; the Global Positioning System; and many more.

U.S. scientific and technological leadership was nurtured by sustained public investment in research universities and federal laboratories, as well as a culture of open inquiry. These investments turned scientific discovery into economic strength – accounting for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II.

In contrast, China had previously spent little to nothing on research and development. Some estimates show that China was among the lowest research spenders worldwide in 1980.

As a policy analyst and public affairs researcher, I study international collaboration in science and technology and its implications for public and foreign policy. I have tracked China’s rise across every major database for more than a decade.

The most recent reports showing that China is now outspending the U.S. on scientific and technological research is a turning point worth understanding clearly because, historically, global leadership in one sector – including technology and warfare – feeds into others. U.S. dominance is in question.

China’s systematic and unrelenting rise

China’s R&D spending milestone caps a series of achievements that have arrived in rapid succession.

In 2019, China surpassed the U.S. in its share of the top 1% most-highly cited papers – what some call the Nobel class of research. By 2022, it had taken first place globally in most-cited papers overall.

In 2024, China overtook the United States in total scientific publications – the first time any nation has displaced American dominance since the U.S. itself surpassed the United Kingdom in 1948. Researchers found that China overtook the United States in scientific output even earlier. That same year, China pulled ahead in the Nature Index, which tracks publications in the world’s most selective scientific journals, posting a 17% advantage over the U.S. in outlets long considered the gold standard of scientific excellence.

In 2024, Chinese entities also filed roughly 1.8 million patent applications, compared to the U.S.’s 603,191 applications.

Given these milestones, it’s possible to argue that China is quickly taking the lead in global science and technology. These are not isolated data points. They mark a structural shift in where the world’s scientific frontier is being built.

More science is good – the problem lies elsewhere

China’s ascent is, in one sense, good news. More knowledge, generated by more researchers across more institutions, expands the global pool of discovery from which everyone can draw. The world benefits when science thrives.

The problem is not that China is investing, but that the U.S. is not.

First, the U.S. is divesting from basic, open science. Federal R&D spending in the U.S. peaked in 2010 at roughly $160 billion and fell by more than 15% over the following five years. Federal investment in research and development has been in a long, slow slide – from a peak of 1.86% of gross domestic product in 1964 to about 0.66% in 2021.

The federal government is no longer the largest spender in R&D: It funded about 40% of basic research in 2022, while the business sector performed roughly 78% of U.S. R&D. While not a problem in itself, industry has simultaneously withdrawn from open scientific publication over the past four decades, shifting from research toward development. The result is a shrinking pool of openly shared scientific knowledge precisely as public investment in it also contracts.

Under the second Trump administration, U.S. government science agencies have been slow-walking proposals for new research. Current budget cuts from the White House threaten to deepen cuts to government spending significantly.

The second is the active restriction of scientific exchange: tightening access to U.S. institutions, scrutinizing international collaborations and raising barriers to foreign-born researchers. These policies, though intended as security measures, work against the openness that has historically made American science productive and attractive to global talent.

I describe this issue as an example of the stockyard paradox, in which securing research assets may weaken the very system these measures aim to protect.

Disinvestment cuts deeper than it appears

The deeper danger for the U.S. economy is that disinvestment and selective engagement in research erodes the capacity to use cutting-edge science regardless of where it is produced.

Absorbing and applying cutting-edge knowledge, whether developed in Boston or Beijing, requires maintaining research institutions and trained workforces, as well as active participation in global networks. This is not a passive process. You cannot free-ride on Chinese science if you have dismantled the institutional and human capital needed to evaluate, translate and apply it.

A nation that hollows out its research base not only falls behind but also progressively loses its ability to benefit from science, including in technologies it is already able to access.

Talent compounds the problem. The U.S. built its scientific dominance partly by being the destination of choice for the world’s most ambitious researchers. The U.S. leads the world in Nobel Prizes, but, notably, 40% of the Nobel Prizes in chemistry, medicine and physics that were awarded to Americans since 2000 were won by immigrants. The flow of foreign talent is not guaranteed. It follows opportunity, funding and openness.

Researchers who might once have come to American universities are finding welcoming alternatives in Europe, China and elsewhere.

A decision point, not a trend line

China’s milestone in research funding arrives at a moment when the U.S. is deciding whether to maintain its scientific leadership.

Scientific infrastructure does not decline gradually and recover on demand. Doctoral scientists represent a decade or more of training; tacit laboratory knowledge lives in working research groups, not in documents. Once talented young researchers leave the pipeline – or international talent redirects to other countries – the capacity is very hard to rebuild. Early warning signs are already visible in the U.S. system: thousands of NIH grants terminated, a collapse in international applications and an exodus of early-career scientists.

What is at stake is not a ranking. It is whether the U.S. maintains the institutional capacity – the universities, the federal laboratories, the graduate pipelines, the culture of open inquiry – that made those returns on scientific investment possible in the first place.

China’s rise did not create this decision point, although it brings it into sharp relief. Does the U.S. still want to lead in science? The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank, estimates that a 20% cut in federal research and development starting in fiscal year 2026 would shrink the U.S. economy by nearly $1 trillion over 10 years and reduce tax revenue by around $250 billion. Others point out that the scientific enterprise has contributed at least half of U.S. economic growth.

That is a lot to lose.

Caroline Wagner, Professor of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How deregulation made electricity more expensive, not cheaper

Fri, 27 Feb 2026 14:36:07 -0500

Originally published in

By Noah Dormady
Associate Professor of Public Policy, The Ohio State University

American families are feeling the pinch of rising electricity prices. In the past five years alone, the generation portion of the standard service residential electric bill in Columbus, Ohio, has increased by 110%. This is one data point in a national trend.

Energy affordability is quickly shaping up to be a key election issue at all levels of American politics. And more than half of U.S. adults surveyed in January 2026 reported being very concerned about the price of electricity.

Experts in the energy industry are fiercely conflicted on what, or who, is to blame. People have sought to blame geopolitical events like the war in Ukraine, dramatic changes in U.S. energy policies, power grid operators, regulators and artificial intelligence and data centers.

But new research from The Ohio State University’s Energy Markets and Policy Group, where I serve as principal investigator, provides new insights about another factor you were probably not thinking about – middlemen introduced by deregulation.

How deregulation brought middlemen instead of competition

Between the late 1990s and early 2000s, several state legislatures deregulated their electricity systems. Deregulation was originally sold as a way to replace inefficient regulation and reduce bureaucracy. People were told that competition would deliver lower prices.

Under the old system, a state regulatory commission set prices for all electricity services – generation, transmission and distribution – which were supplied by the same monopoly utility company. Each state commission was required by federal law to ensure that rates were “just and reasonable.” Under deregulation, that same commission rate-setting process still holds for transmission and distribution, but the generation part was split off.

Deregulation created competitive wholesale markets for generation, but price competition did not spread widely at the retail level. In states with active retail deregulation, there are two ways the retail generation price can be set. Consumers get to pick which one – buy from a marketer on the open market, or do nothing. Most people choose to do nothing.

Rather than introducing efficiency, this system of retail deregulation created a new complexity: middlemen marketers. In most cases, no matter which choice people make, it’s hard for them to understand how their electricity rates are set. That’s where our research comes in.

Option A: The open market

Electricity customers in deregulated retail markets can choose a company that buys the electricity on their behalf. People who live in these states may be familiar with energy salespeople who come to their homes, approach them in a convenience store, or use telemarketers.

For example, people who live in the Cincinnati area can contract with one of more than 50 suppliers to buy electricity on their behalf from the wholesale market. Their monthly bill would still come from Duke Energy, a regulated distribution utility, and would still include regulated charges for distribution and transmission set by state and federal officials. But it would also include charges from an unregulated retail supplier, for the generation part of their bill – their electric supply.

Some locations also have community choice aggregation, in which their municipality participates in the open market on their behalf unless they opt out.

Our research has found that these markets are not working as intended.

Option B: Do nothing – default service

For people who choose not to shop on the open market, by doing nothing they remain on what is called the “standard offer” or “default service.” Sometimes it is also called “provider of last resort” service because it is not meant to be the best option.

For these people, state law generally requires each distribution utility to hold auctions or use a procurement process like a request for proposals to determine which middlemen companies get to be their supplier, and of course, at what price.

People in this category still buy from middleman marketers. But rather than choosing their own middleman, they get the middleman the utility company selects for them.

Problems in the open market

People who live in states with deregulated electricity markets know that these open markets have many problems. There have been investigations into unfair trade practices, lawsuits and regulatory penalties for misleading sales practices.

Other problems include deceptive marketing, a process called “slamming” in which companies change customers’ suppliers without their knowledge, contract loopholes that increase prices, and outright fraud.

Help for consumers usually comes after problems have arisen, rather than preventing them in the first place.

Our research team sought to determine whether, and how much, electricity consumers would save money if they used the supposedly competitive open market, rather than going with the default rate. To answer this question, we developed a detailed database of every daily retail choice offer filed by every supplier in all service territories in Ohio for a decade – which meant compiling millions of records.

We found that 72.1% of the open-market offers exceeded the utility’s default rate. In some years, there was not even one single cost-saving offer for the entire year, or longer. The vast majority of these supposedly competitive electricity prices were higher than customers would get by doing nothing. Taking the time to research the market and compare prices was often not worth consumers’ time.

Importantly, the study found that suppliers in the open market were not setting their prices based on market fundamentals – like the underlying wholesale price of electricity. Instead, they were setting prices based on the results of the utility’s default supply selection. In a competitive market, that is not supposed to happen.

Is default service really competitive?

In a separate study, our team evaluated every default service auction in every utility service territory in Ohio since 2011, nearly 15 years. We found that the number of companies competing with one another in these auctions is a key determinant of the retail markup consumers have to pay.

In some of the default-option rate auctions, as few as five suppliers placed bids. In others, there were as many as 15 companies vying to provide default-option electricity. Our analysis found that in situations when the underlying costs of generating electricity were the same, default supply auctions with fewer bidders delivered significantly higher prices for consumers than auctions with more bidders.

The study included numerous statistical controls for other factors that could otherwise help explain the prices, including natural gas prices and market volatility. The number of bidders was the key factor. Having just three additional bidders could reduce consumers’ default-option rates by 18% to 23%. Nine additional bidders, the analysis found, could deliver savings of as much as 60%.

It’s important to note that Ohio’s process for setting default service rates is more robust than many other states. In some states, it is not uncommon for even fewer companies to bid. So Ohio’s situation is not actually a worst-case scenario for consumers. Rather, it’s probably better than many other states with deregulated electricity markets.

Putting it all together

The first study showed that the open market is not setting efficient retail rates and is not working as intended. Most of the offers made available to consumers are not worth their time, and the suppliers in those markets are not setting their prices based upon market fundamentals. Instead, these companies are taking their cues from the local distribution utility’s default supply auctions. That is not how deregulation was envisioned.

The second study showed that the process which sets the default supply rate is also not very competitive. Less competition means the middleman companies bidding in those auctions can bid, and win, higher prices – raising electric bills and increasing their profit margin.

Energy deregulation promised lower prices through competition. But instead, consumers got an army of middleman marketers. And, those middlemen have been taking their cues from a bidding process that often has too few participants to keep prices low.

Noah Dormady, Associate Professor of Public Policy, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Academia touts value of scholarship crossing disciplines, but doesn’t back it up

Wed, 28 Jan 2026 16:40:14 -0500

Originally published in

By Bruce Weinberg
Professor of Economics, The Ohio State University
Enrico Berkes
Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Monica Marion
PhD Candidate in Folklore and Complex Networks and Systems, Indiana University
Staša Milojević
Professor of Informatics, Indiana University

Interdisciplinary researchers are trained to conduct work that crosses between fields. PixelsEffect/E+ via Getty Images

Bruce Weinberg, The Ohio State University; Enrico Berkes, University of Maryland, Baltimore County; Monica Marion, Indiana University, and Staša Milojević, Indiana University

The most exciting landmark scientific achievements don’t happen without researchers sharing and collaborating with others outside their field. When people first landed on the Moon in 1969, Neil Armstrong’s first footsteps marked the realization of a century-long vision that integrated a variety of scientific fields. Landing on the Moon required expertise in electrical, mechanical, chemical and computer engineering, as well as astronomy and physics.

Similarly, the advances in genetics that have made the biotechnology revolution possible involved contributions from disciplines as far ranging as biology, mathematics and statistics, chemistry and computer science.

Today, some of the biggest challenges that scientists face are interdisciplinary in nature – from studying the effects of climate change to managing generative artificial intelligence.

Climate change isn’t only an environmental problem, just like the impact of AI isn’t solely technological. Scientists in a variety of disciplines can independently come up with ways to examine these issues, but as research has shown, the most effective approaches often integrate multiple fields.

Our own interdisciplinary team of researchers in economics and informatics – itself an interdisciplinary field focused on technology, information and people – explored the career hurdles that many interdisciplinary researchers face in a study published in July 2024. We studied how these challenges affect their careers and the production of interdisciplinary research.

Infrastructure and interdisciplinary work

Government and private funders alike have introduced programs to support interdisciplinary work. Universities foster interdisciplinary research through joint appointments, hiring multiple faculty at once, centers that span disciplines, and graduate programs that join different fields.

With these efforts, you might expect a high demand and exceptional career outcomes for interdisciplinary researchers. However, this does not appear to be the case. The American academic system is still very much dominated by disciplines and academic departments. A researcher whose work doesn’t fit neatly into a category can easily fall through the cracks.

The structure of distinct disciplines and departments is deeply embedded in universities. Many researchers have trouble finding a journal willing to publish interdisciplinary papers or a department willing to offer interdisciplinary classes. Students interested in this work have difficulty finding mentors.

When interdisciplinary researchers apply for jobs, promotion and tenure, hiring committees made up of members of a single discipline may have difficulty evaluating their work. That issue can put these researchers at a disadvantage, compared to candidates with more traditional backgrounds.

Interdisciplinary centers, institutes and programs are often less permanent structures than departments. Sometimes they’re devised as solutions to fill in the cracks between the work done in different departments or to address real-world problems. These centers are a kind of borderlands – they can attract scientists, especially established ones, who want to identify and pivot toward new research problems. But they’re not generally designed to support scientists’ careers long term.

Career challenges

Our 2024 study focused on biomedical research, which can benefit from an interdisciplinary approach because of the complexity of biological processes and human behavior.

To start, we wanted to understand whether researchers with interdisciplinary training had longer careers publishing their research than those without. The results were stark.

Interdisciplinary researchers stopped publishing much earlier than researchers who stuck to a single discipline. The most interdisciplinary researchers – those whose work draws the most on other disciplines beyond their primary field – had the shortest careers. Half of the most interdisciplinary researchers – the top 1% in terms of the interdisciplinarity of their work as graduate students – stopped publishing within eight years of graduation. Moderately interdisciplinary and single-discipline researchers kept publishing for more than 20 years.

Many interdisciplinary researchers left academia early in their career, by the point when most scholars transition into faculty positions and start to get promoted or receive tenure.

Many researchers who leave do important work in industry and other sectors. However, the high attrition rate of these researchers in biomedicine means that few senior scientists remain in academia to conduct interdisciplinary research or train future interdisciplinary researchers.

Researchers who started out as interdisciplinary tended to become more focused on one discipline early in their careers, as if recognizing that disciplinary work is the smoothest route to success.

However, we also found that over the 40-year period our study examined, biomedical research became more interdisciplinary overall. Ironically, single-discipline researchers, whose interdisciplinary work tends to be lower quality, drove that growth, becoming more interdisciplinary as their careers progressed.

But our study found that these researchers usually didn’t have specialized training in interdisciplinary research. They may have become more interdisciplinary through collaborations with researchers in other fields.

So, even though the overall level of interdisciplinarity in the field increased, trained interdisciplinary researchers left academia, and the single-discipline researchers without the same training were the ones conducting much of the interdisciplinary work.

Consequences for research

Our findings indicate another striking trend: Researchers entering the research community tended to be less interdisciplinary than the ones already in it.

Studies have shown that early career researchers often do the most innovative work. But at this formative career stage, they do not lend their talents to interdisciplinary work as frequently.

While many people in the academic community say they want to see more interdisciplinary research, the new, more discipline-focused scholars joining the system aren’t conducting this work.

Our analysis suggests that finding ways for universities, departments and funders to support early career interdisciplinary researchers could keep these scholars from leaving and increase the output of interdisciplinary work.

Many difficult societal problems will require research that cuts across the lines of established disciplines to solve. Right now, academia rewards scholars who work within disciplinary boundaries and climb the departmental career ladder.

To remedy this issue, universities and funding agencies could create better incentives for collaboration and research that addresses critical problems regardless of the discipline. These changes could create space for interdisciplinary researchers to thrive and become mentors for future generations of scientists.

Bruce Weinberg, Professor of Economics, The Ohio State University; Enrico Berkes, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Maryland, Baltimore County; Monica Marion, Ph.D. Candidate in Folklore and Complex Networks and Systems, Indiana University, and Staša Milojević, Professor of Informatics, Indiana University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Far fewer Americans support political violence than recent polls suggest

Mon, 10 Nov 2025 11:30:08 -0500

Originally published in

By Ryan Kennedy

Timashev Chair of Data Analytics and Professor of Political Science,
The Ohio State University

Some surveys have reported that a large number of Americans are willing to support the use of force for political ends. stellalevi, DigitalVision Vectors/Getty Images

A series of recent events has sparked alarm about rising levels of political violence in the U.S. These episodes include the assassination of political activist Charlie Kirk on Sept. 10, 2025; the murder of a Democratic Minnesota state legislator and her husband in June 2025; and two attempts to kill Donald Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign.

Some surveys have reported that a large number of Americans are willing to support the use of force for political ends, or they believe that political violence may sometimes be justified.

My research is in political science and data analytics. I have conducted surveys for almost 25 years. For the past three years, I have studied new techniques that leverage artificial intelligence to conduct and analyze interviews.

My own recent surveys, which use AI to ask people about why they give their answers, show that the surprisingly high level of support in response to these questions is likely the result of confusion about what these questions are asking, not actual support for political violence.

A failure to communicate

Why would multiple surveys get the answers to this important question wrong? I believe the cause is an issue called response error. It means that respondents don’t interpret a question in the way the researcher thinks they will.

As a result, the answers people provide don’t really reflect what the researcher thinks the answers show.

For example, asking whether someone would support the use of force to achieve a political goal raises the question of what the respondent thinks “use of force” means in this context. It could be interpreted as violence, but it could also be interpreted as using legal means to “force” someone to do something.

Such response errors have been a concern for pollsters ever since survey research began. They can affect even seemingly straightforward questions.

What did you mean by that?

To avoid this problem, I used an AI interviewing system developed by CloudResearch, a well-known survey research company, to ask respondents some of the same questions about political violence from previous surveys. Then I used it to ask what they were thinking when they answered those questions. This process is called cognitive interviewing.

I then used AI to go through these interviews and categorize them. Two short reports that summarize this process as applied to both polls are available online. These analyses have not been peer-reviewed, and the results should be considered very preliminary.

Nonetheless, the results clearly demonstrate that respondents interpret these questions in very different ways.

Nuance matters

For example, in my survey, about 33% of Democrats agreed with the statement that “use of force is justified to remove President Trump from office.” However, when asked why they agreed, more than 57% gave responses like this: “I was not thinking physically but more in the sense that he – the president – might need to be ‘fired’ or forced out of office due to rules or laws.” Still others were envisioning future scenarios where a president illegally seizes power in a coup.

Once you account for these different interpretations of the question, the AI only coded about 8% of Democrats as supporting use of force in violent terms under current conditions.

Even here, there was substantial ambiguity – for example, this type of response was not unusual: “The language ‘use of force’ was a bit too broad for me. I could not justify killing Trump, for example, but less extreme uses of force were valid in my eyes.”

Similarly, 29% of Republicans agreed that “use of the military is justified to stop protests against President Trump’s agenda.” However, almost all of the respondents who agreed with this statement envisioned the National Guard interceding nonviolently to stop violent protests and riots. Only about 2.6% of Republicans gave comments supporting use of the military against nonviolent protests.

Almost all those who agreed that use of the military was justified expressed thoughts like this: “I see the military coming and acting as a police force to stop or prevent the demonstrations that become violent. Peaceful protesters must be allowed to exercise their right to free speech.”

When is political violence justified?

Even questions that explicitly ask about political violence are open to wide interpretation. Take, for example, this question: “Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals?”

The lack of a specific scenario or location in this question invites respondents to engage in all kinds of philosophical and historical speculation.

In my survey, almost 15% of respondents said violence could sometimes be justified. When asked about the examples they were thinking of, respondents cited the American Revolution, the anti-Nazi French Resistance and many other incidents as a reason for their responses. Only about 3% of respondents said they were thinking about actions in the U.S. at the current time.

Moreover, almost all respondents stated that violence should be a last resort when all other peaceful and legal methods fail.

One respondent illustrated both problems with one sentence: “The (American) colonists tried petitions and negotiations first, but, when those efforts failed, they resorted to armed conflict to gain independence.”

A call for understanding

Even these numbers likely overestimate Americans’ support for political violence. I read the interviews, checking the AI system’s labeling, and concluded that, if anything, it was overestimating support for violence.

Other factors may also be distorting reports of public support for political violence. Many surveys are conducted primarily online. One study estimated that anywhere from 4% to 7% of respondents in online surveys are “bogus respondents” who are selecting arbitrary responses. Another study reported that such respondents dramatically increase positive responses on questions about political violence.

Respondents may also be willing to espouse attitudes anonymously online that they would never say or do in real life. Studies have suggested that “online disinhibition effects” or “survey trolling” can impact survey results.

In sum, my preliminary research suggests that response error is a substantial problem in surveys about political violence.

Americans almost universally condemn the recent political violence they have witnessed. The recent poll results showing otherwise more likely stem from confusion about what the questions are asking than actual support for political violence.

Ryan Kennedy, Timashev Chair of Data Analytics and Professor of Political Science, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Approaching the age of commercial space stations

Wed, 01 Oct 2025 10:02:36 -0400

Originally published in

By John M. Horack,

Vice President for Research and Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
The Ohio State University

The International Space Station will be brought down in 2030. NASA via AP

For 24 hours a day, seven days a week since November 2000, NASA and its international partners have sustained a continuous human presence in low-Earth orbit, including at least one American – a streak that will soon reach 25 years.

When viewed in the history of spaceflight, the International Space Station is perhaps one of humanity’s most amazing accomplishments, a shining example of cooperation in space among the United States, Europe, Canada, Japan and Russia. But all good things must come to an end.

In 2030, the International Space Station will be deorbited: driven into a remote area of the Pacific Ocean.

I’m an aerospace engineer who has helped build a range of hardware and experiments for the ISS. As a member of the spaceflight community for over 30 years and a 17-year member of the NASA community, it will be hard for me to see the ISS come to an end.

Since the first pieces of the International Space Station were launched in 1998, the station has been home to significant research accomplishments across domains that include materials science, biotechnology, astronomy and astrophysics, Earth science, combustion and more.

Astronauts performing research inside the space station and payload experiments attached to the station’s exterior have generated many publications in peer-reviewed science journals. Some of them have advanced our understanding of thunderstorms, led to improvements in the crystallization processes of key cancer-fighting drugs, detailed how to grow artificial retinas in space, explored the processing of ultrapure optical fibers and explained how to sequence DNA in orbit.

In total, more than 4,000 experiments have been conducted aboard the ISS, resulting in more than 4,400 research publications dedicated to advancing and improving life on Earth and helping forge a path for future space exploration activities.

The ISS has proven the value of conducting research in the unique environment of spaceflight – which has very low gravity, a vacuum, extreme temperature cycles and radiation – to advance scientists’ understanding of a wide range of important physical, chemical and biological processes.

Keeping a presence in orbit

But in the wake of the station’s retirement, NASA and its international partners are not abandoning their outpost in low-Earth orbit. Instead, they are looking for alternatives to continue to take advantage of low Earth orbit’s promise as a unique research laboratory and to extend the continuous, 25-year human presence some 250 miles (402 kilometers) above the Earth’s surface.

In December 2021, NASA announced three awards to help develop privately owned, commercially operated space stations in low-Earth orbit.

For years, NASA has successfully sent supplies to the International Space Station using commercial partners, and the agency recently began similar business arrangements with SpaceX and Boeing for transporting crew aboard the Dragon and Starliner spacecraft, respectively.

Based on the success of these programs, NASA invested more than US$400 million to stimulate the development of commercial space stations and hopefully launch and activate them before the ISS is decommissioned.

Dawn of commercial space stations

In September 2025, NASA issued a draft announcement for Phase 2 partnership proposals for commercial space stations. Companies that are selected will receive funding to support critical design reviews and demonstrate stations with four people in orbit for at least 30 days.

NASA will then move forward with formal design acceptance and certification to ensure that these stations meet NASA’s stringent safety requirements. The outcome will allow NASA to purchase missions and other services aboard these stations on a commercial basis – similar to how NASA gets cargo and crew to the ISS today.

Which of these teams will be successful, and on what timescale, remains to be seen.

While these stations are being built, Chinese astronauts will continue to live and work aboard their Tiangong space station, a three-person, permanently crewed facility orbiting approximately 250 miles (402 km) above the Earth’s surface. Consequently, if the ISS’s occupied streak comes to an end, China and Tiangong will take over as the longest continually inhabited space station in operation: It’s been occupied for approximately four years and counting.

In the meantime, enjoy the view

It will be several years before any of these new commercial space stations circle the Earth at around 17,500 miles per hour (28,000 kilometers per hour) and several years before the ISS is deorbited in 2030.

So while you have a chance, take a look up and enjoy the view. On most nights when the ISS flies over, it is simply magnificent: a brilliant blue-white point of light, usually the brightest object in the sky, silently executing a graceful arc across the sky.

Our ancestors could hardly have imagined that one day, one of the brightest objects in the night sky would have been conceived by the human mind and built by human hands.

John M. Horack, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Universities aim to help solve air traffic controller shortage

Fri, 30 May 2025 09:50:52 -0400

Originally published in

By Melanie Dickman

Lecturer in Aviation Studies, The Ohio State University
and Brian Strzempkowski

Assistant Director, Center for Aviation Studies, The Ohio State University

Air traffic controllers observe a plane taking off from San Francisco International Airport in 2017. AP Photo/Jeff Chiu

Air traffic controllers have been in the news a lot lately.

A spate of airplane crashes and near misses have highlighted the ongoing shortage of air traffic workers, leading more Americans to question the safety of air travel.

The shortage, as well as aging computer systems, have also led to massive flight disruptions at airports across the country, particularly at Newark Liberty International Airport. The staffing shortage is also likely at the center of an investigation of a deadly crash between a commercial plane and an Army helicopter over Washington, D.C., in January 2025.

One reason for the air traffic controller shortage relates to the demands of the job: The training to become a controller is extremely intense, and the Federal Aviation Administration wants only highly qualified personnel to fill those seats, which has made it difficult for what has been the sole training center in the U.S., located in Oklahoma City, to churn out enough qualified graduates each year.

As scholars who study and teach tomorrow’s aviation professionals, we are working to be part of the solution. Our program at Ohio State University is applying to join over two dozen other schools in an effort to train air traffic controllers and help alleviate the shortage.

Air traffic controller school

Air traffic control training today – overseen by the Federal Aviation Administration – remains as intense as it’s ever been.

In fact, about 30% of students fail to make it from their first day of training at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City to the status of a certified professional air traffic controller. The academy currently trains the majority of the air traffic controllers in the U.S.

Before someone is accepted into the training program, they must meet several qualifications. That includes being a U.S. citizen under the age of 31 and speaking English clearly enough to be understood over the radio. The low recruitment age is because controllers currently have a mandatory retirement age of 56 – with some exceptions – and the FAA wants them to work for at least 25 years in the job.

They must also pass a medical exam and security investigation. And they must pass the air traffic controller specialists skills assessment battery, which measures an applicant’s spatial awareness and decision-making abilities.

Candidates, additionally, must have three years of general work experience, or a combination of postsecondary education and work experience totaling at least three years.

This alone is no easy feat. Fewer than 10% of applicants meet those initial requirements and are accepted into training.

Intense training

Once applicants meet the initial qualifications, they begin a strenuous training process.

This begins with several weeks of classroom instruction and several months of simulator training. There are several types of simulators, and a student is assigned to a simulator based on the type of facility for which they will be hired – which depends on a trainee’s preference and where controllers are needed.

There are two main types of air traffic facilities: control towers and radar. Anyone who has flown on a plane has likely seen a control tower near the runways, with 360 degrees of tall glass windows to monitor the skies nearby. Controllers there mainly look outside to direct aircraft but also use radar to monitor the airspace and assist aircraft in taking off and landing safely.

Radar facilities, on the other hand, monitor aircraft solely through the use of information depicted on a screen. This includes aircraft flying just outside the vicinity of a major airport or when they’re at higher altitudes and crisscrossing the skies above the U.S. The controllers ensure they don’t fly too close to one another as they follow their flight paths between airports.

If the candidates make it through the first stage, which takes about six months and extensive testing to meet standards, they will be sent to their respective facilities.

Once there, they again go to the classroom, learning the details of the airspace they will be working in. There are more assessments and chances to “wash out” and have to leave the program.

Finally, the candidates are paired with an experienced controller who conducts on-the-job training to control real aircraft. This process may take an additional year or more. It depends on the complexity of the airspace and the amount of aircraft traffic at the site.

Increasing the employment pipeline

But no matter how good the training is, if there aren’t enough graduates, that’s a problem for managing the increasingly crowded skies.

The FAA is currently facing a deficit of about 3,000 controllers and has unveiled a plan in May 2025 to increase hiring and boost retention. In addition, Congress is mulling spending billions of dollars to update the FAA’s aging systems and hire more air traffic controllers.

Other plans include paying retention bonuses and allowing more controllers to work beyond the age of 56. That retirement age was put in place in the 1970s on the assumption that cognition for most people begins to decline around then, although research shows that age alone is not necessarily a predictor of cognitive abilities.

But we believe that aviation programs and universities can play an important role fixing the shortage by providing FAA Academy-level training.

Currently, 32 universities including the Florida Institute of Technology and Arizona State University partner with the FAA in its collegiate training initiative to provide basic air traffic control training, which gives graduates automatic entry into the FAA Academy and allows them to skip five weeks of coursework.

The institution where we work, Ohio State University, is currently working on becoming the 33rd this summer and plans to offer an undergraduate major in aviation with specialization in air traffic control.

This helps, but an enhanced version of this program, announced in October 2024, allows graduates of a select few of those universities to skip the FAA Academy altogether and go straight to a control tower or radar facility once they’ve passed all the extensive tests. These schools must match or exceed the level of rigor in their training with the FAA Academy itself.

At the end of the program, students are required to pass an evaluation by an FAA-approved evaluator to ensure that the student graduating from the program meets the same standards as all FAA Academy graduates and is prepared to go to their assigned facility for further training. So far, five schools, such as the University of North Dakota, have joined this program and are currently training air traffic controllers. We intend to join this group in the near future.

Allowing colleges and universities to start the training process while students are still in school should accelerate the pace at which new controllers enter the workforce, alleviate the shortage and make the skies over the U.S. as safe as they can be.

Melanie Dickman, Lecturer in Aviation Studies, The Ohio State University and Brian Strzempkowski, Assistant Director, Center for Aviation Studies, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How and where is nuclear waste stored in the US?

Wed, 23 Apr 2025 08:56:56 -0400

Originally published in

By Gerald Frankel

Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, The Ohio State University

Around the U.S., about 90,000 tons of nuclear waste is stored at over 100 sites in 39 states, in a range of different structures and containers.

For decades, the nation has been trying to send it all to one secure location.

A 1987 federal law named Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, as a permanent disposal site for nuclear waste – but political and legal challenges led to construction delays. Work on the site had barely started before Congress ended the project’s funding altogether in 2011.

The 94 nuclear reactors currently operating at 54 power plants continue to generate more radioactive waste. Public and commercial interest in nuclear power is rising because of concerns regarding emissions from fossil fuel power plants and the possibility of new applications for smaller-scale nuclear plants to power data centers and manufacturing. This renewed interest gives new urgency to the effort to find a place to put the waste.

In March 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments related to the effort to find a temporary storage location for the nation’s nuclear waste – a ruling is expected by late June. No matter the outcome, the decades-long struggle to find a permanent place to dispose of nuclear waste will probably continue for many years to come.

I am a scholar who specializes in corrosion; one focus of my work has been containing nuclear waste during temporary storage and permanent disposal. There are generally two forms of significantly radioactive waste in the U.S.: waste from making nuclear weapons during the Cold War, and waste from generating electricity at nuclear power plants. There are also small amounts of other radioactive waste, such as that associated with medical treatments.

Waste from weapons manufacturing

Remnants of the chemical processing of radioactive material needed to manufacture nuclear weapons, often called “defense waste,” will eventually be melted along with glass, with the resulting material poured into stainless steel containers. These canisters are 10 feet tall and 2 feet in diameter, weighing approximately 5,000 pounds when filled.

For now, though, most of it is stored in underground steel tanks, primarily at Hanford, Washington, and Savannah River, South Carolina, key sites in U.S. nuclear weapons development. At Savannah River, some of the waste has already been processed with glass, but much of it remains untreated.

At both of those locations, some of the radioactive waste has already leaked into the soil beneath the tanks, though officials have said there is no danger to human health. Most of the current efforts to contain the waste focus on protecting the tanks from corrosion and cracking to prevent further leakage.

Waste from electricity generation

The vast majority of nuclear waste in the U.S. is spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants.

Before it is used, nuclear fuel exists as uranium oxide pellets that are sealed within zirconium tubes, which are themselves bundled together. These bundles of fuel rods are about 12 to 16 feet long and about 5 to 8 inches in diameter. In a nuclear reactor, the fission reactions fueled by the uranium in those rods emit heat that is used to create hot water or steam to drive turbines and generate electricity.

After about three to five years, the fission reactions in a given bundle of fuel slow down significantly, even though the material remains highly radioactive. The spent fuel bundles are removed from the reactor and moved elsewhere on the power plant’s property, where they are placed into a massive pool of water to cool them down.

After about five years, the fuel bundles are removed, dried and sealed in welded stainless steel canisters. These canisters are still radioactive and thermally hot, so they are stored outdoors in concrete vaults that sit on concrete pads, also on the power plant’s property. These vaults have vents to ensure air flows past the canisters to continue cooling them.

As of December 2024, there were over 315,000 bundles of spent nuclear fuel rods in the U.S., and over 3,800 dry storage casks in concrete vaults above ground, located at current and former power plants across the country.

Even reactors that have been decommissioned and demolished still have concrete vaults storing radioactive waste, which must be secured and maintained by the power company that owned the nuclear plant.

The threat of water

One threat to these storage methods is corrosion.

Because they need water to both transfer nuclear energy into electricity and to cool the reactor, nuclear power plants are always located alongside sources of water.

In the U.S., nine are within two miles of the ocean, which poses a particular threat to the waste containers. As waves break on the coastline, saltwater is sprayed into the air as particles. When those salt and water particles settle on metal surfaces, they can cause corrosion, which is why it’s common to see heavily corroded structures near the ocean.

At nuclear waste storage locations near the ocean, that salt spray can settle on the steel canisters. Generally, stainless steel is resistant to corrosion, which you can see in the shiny pots and pans in many Americans’ kitchens. But in certain circumstances, localized pits and cracks can form on stainless steel surfaces.

In recent years, the U.S. Department of Energy has funded research, including my own, into the potential dangers of this type of corrosion. The general findings are that stainless steel canisters could pit or crack when stored near a seashore. But a radioactive leak would require not only corrosion of the container but also of the zirconium rods and of the fuel inside them. So it is unlikely that this type of corrosion would result in the release of radioactivity.

A long way off

A more permanent solution is likely years, or decades, away.

Not only must a long-term site be geologically suitable to store nuclear waste for thousands of years, but it must also be politically palatable to the American people. In addition, there will be many challenges associated with transporting the waste, in its containers, by road or rail, from reactors across the country to wherever that permanent site ultimately is.

Perhaps there will be a temporary site whose location passes muster with the Supreme Court. But in the meantime, the waste will stay where it is.

Gerald Frankel, Distinguished Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Spending, regulations and DOGE: OMB director has vital role

Fri, 24 Jan 2025 14:30:00 -0500

Originally published in

By Bridget C.E. Dooling

Assistant Professor of Law, The Ohio State University

Martha Coven, Princeton University

One of the Office of Management and Budget’s biggest roles is writing an administration’s federal budget – but that’s far from its only job. AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

The Office of Management and Budget sounds obscure, yet the agency plays a crucial role throughout the federal government. Presidents rely on the office to turn their ideas and wishes into actionable and funded policies.

To explain what the Office of Management and Budget does, the role of its director and the challenges it faces, The Conversation turned to Martha Coven and Bridget C.E. Dooling, who are experts on the federal budget and federal regulations and who both worked at OMB.

What does the Office of Management and Budget do?

The Office of Management and Budget, known as OMB, is a small but powerful agency housed within the Executive Office of the President. It is the central nervous system of the federal government, helping to implement the president’s vision for federal policy and operations while fulfilling its own legally mandated functions.

OMB’s responsibilities include:

Overseeing all budgetary matters, from preparing the president’s annual budget request to Congress to implementing spending laws passed by Congress. The office also coordinates what happens when the government shuts down after funding runs out. In other words, it stays on top of what it costs to run the federal government.

Coordinating and reviewing draft agency regulations, as well as aspects of how the government collects, analyzes and discloses information for statistical and other purposes.

Circulating virtually all draft executive orders and presidential memoranda to gather agency feedback.

Reviewing documents prepared by federal agencies before they go to Congress, including hearing testimony and proposals for new legislation and developing the formal administration position on draft legislation.

Overseeing management matters such as contracting, grants administration and information technology policy for all parts of the federal government. This work includes initiatives that cut across many agencies, such as the ongoing effort to improve the customer experience for government services.

OMB employs approximately 500 staff, nearly 90% of whom are civil servants. These are employees who are not tied to a particular presidency, who must be hired based on merit, and who do the day-to-day work of government.

What’s the role of its director?

The director of the Office of Management and Budget, which is a position that needs to be confirmed by the Senate, is unusual in serving both as a member of the president’s Cabinet and as a senior White House staffer. Most Cabinet secretaries spend relatively little time in the White House; their time is taken up running their agencies and traveling the country or even the globe.

The director, whose office is steps away from the White House in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, is a regular presence in the West Wing, advising on a range of domestic, economic and national security matters, particularly from the perspective of how a decision might affect the federal budget, regulations or government operations.

At the same time, the director, who reports to the president, is responsible for running OMB as an agency and providing leadership to its staff. The director is also frequently in conversation with other agency heads and members of Congress.

The OMB director has two Senate-confirmed deputies, as well as several others in leadership positions to help run the agency. Some of these positions are Senate-confirmed as well.

How important is OMB to an administration’s plans?

OMB plays a critical role because the agency uniquely possesses the combination of authority, expertise and intragovernmental relationships that are often necessary to turn significant policy changes into action.

For example, the reforms envisioned by President-elect Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency – which is not a government department, despite its name – would typically require OMB’s budget, regulatory or management team’s involvement to move forward.

Proposals to cut federal programs ordinarily appear in the president’s budget, which OMB prepares for Congress every year. Proposals to eliminate or modify federal regulations must first be drafted and published by agencies in a process called rulemaking that OMB oversees. And OMB has experience with efforts to improve government efficiency – for example, in federal contracting. Indeed, the official statement from Trump announcing “DOGE” stated that the group “will partner with the White House and the Office of Management & Budget,” an acknowledgment of OMB’s central role in carrying out DOGE’s ambitions.

While OMB staff offer institutional memory, know-how and analytical skills to help advise any administration, the agency does not do its work alone. Much of OMB’s institutional strength comes from relationships with technical experts on every topic across the federal government who help identify potential problems and solutions.

In our view, White House and OMB leadership is at its best when it works closely with the agency’s staff to use federal agencies’ expertise. That way, it can ensure the president’s priorities are implemented effectively and efficiently.

What are OMB’s biggest challenges right now?

Coordinating the work of the US$6.8 trillion enterprise known as the U.S. government is not easy. Every administration has multiple power centers, which can make it difficult for the OMB director to ensure consistent application of the law and pursuit of presidential priorities across the federal government, despite the frequently competing interests of individual agencies.

The director is also frequently the person to say “no” to agency or White House staff ambitions, due to constraints on executive branch authority, how much money can be spent or whether there are the staff resources to carry out those ambitions.

In a second Trump administration, however, OMB leadership may be less focused on restraint and more on asserting unilateral presidential power. Trump plans to renominate former OMB Director Russell Vought, who is a driving force behind controversial ideas such as impounding federal funds rather than spending them as Congress directed. In addition, in the final months of Trump’s first term, Vought sought to make civil servants – including OMB’s own staff – easier to fire for inappropriate “temperament” or other factors, known as moving them to Schedule F status, which would strip civil servants of their job protections.

Vought’s second stint as OMB director, if he is confirmed, and if he picks up where he left off on impoundment and Schedule F, will be marked by tension with at least two core constituencies: members of Congress and civil servants.

The OMB director is also always in the middle of any discussion about fiscal policy, where a challenge will be the steadily rising national debt, which is on track to eclipse its World War II-era record as a share of gross domestic product.

Moreover, Congress and Trump are hoping to extend the large, expensive tax cuts passed during his first term and potentially expand them.

While OMB does not play a lead role in planning how the federal government raises the money to operate, the director will nonetheless have to defend to lawmakers and others any increases in the deficit and debt, unless Congress and the president can agree on substantial spending cuts or revenue increases.

This story is part of a series of profiles of Cabinet and high-level administration positions.

Martha Coven, Visiting Lecturer in Princeton School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University and Bridget C.E. Dooling, Assistant Professor of Law, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

High rises made out of wood?

Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:00:00 -0500

Originally published in

By Brent Sohngen

Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics, The Ohio State University

Forest plantations are dedicated to growing commercial timber. Soil Science/flickr, CC BY

A material that’s been around since people built shelters – wood – is increasingly being proposed for low- and mid-rise buildings.

Companies behind these “mass timber” projects say that wood is a lower-carbon alternative to steel or concrete and brings other benefits, such as faster construction time and lower cost than concrete and steel. Advocates say the wood materials, made of compressed layers of wood with glue, offer good fire safety as well.

As an economist who studies forestry and natural resources, I took an interest in this building trend when I heard that a local bar on campus was going to be replaced by a 13-story building made out of wood.

I see any increase in the use of wood in buildings as positive for reducing the substantial carbon footprint of buildings. But it is critical to consider where wood is sourced and whether forests are managed sustainably.

The work forests do

One way that researchers assess the environmental footprint of a product or service is called a life-cycle analysis, which calculates the cradle-to-grave impact.

One life-cycle analysis found that using mass timber in a 12-story building in Oregon had an 18% lower global warming impact compared with constructing the building with steel-reinforced concrete. The carbon emissions benefits are even greater when comparing timber with steel for low- and mid-rise buildings. In these studies, the global warming benefits mostly result from lower emissions in sourcing, transporting and manufacturing the material for these large wood buildings, compared with steel or concrete components, rather than efficiencies in heating or cooling or disposal of the materials at the end of the building’s lifespan.

On a global level, the raw material for mass timber – forests – absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, making them an important carbon “sink.”

Tree cutting is one of the most widespread disturbances in forests, yet, after accounting for all harvesting, fires, land use change and other disturbances, forests in the United States still remove a net 754 million tons of CO2 per year from the atmosphere, an amount equivalent to 13.5% of U.S. emissions. Globally, the picture is similar, with forest growth removing 2.6 billion tons of CO2 more from the atmosphere than the combined effect of all wood harvesting, deforestation, forest fires and other disturbances.

Although today forests are a net CO2 sink in the U.S. – taking in more carbon from the atmosphere than released through disturbance – before the middle of the last century, they were a big source of carbon emissions. Back then, farmers converted land to agriculture, foresters cut old-growth trees to produce lumber, and forest fires raged. Carbon losses in the U.S. were so large that land-based emissions around the turn of the 20th century were on par with emissions from deforestation in tropical regions today.

Over the past 100 years, the trend has reversed, as forests have removed far more CO2 from the atmosphere than they have released. One reason for this transition has been a sustained increase in crop yields, which has allowed for greater farm output on fewer acres. As a result, grain prices fell in real terms and farmers abandoned less productive lands, allowing forests to return. These regrowing forests, in turn, removed carbon from the atmosphere.

Abandonment was not the only reason trees regrew in the U.S. Even as foresters were still sawing their way through old-growth stocks in the first half of the 1900s, some foresighted forest landowners began planting trees because timber scarcity was growing, as evidenced by timber prices rising at 3% to 4% per year. By the 1950s and 1960s, over a million acres were being planted annually in the U.S., and today, the area planted is double that.

Unlike light construction, which uses two-by-fours, two-by-sixes and plywood, mass timber pieces are laminated using multiple layers for structural wood components.

Economics of forest management

To examine whether wood is sustainably sourced, rather than contributing to higher carbon emissions, it is instructive to consider the economics of forest management.

A shift toward using wood rather than other materials in low- to mid-rise building designs will drive demand for wood products, resulting in both more harvesting and more planting. Any increase in harvesting carries risk, including an increase in carbon emissions, habitat loss, and other impacts. Perhaps the most evident effects happen when surging demand causes logging in sensitive ecosystems, critical habitats or old-growth forests. If lost, ecosystem services like biodiversity are often impossible to replace.

Carbon may be less of a worry because it can be returned to forests through regrowth. However, some critics maintain that harvests deposit CO2 in the atmosphere for the period between a timber harvest and forest regrowth, resulting in a massive CO2 emission.

There is considerable debate about this “excess” emissions hypothesis. Other research into the effects of increased wood demand illustrates that both harvesting and regeneration increase when demand rises. When timber investments are modeled alongside harvesting, carbon stocks in forested lands increase when wood demand ratchets up. This finding is not new. The example of the last century reveals that elevated timber demand and higher wood product prices strengthen incentives for landowners to intensively manage commercial forests – plant more acres, improve varieties, shift species mixes, fertilize, control drainage and manage competition.

The sustainability of mass timber will also be determined by which forests supply this new demand. It is unlikely that much of this new harvesting will happen on the 42% of U.S. forests owned by various units of government.. Many of these forests are either administratively protected – for example, as a wilderness area – or are remote and costly to access. Where cutting is allowed, logging is slowed by the considerable planning, impact assessment and public involvement required.

Even many private landowners have gotten into the habit of protecting for the purpose of environmental services. Today, over 37 million acres of private land in the U.S. are enrolled in conservation easements, which limit what current and future owners can do with their land. Not all of these protected lands are forests, but where they are, new demands for mass timber are unlikely to result in more harvesting.

Aside from these legally protected lands, forest protection happens in many private forests simply because many forest owners are inattentive or they have strong preferences for wildlife and benefits other than timber revenue. As a result, research has found that nonindustrial landowners as a whole are unlikely to expand cutting even if demand does grow substantively.

Role of planted commercial forests

At the other end of the spectrum, industrial interests own just 20% of U.S. forests, but supply 46% of the nation’s timber. An overwhelming share of these forests are managed intensively with plantations. Tree planting is so prevalent that industrial owners account for 60% of private planted forests, defined as those that are artificially regenerated via planting or seeding.

Intensive management explains how so few industrial forests can support such expansive harvesting. If demand rises, these owners will have strong incentives to increase harvests. Yet because forests are a valued asset, they will also grow more and bigger trees with new plantings and intensified management.

One effect of climate change on forestry is that rising carbon dioxide levels have increased forest growth through higher rates of photosynthesis. A 2022 paper I co-authored found that elevated levels of CO2 had a particularly large effect on wood volume in younger, planted stands. Not only did forest plantations contain more wood volume at the same age than natural stands, but our study estimated that over the past 50 years, planted stands gained 62% more volume from this carbon “fertilization”. The number of trees per acre did not change substantively over this same time period, so most of this wood volume increase resulted in bigger trees.

Between 1997 and 2017, industrial owners accounted for eight out of every 10 new hectares of planted forests on private land as they doubled plantation area. No one will confuse these forests for old-growth forests, but from a commercial perspective, planted trees have become the lowest cost source of timber. They also relieve pressure on natural stands.

More critically for the atmosphere, expanding the area of young, fast-growing stands enhances the overall carbon sink of forests and brings an incentive to manage forests that serve the built environment.

Brent Sohngen, Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Trump voters said they were angry about the economy – many had a point

Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:56:22 -0500

Originally published in

By Don Leonard
Assistant Professor of Practice in City and Regional Planning, The Ohio State University

Many people work full time but struggle to pay their bills. Reza Estakhrian/The Image Bank via Getty Images

Inflation has slowed down, and real incomes – typical wages adjusted for inflation – have bounced back to levels last seen before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Democrats campaigned in 2024 on the overall strength of the economy. President Joe Biden proclaimed in the days following the election that the U.S. economy is “the strongest in the world.”

Yet Republicans retook the White House, and are on track to retake both houses of Congress, in part by casting a much dimmer view of the economy. President-elect Donald Trump campaigned on the supposed strength of his first-term economic record, only to characterize current conditions as a “cesspool of ruin.”

Economists argue that Republican nostalgia for the economy under Trump’s first term is largely misguided. However, the GOP’s pessimism over current economic conditions resonated with voters.

Some analysts have dismissed voters’ concerns about the economy as merely a perception problem. Many economists and investors have been calling this mismatch between rosy macroeconomic indicators and public opinion a “vibecession.” The implication is that because there’s no recession underway or around the corner, widespread economic pessimism is unwarranted and irrational.

Given that the economy was the top issue in the minds of most American voters, was the 2024 election decided by vibes alone?

As a political economist and regional planner, I have sought to understand the causes of this apparent mismatch between economic indicators and the perceptions of everyday Americans. What I learned is that, for at least 20 million U.S. households, there is good cause for disillusionment. The method the federal government uses to calculate real incomes tends to capture the economic realities of higher-income people better than those of working-class and middle-class Americans.

Real income rose, at least officially

Peaking at a 40-year high of 9% in June 2022, elevated inflation rates helped push real incomes for the typical household down from US$81,210 in 2019 to $77,540 in 2022, as wage growth failed to keep up with rising prices.

In 2023, real income for the typical American – the amount of money they’re making, adjusted for inflation so you can track how it changes over time – rebounded to $80,610.

And yet consumer sentiment remains at low levels typically seen only during economic recessions. According to one Pew survey, the share of Americans who say that their personal financial situation is in excellent or good shape declined from 50% in 2019 to 41% in 2024.

Not all baskets are created equal

The consumer price index for all urban consumers is the measure of inflation that the Bureau of Labor Statistics uses to calculate real incomes. To arrive at this figure, the bureau averages the prices for a basket of goods and services. It then assigns weights to individual items based on their relative importance in terms of what average American consumers spend on things like food, housing and medical care.

To understand why this method of averaging can skew real income and inflation data to reflect the economic realities of wealthier households, consider what’s going on with housing, the biggest expense for most Americans.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics presumes that housing accounts for 36.5% of all expenditures for the average American household. That leaves 63.5% of their purchasing power left to cover the costs of other goods and services.

By itself, that’s a staggering figure. The Department of Housing and Urban Development officially considers anyone spending more than 30% of their household’s income on housing to be “cost-burdened.” That means they “may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.”

The problem is that, in 2023, nearly 15% of all U.S. households, including 24% of those who rent, spent more than half of their income on housing. These 20 million American households, who the housing department considers severely cost-burdened, surely don’t have enough disposable income left over after paying for shelter to cover other basic necessities.

To make matters worse, this predicament isn’t evenly distributed. Lower-income families are much more likely to rent, and renters are more likely to be severely cost-burdened.

To be sure, the Bureau of Labor Statistics acknowledges that its methods don’t always reflect reality when it comes to estimating how much a given household spends on one category of goods or another.

However, one problem with this distortion is that the errors systematically understate the impact that rising housing costs have on low-income families.

Other basket cases

The problems with the consumer price index aren’t limited to housing.

Based on my analysis, the way the bureau assesses health care costs is also deeply flawed. One of the assumptions behind the consumer price index is that households spend 8% of their income on health care. But all Americans pay far more than that, according to a 2020 Rand Corporation study.

Middle-income people spend around 21%, the lowest-earning households spend 34%, and the highest-earning U.S. households spend 16% of their income on medical services, Rand found.

Virtually everyone spends money on housing and health care. But the consumer price index also takes into account items that not everyone has to spend money on at a given point in time.

For example, the index assumes that American households spend, on average, only 0.7% of household income on child care or preschool each year. For families with infants or toddlers, the reality is much grimmer. One 2024 survey put the average cost of child care at 24% of household income.

Another expense that not everyone has to deal with is higher education.

The consumer price index assumes that the average American household spends 2.4% of its income on college tuition and fees each year. This number is more difficult to parse, as education expenses and financial aid vary dramatically. So do student loan burdens and repayment plans.

But anyone paying college tuition or juggling student loan payments is clearly spending more than 2.4% of their income per year on those bills. And the share of total income devoted to student loan payments is far higher for the people who are least able to afford them.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics uses this approach because not everybody has these expenses in a given year. While that might make some sense in terms of national statistics, it doesn’t reflect consumer reality for large segments of the population – including recent college grads, parents and people facing expensive medical procedures.

For all Americans facing the steep cost of medical care, and for those also paying for college or child care, wage growth has not kept up with their expenses. And while wages do appear to be keeping up with rising housing costs according to the consumer price index, lower-income Americans spend a much larger share of their household income on shelter than its estimates would suggest.

Economy was on many voters’ minds

Based on the disconnect I’ve identified between what the official data says about current economic conditions and what millions of Americans are going through, I wasn’t surprised to see the GOP make inroads in 2024 with working-class and middle-class voters.

According to the exit poll data, Kamala Harris won among families who made less than $30,000 in 2023 and those who made more than $100,000. By comparison, Trump won among families who earned between $30,000 and $99,999 — too much to qualify for government assistance, but – in many cases – not enough to get by.

This election was about more than just pessimistic vibes. For tens of millions of American families, it was about real economic pain that isn’t as easy to spot in official economic data as it probably should be.

Don Leonard, Assistant Professor of Practice in City and Regional Planning, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

LGBTQ+ voters in 4 states could swing the presidential election

Mon, 28 Oct 2024 14:54:51 -0400

Originally published in

By Dorian Rhea Debussy

Lecturer of Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, The Ohio State University

LGBTQ+ voters lean heavily Democratic, and they tend to turn out in high numbers. Dani VG via Getty Images

Victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election may come down to LGBTQ+ voters.

Polling data shows that Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are running in a near-dead heat in four states – Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. And as a scholar of LGBTQ+ politics, I suspect that LGBTQ+ voters could play an outsize role in these states and the race.

So, how might LGBTQ+ voters swing these states?

LGBTQ+ voting behavior, explained

In the most comprehensive political survey of LGBTQ+ Americans ever conducted, the Pew Research Center found in 2013 that the vast majority of respondents – 85% – “always” or “nearly always” voted, compared with roughly a third of the general population. Turnout in the most recent presidential election validated that finding. A 2020 post-election survey by the advocacy group GLAAD found that 81% of LGBTQ+ voters cast a ballot.

For context, 64% of all eligible voters cast a ballot in the 2020 presidential election, which was unusually high voter participation. Historically, turnout hovers around 55% for presidential elections and 35% for midterm elections.

The National Center for Transgender Equality, an advocacy organization, finds that voter turnout is particularly high among transgender people.

Even in the historically low-turnout 2014 midterm election, the group’s data indicated that roughly half of transgender respondents had voted, compared with only one-third of the general population. In the 2022 midterm election, transgender voter turnout increased to nearly 75%, according to the 2024 U.S. Trans Survey.

LGBTQ+ voters and partisanship

LGBTQ+ voters strongly lean Democratic. Pew’s 2013 survey found that nearly 60% of all LGBTQ+ respondents were Democrats, and less than 10% were Republicans. Transgender voters are even more partisan, and nearly 80% identified as Democratic or Democratic-leaning in the 2015 U.S. Trans Survey.

Exit poll data from the 2016 presidential election supports this conclusion. Nearly 80% of LGBTQ+ voters told researchers outside polling stations that they’d cast their ballot for Hillary Clinton. Just 14% reported that they’d backed Trump.

Initial exit poll data from the 2020 presidential election indicated that Trump had doubled his share of LGBTQ+ voters to 28%. Later analyses contradicted that finding, however, showing that LGBTQ+ voters were actually essential to Joe Biden’s victory.

The surprising miscalculation was likely due to COVID-19-related polling errors. Exit poll data from the 2022 midterm election put LGBTQ+ support for Republican congressional candidates back at 14%.

LGBTQ+ voters in ‘tipping-point’ states

Taken together, past polling data indicates that the LGBTQ+ community will likely back Harris over Trump by strong margins in four of the most likely “tipping-point” states – that is, the swing states with enough electoral votes to tip the entire election for one candidate.

Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania all have populations of LGBTQ+ adults that are significantly larger than the margin of victory by which the winning candidate took the state in 2020.

For instance, Biden won Georgia and its 15 electoral votes by 11,779 votes in 2020, and there are over 400,000 LGBTQ+ adults in the state. Trump’s apparent current lead in Georgia is within the margin of error, and even a slight increase in Democratic-leaning LGBTQ+ voters, compared with 2020, could hand Harris the state.

Georgia now has 16 electoral votes following a population increase.

The gap between the two candidates in all four tipping-point states is similarly narrow – 2% or less. That’s well within state polls’ margin of error. Together, these states have a combined 66 electoral votes. That’s nearly double Biden’s Electoral College margin of victory in 2020 and Trump’s margin in 2016.

If higher turnout among LGBTQ+ voters in these four likely tipping-point states could deliver the 2024 race for Harris, then lower LGBTQ+ turnout could pave Trump’s path to victory.

Trump is well within striking distance in the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania and Michigan, where polling puts him in a statistical dead heat with Harris. With those slim margins that are well within the margin of error, even a moderate decrease in turnout among the states’ many thousands of LGBTQ+ voters could cause serious problems for Harris.

For context, Biden won Pennsylvania and Michigan by 80,555 and 154,188 votes, respectively, in 2020.

Possible X factors

Of course, the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections are not carbon copies of each other.

The LGBTQ+ electorate grows each year, and by 2030 1 in 7 voters are expected to identify as LGBTQ+.

Republicans have also ramped up legislative attacks on LGBTQ+ rights since 2020, and GOP campaign ads with anti-transgender messages dominate this election cycle. Both of these factors will play a role in 2024, as will a shake-up in the North Carolina governor’s race.

In September, CNN reported that the Republican nominee for governor of North Carolina, Mark Robinson, had posted controversial comments on a pornographic website between 2008 and 2012. In addition to referring to himself as a “black Nazi,” Robinson said that he enjoyed watching transgender pornography.

For a candidate whose anti-trans rhetoric includes saying transgender women should be arrested for using women’s restrooms, this was shocking news. Robinson has denied the allegation, which has severely damaged his campaign. Two weeks ahead of the election, polling gave Robinson’s Democratic opponent, Josh Stein, a clear lead over Robinson.

Robinson’s troubled past and embattled campaign could mobilize multiple pockets of progressive North Carolinians, including LGBTQ+ voters, against him. Boosted turnout would almost certainly eat into Trump’s vote share in North Carolina – a state he won by 1.3% in 2020.

What to expect on election night

Historical trends, demographic data and current affairs all point toward LGBTQ+ voters playing an important – and potentially decisive – role in tipping swing states to Harris.

Yet, there are also signs that Harris may underperform with LGBTQ+ voters.

A September 2024 survey by the Human Rights Campaign, a LGBTQ+ advocacy organization, reported that about 20% of LGBTQ+ respondents were undecided, planning to stay home or backing a third party. Less than 8% of LGBTQ+ respondents were leaning toward Trump, but disaffected LGBTQ+ Democrats could cause problems for Harris.

Ultimately, there’s no way to know what LGBTQ+ voters will actually do at the ballot box. This race is in flux, and plenty can happen before election day. Other voting blocs have grown or changed since 2024, too.

The answers will come on election night or – in a race with such narrow margins of victory – in the days and weeks of counting and recounting to follow.

Dorian Rhea Debussy, Lecturer of Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

American slavery wasn’t just a white man’s business

Mon, 10 Jun 2024 15:58:22 -0400

Originally published in

By Trevon Logan

Professor of Economics, The Ohio State University

As the United States continues to confront the realities and legacy of slavery, Americans continue to challenge myths about the country’s history. One enduring myth is that slavery was a largely male endeavor — that, for the most part, the buying, selling, trading and profiting from enslavement were carried out by white men alone.

While white women certainly interacted with enslaved people in household management and day-to-day tasks, historians once argued that they weren’t active owners and had very limited involvement in transactions. This was once widely believed to be a reason why Southern white women supported the institution – they were assumed to be blind to its darker side.

As an expert in the economic history of slavery, I know the story is far more complex. In fact, slavery was unique in economically empowering women. It was, in essence, an early feminist institution – but exclusively for white women.

A lasting myth

The myth that women didn’t profit from slavery has endured for several reasons. First, before the American Civil War, married women generally owned nothing of their own. The legal institution of coverture made the property a woman brought into her marriage into the property of her husband. This also meant that if a husband was in debt, a creditor could claim the wife’s property for payment.

In addition, there are very few surviving records that show Southern white women discussing the business of slavery. And finally, in cases where women were owners of enslaved people – say, through the death of a husband – they often used agents or male relatives to handle their affairs. Added together, there’s very little to suggest that white women were deeply involved in the slavery business.

Researchers have started to challenge this view by moving beyond the traditional archival sources. The innovative historian Stephanie Jones-Rogers has documented how regularly white women were seen in all aspects of American enslavement. Her most compelling evidence comes from interviews with the formerly enslaved people themselves, who noted who they were owned by and explained how belonging to the “misses” affected every aspect of their life.

The ‘white feminism’ of American slavery

Historians have also started grappling with the ways American slavery was uniquely gender-egalitarian – at least for white women. While Northern women were trapped in coverture, Southern states were bypassing coverture specifically for the purpose of giving married women rights to own enslaved people.

The earliest such act passed in the United States was the Mississippi Married Women’s Property Law of 1839. This law explicitly awarded married white women ownership status over enslaved individuals. Slavery was the driver of this change: Four of the five sections of the act refer only to property in enslaved people.

Similar acts were passed by other Southern states in the antebellum era to shield married women from responsibility of their husband’s debts and also to allow women to independently accumulate wealth during marriage.

Of course, laws on the books may not reflect how people actually behaved. But new research shows that white women were very involved in the business of slavery. In states where enslaved people were titled property – like a house or car today – sales were recorded with names of buyers, sellers and the names of the enslaved people in the transaction. White women in states where legislation formally protected their property rights to enslaved property were much more likely to be active in the market.

Further analysis of these records shows that white women were involved in nearly a third of all transactions, buying and selling in equal proportion. White women were especially likely to buy and sell enslaved women, making up nearly 40% of the people doing the buying and selling.

Enslaved women were especially economically valuable because if someone owned an enslaved woman, they automatically became the owner of all of her children. For slave owners, owning an enslaved woman was an intergenerational wealth-building activity.

A historical irony

We are left to confront a deep irony in American history. Slavery gave white women in the South significantly more economic independence than those in the North, and they used this freedom with remarkable regularity. Women in slave states had legal rights to property that was half of the wealth in the southern United States at the time. Women in the North could only dream of such economic independence.

While historians once claimed that white women supported the Confederacy because they were blind to the reality of slavery, researchers now know that they could have been motivated by the same economic impulses as their husbands. Slavery was actually a more gender-egalitarian institution than other forms of property or wealth accumulation, so it’s not surprising that white women would have a vested interest in it.

Slavery was white men’s and women’s business.

Trevon Logan, Professor of Economics, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Putting sourdough under the microscope

Fri, 10 May 2024 10:39:09 -0400

Originally published in

By Daniel Veghte,

Senior Research Associate Engineer, The Ohio State University

Microbes make a home in your sourdough starter: False-colored scanning electron microscope image shows starch grains (green), yeast (red) and bacteria (blue). Daniel Veghte, CC BY-SA

Sourdough is the oldest kind of leavened bread in recorded history, and people have been eating it for thousands of years. The components of creating a sourdough starter are very simple – flour and water. Mixing them produces a live culture where yeast and bacteria ferment the sugars in flour, making byproducts that give sourdough its characteristic taste and smell. They are also what make it rise in the absence of other leavening agents.

My sourdough starter, affectionately deemed the “Fosters” starter, was passed down to me by my grandparents, who received it from my grandmother’s college roommate. It has followed me throughout my academic career across the country, from undergrad in New Mexico to graduate school in Pennsylvania to postdoctoral work in Washington.

Currently, it resides in the Midwest, where I work at The Ohio State University as a senior research associate, collaborating with researchers to characterize samples in a wide variety of fields ranging from food science to material science.

As part of one of the microscopy courses I instruct at the university, I decided to take a closer look at the microbial community in my family’s sourdough starter with the microscope I use in my day-to-day research.

Each sourdough starter has a unique mix of microbes. Daniel Veghte, CC BY-SA

Scanning electron microscopes

Scanning electron microscopy, or SEM, is a powerful tool that can image the surface of samples at the nanometer scale. For comparison, a human hair is between 10 to 150 micrometers, and SEM can observe features that are 10,000 times smaller.

Since SEM uses electrons instead of light for imaging, there are limitations to what can be imaged in the microscope. Samples must be electrically conductive and able to withstand the very low pressures in a vacuum. Low-pressure environments are generally unfavorable for microbes, since these conditions will cause the water in cells to evaporate, deforming their structure.

To prepare samples for SEM analysis, researchers use a method called critical point drying that carefully dries the sample to reduce unwanted artifacts and preserve fine details. The sample is then coated with a thin layer of iridium metal to make it conductive.

Scanning electron microscopes can image samples at the nanoscale level. Daniel Veghte, CC BY-SA

Exploring a sourdough starter

Since sourdough starters are created from wild yeast and bacteria in the flour, it creates a favorable environment for many types of microbes to flourish. There can be more than 20 different species of yeast and 50 different species of bacteria in a sourdough starter. The most robust become the dominant species.

You can visually observe the microbial complexity of sourdough starter by imaging the different components that vary in size and morphology, including yeast and bacteria. However, a full understanding of all the diversity present in the starter would require a complete gene sequencing.

The main component that gives the starter texture are starch grains from the flour. These grains, colored green in the image, are identifiable as relatively large globular structures approximately 8 micrometers in diameter.

Giving rise to the starter is the yeast, colored red. As the yeast grows, it ferments sugars from the starch grains and releases carbon dioxide bubbles and alcohol as byproducts that make the dough rise. Yeast generally falls in the range of 2 to 10 micrometers in size and are round to elongated in shape. There are two distinct yeast types visible in this image, one that is nearly round, at the bottom left, and another that is elongated, at the top right.

Bacteria, colored blue, metabolize sugars and release byproducts such as lactic acid and acetic acid. These byproducts act as a preservative and are what give the starter its distinctive sour smell and taste. In this image, bacteria have pill-like shapes that are approximately 2 micrometers in size.

Now, the next time you eat sourdough bread or sourdough waffles – try them, they’re delicious! – you can visualize the rich array of microorganisms that give each piece its distinctive flavor.

Daniel Veghte, Senior Research Associate Engineer, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What a decaying El Niño has to do with tornadoes in the central US

Thu, 02 May 2024 16:16:01 -0400

Originally published in

By Jana Lesak Houser,

Associate Professor of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences, The Ohio State University

Dozens of tornadoes hit the central U.S. April 26-28, 2024, tearing through suburbs and small towns and damaging hundreds of homes from Oklahoma to Nebraska and Iowa.

Spring is tornado season in the U.S., but the tornadoes in Nebraska and Iowa were quite a bit farther north and east of what would be typical for tornadoes in late April, when tornado activity is more common in Oklahoma and Texas.

The outbreak did fit another pattern for severe weather events, however, that occur as the atmosphere transitions out of El Niño. And this is exactly what was happening in late April.

I study tornadoes and the conditions under which they form. Here’s how these storm systems develop and what El Niño has to do with it.

The right conditions for a tornado

Two basic conditions are required to produce the rotating supercell thunderstorms that are capable of generating tornadoes:

Warm moist surface conditions and cold air above.
Winds that change in both speed and direction as you move up in the atmosphere, known as vertical wind shear.

Picture a kid who has a helium balloon at a party and releases it – the balloon floats upward. Like that helium balloon, the warm moist air is less dense than the surrounding colder air, so it rises, accelerating upward. This upward motion releases heat, moisture and energy, and causes thunderstorms to develop.

As with many severe weather outbreaks that occur in the U.S., the atmosphere became primed for storms as warm moist air at the surface was being transported northward from the Gulf of Mexico by a series of surface low-pressure systems.

Higher up, about halfway between the ground and where airplanes fly, atmospheric waves within and below the jet stream were transporting cold air through the middle part of the atmosphere. These waves, formally called Rossby waves and commonly referred to as troughs and ridges, also enhanced vertical wind shear.

A small atmospheric wave that moved through the Central Plains and Midwest on April 26 helped trigger the tornadoes in Nebraska and Iowa, including a large, destructive tornado in the suburbs of Omaha, Nebraska, and in the town of Minden, Iowa, about 30 miles away.

The following day, a bigger wave moved through Oklahoma, where tornadoes damaged several small towns that evening.

The two images show the short-wave trough, circled in red, and the longer wave, circled in orange, traveling behind it. On the left is April 26, with the short-wave trough moving through Nebraska. On the right, the longer wave is affecting Oklahoma and Kansas on April 27. TwisterData.com

What was especially important was how close these parameters were to the center of the surface low-pressure system and a warm front that extended just to the east of it. The tornado-producing storms were able to tap into that instability and draw on the strong vertical wind shear generated in the vicinity of the warm front.

In addition to the tornadoes, the warm moist storms brought heavy rain, flash flooding and large hail across parts of the central U.S.

What El Niño has to do with tornado weather

In late 2023 and early 2024, much of the world experienced above-average temperatures, likely linked to global climate change and exacerbated by El Niño. El Niño is a naturally occurring cyclical climate phenomenon that affects both the oceans and the atmosphere.

When El Niño decays, the atmospheric waves change and can become wavier, so they have a greater amplitude. That tends to enhance conditions needed for tornadoes.

The U.S. often sees more frequent tornadoes when the climate is transitioning out of El Niño. The strong El Niño of 2023-24 was decaying in April 2024, and forecasters expect it to be gone by summer.

Forecasts can save lives

The tornadoes caused severe damage in several communities as they tore apart homes and buildings. At least five people died in the storms. But early communications that warned the public of the threat for severe weather days before the storms likely saved more lives.

Weather experts are getting better at predicting tornado conditions. It is not uncommon now to know days in advance of the actual event that an elevated threat exists. Forecasters have high-resolution weather models that can anticipate storms at an appropriate spatial scale to provide a sense of the likely organization of the storms and come close to the location.

The better we understand these storms’ attributes, the better those forecasts and warnings can become.

Jana Lesak Houser, Associate Professor of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

China’s universities grab 6 of 10 top spots in worldwide science ranking

Sat, 13 Apr 2024 09:00:00 -0400

Originally published in

By Caroline Wagner,

Professor of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University

Chinese universities are prodigious producers of scientific papers, which will help garner them more prestige. CFOTO/Future Publishing via Getty Images

University leaders pay close attention to comparative rankings such as those offered by Times Higher Education, ShanghaiRanking Consultancy and others. Rankings influence student matriculation numbers, attract talented faculty and justify donations from wealthy donors. University leaders rail against them, and some schools “withdraw” from them, but rankings are influential.

A radical shift in the data underlying rankings is about to upend the rankings world – largely in favor of China’s position.

For instance, in early 2024, the Leiden University Center for Science and Technology Studies CWTS group issued new university rankings that add open-data sources to the traditional curated list of elite journals that has been the standard. The results show a world turned upside down for university rankings.

Where once the list of universities with the highest scientific impact would have been dominated by U.S. and U.K. schools including Cambridge, Stanford, Harvard and MIT, the new top 10 list of universities with high scientific impact includes six universities from China.

What does this transformation mean for understanding scholarly excellence? I study the global research system and its contribution to social welfare. China’s swift progress in science and technology, propelled by investments in research and university strength, has alarmed the United States and other nations. Concerns are mounting that the U.S. may be losing its competitive advantage to an assertive rival, with potential implications for national security, economic standing and global influence. These new rankings will likely raise even more alarm.

Broader range of more sources

The rankings programs draw heavily upon quantitative assessments called “indicators.” A glance at the influential ShanghaiRanking criteria shows the inputs to its assessment include “papers indexed in major citation indices.” The popular indices draw from a highly curated set of scholarly journals such as Cell, The Lancet and Chemical Reviews. The most reputed index collecting information on these and other journals is the Web of Science’s Science Citation Index, or SCI, a product of careful standardization and data enrichment by Clarivate.

SCI represents only a fraction of the work published worldwide, though. Among other critiques, many people decry the SCI’s exclusivity and its perceived Western bias.

But careful curation makes it the gold standard of academic indexing and one that journals and authors aspire to join. Its value is in its replicability: It is possible to dip into it multiple times using different search strategies and produce comparable results.

Reliance on curated databases is about to end with the introduction of rankings based on open data like that collected by OpenAlex. OpenAlex claims to include over 100,000 journals – of highly varying quality and editorial practices – compared with SCI’s 9,200. All data in OpenAlex has been released into the public domain with the laudable goal of making research freely available to all. The downside is that this wider net sweeps in predatory journals that exploit researchers and undermine the quality and integrity of scholarly communication.

Reflecting China’s research productivity

The volume of scholarly articles represented in the open databases has a mighty influence on China’s position in the open-source rankings. Chinese scholars produce a vast body of written work, some in English, some in Chinese; estimates of percentage shares for language range widely, but hover around 50-50. As China has invested in education and grown its science and engineering capacity, many more people turn out scholarly articles.

From a very small number in the 1980s, China had 2.2 million scientists and engineers by 2023, based on UNESCO data. China’s scholarly output of scientific and engineering articles shows a very rapid rise since the 1990s, with growth outpacing all other nations. Quality has lagged quantity, but China is outproducing the United States in the total number of scientific publications in the Web of Science, by my count – a shift in leadership not seen since the U.S. overtook the U.K. in 1948.

Although the numbers are dated, when I counted China’s scholarly publishing in 2010, my colleague and I estimated that between 2000 and 2009, China published around 1 million scientific papers that were not captured by the Web of Science. That means they didn’t “count” toward traditional rankings. These publications are counted in the new open databases. Many of the papers included in open-source or open-access journals will not be considered of high quality; nonetheless, they become part of the written record.

Open-access publishing services have grown rapidly and offer fast publication times, but there are questions about the quality of their journals. Open publishing services such as MDPI and Frontiers have an outsized number of Chinese contributors compared to those from other countries.

The open-access services often include content from potential paper mills, businesses manufacturing what look like scholarly manuscripts for sale. Despite concerns about the reputation and editorial practices of these publishers and editors, there’s little oversight. These services are flooding the publishing world with vast numbers of lower-quality articles.

Chinese researchers and their sponsoring institutions put a huge premium on publishing in international journals, even those hosted by questionable publishers. Citation stacking practices – when authors cite the works of co-nationals to raise their citation profiles – skew counts to enhance China’s performance.

China is attempting to address malign practices. To its credit, China’s government recently announced the retraction of 17,000 articles with a Chinese author or co-author. Efforts are underway to enhance quality. Governmental payments to researchers for articles in ranked journals are being sunsetted.

Despite the quality questions, the numbers alone will push China up the rankings lists. This rapid shift will enhance China’s position relative to the rest of the world. In itself, the rise does not reflect a change in quality, status or output, but it will continue to stoke the fires of those alarmed by the rise of China in world science, technology and innovation circles, and perhaps put rankings further into question.

The Conversation has updated the headline and the table to correctly report the CWTS Leiden Ranking Open Edition 2023 numbers.

Caroline Wagner, Professor of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A total eclipse, with a partial failure

Thu, 28 Mar 2024 14:52:32 -0400

Originally published in

By Barbara Ryden

Professor of Astronomy, The Ohio State University

Have telescopes, will travel: English astronomers await an 1871 eclipse in India. The Illustrated London News, 1872

(This article was originally published on Aug. 14, 2017)

For centuries, astronomers have realized that total solar eclipses offer a valuable scientific opportunity. During what’s called totality, the opaque moon completely hides the bright photosphere of the sun – its thin surface layer that emits most of the sun’s light. An eclipse allows astronomers to study the sun’s colorful outer atmosphere and its delicate extended corona, ordinarily invisible in the dazzling light of the photosphere.

But total solar eclipses are infrequent, and are visible only from a narrow path of totality. So eclipse expeditions require meticulous advance planning to ensure that astronomers and their equipment wind up in the right place at the right time. As the history of astronomy shows, things don’t always go according to plan for even the most prepared eclipse hunters.

Into hostile territory, at the mercy of the map

Samuel Williams, the newly appointed professor of mathematics and natural philosophy at Harvard College, was eager to observe a total solar eclipse. He’d seen a transit of Venus in 1769, but had never had the chance to study the sun’s corona during an eclipse. According to his calculations, a total solar eclipse would be visible from Maine’s Penobscot Bay on Oct. 27, 1780.

But reaching Maine from Massachusetts would be something of a problem; the Revolutionary War was raging, and Maine was held by the British Army. The Massachusetts legislature came to Williams’ assistance; it directed the state’s Board of War to fit out a ship to convey the eclipse hunters. Speaker of the House John Hancock wrote to the British commander in Maine, requesting permission for the men of science to make their observations. When the astronomer-laden ship arrived at Penobscot Bay, Williams and his team were permitted to land but restricted to the island of Isleboro, three miles offshore from the mainland.

The morning of the big day was cloudless. As the calculated moment of totality approached, at half past noon, the excitement built. The sliver of uneclipsed sun became narrower and narrower.

Then, at 12:31 p.m., it started becoming wider and wider. Williams realized, to his frustration, that he wasn’t in the path of totality after all. They were 30 miles too far south.

After a subdued voyage back to Massachusetts, Williams tried to determine what had gone wrong. Some astronomers, at the time and in following centuries, suggested his calculations of the path of totality were inaccurate.

Williams, however, had a different explanation. In his report to the newly founded American Academy of Arts and Sciences, he blamed bad maps:

“The longitude of our place of observation agrees very well with what we had supposed in our calculations. But the latitude is near half a degree less than what the maps of that country had led us to expect.”

Since half a degree of longitude corresponds to 30 nautical miles, this could explain why Williams ended up too far south.

Williams’ illustrations in his report of the eclipse. ‘Baily’s Beads’ are visible in Fig. VII on the upper right. Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Although Samuel Williams missed seeing a total eclipse, his expedition was not a total failure. While watching the narrow sliver of sun visible at 12:31, he noted it became “broken or separated into drops.” These bright drops, known today as Baily’s Beads, are the result of the sun’s light shining through valleys and depressions along the moon’s visible edge. They’re named in honor of astronomer Francis Baily; however, Baily saw and described the beads in 1836, nearly 56 years after Williams observed them.

Hard to observe with smoke in your eyes

Almost a century later, in 1871, English astronomer Norman Lockyer was eager to observe a total solar eclipse.

Three years earlier, he and French astronomer Jules Janssen had independently measured the spectrum of the sun’s chromosphere; to their surprise, they found an emission line in the yellow range of the spectrum, not corresponding to any known element.

Lockyer boldly claimed that the emission line was from a new element that he named “helium,” after the sun god Helios. Realizing that eclipses offered a helpful opportunity to search for more undiscovered elements, Lockyer became a strong advocate of eclipse expeditions. He knew the total solar eclipse of Dec. 12, 1871 would pass across southern India and persuaded the British Association for the Advancement of Science to sponsor an expedition. Wishing to show that British rule in India was linked to scientific progress, the British government chipped in £2,000, and the P&O steamship company offered reduced fares to India for the eclipse hunters.

Lockyer’s voyage to India went smoothly. (This could not be taken for granted; in 1870, on his way to view an eclipse from Italy, Lockyer was aboard a ship that ran aground off the east coast of Sicily.) The team set up their instruments on a tower at Bekal Fort, on the southwest Indian coast. The morning of Dec. 12, 1871 was cloudless. Although Lockyer was suffering from a fever (and from the effects of the opium he was taking to treat it), he was ready.

Then, during the initial phases of the eclipse, he noted odd activity in the region below the fort. Local inhabitants were gathering a huge pile of brushwood to fuel a bonfire; apparently, by creating a bright fire on Earth, they hoped to encourage the darkening sun to become bright again. Lockyer was alarmed; the column of smoke would have risen directly between him and the eclipsed sun, ruining his observations.

Fortunately, the local superintendent of police happened to be present; he summoned a squadron of policemen who put out the fire and dispersed the crowd. During the now smoke-free eclipse, Lockyer made valuable observations of the structure of the sun’s corona.

To see an eclipse you must see the sun

Jump ahead to the early 20th century. The English Astronomer Royal Sir Frank Dyson was eager to view a total solar eclipse. He didn’t have to travel far, since the eclipse of June 29, 1927 had a path of totality cutting across northern England, from Blackpool in the west to Hartlepool in the east. As an eminent figure in the scientific establishment and a renowned expert on eclipses, Dyson had no trouble in commanding financial support for his eclipse observations.

What he could not command, however, was the famously fickle English weather. During the month of June, northern England averages about seven hours of direct sunlight per day; however, this comes from a mix of weather that includes completely overcast days and completely cloudless days. Dyson didn’t know what to expect.

After checking the weather records along the predicted eclipse path, Dyson decided to observe from the Yorkshire village of Giggleswick. As he and his team prepared for the eclipse, the location choice initially seemed dubious; for two weeks before the eclipse, the sky was completely cloudy every afternoon, at the time of day when totality would occur on June 29.

Despite the grimly unpromising weather, crowds of hopeful people converged on the widely publicized eclipse path. Railway companies ran special excursion trains, towns along the path of totality sponsored “eclipse dances” and newspapers offered “ecliptoglasses” to subscribers.

In the end, unfortunately, most viewers along the eclipse path were disappointed. From the errant cloud that blocked the totally eclipsed sun from Blackpool Tower to the unbroken overcast sky at Hartlepool, the weather did not cooperate.

Happily for Frank Dyson, however, the town of Giggleswick was nearly the only location along the eclipse path that had clear skies during totality. The estimated 70,000 people who converged there, following the lead of the astronomer royal, also benefited from Dyson’s good luck.

After the eclipse, Dyson’s public statement was, by British standards, positively bubbly:

“The photographs have come out extremely well. A very clear and striking eclipse. Our observations went off very well indeed.”

Despite the difficulties posed by weather… and smoky bonfires… and dodgy maps… astronomers have always persevered in their quest to view eclipses.

Barbara Ryden, Professor of Astronomy, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

US regulators scramble to catch up with boom in donor-advised funds

Sat, 23 Mar 2024 12:36:57 -0400

Originally published in

By Brian Mittendorf, Professor of Accounting, The Ohio State University

DAFs more or less operate as a mini foundation. Wong Yu Liang/Moment via Getty Images

A revolution in charitable giving is underway due to the growth of donor-advised funds in the United States.

Known widely as DAFs, these financial accounts are designated for charitable giving. Donors can get an immediate tax deduction by putting money or other assets into the accounts, and advise the accounts’ managers to give away the money at a later date.

After years of concerns about how quickly the money reserved for charity gets distributed and whether donor-advised funds need to operate more transparently, proposed new federal regulations are now pending. Though the regulations would not create new requirements for how rapidly these funds distribute money, they do provide some new guidelines for what uses for DAFs are allowed by law.

As an accounting researcher who studies DAFs, I believe these new changes may mark the start of what could become a series of reforms.

Nearly $230 billion

DAFs have been around since the 1930s but got off to a slow start. After decades of being concentrated in community foundations, DAFs became more widely accessible with the introduction of Fidelity Charitable – a DAF-sponsoring organization tied to Fidelity Investments – in 1991.

Many more DAF sponsors connected to investment companies have since emerged.

Because donors get tax breaks when they put money in them and can then wait a long time before distributing it to nonprofits, DAFs essentially operate as streamlined foundations.

DAFs are not, however, subject to the same restrictions.

Foundations have to disclose their donors to the public and also have to distribute minimum amounts for charitable use each year. DAFs face neither requirement.

DAFs held nearly US$230 billion in assets by the end of 2022 and distributed some $52 billion to charities that year. Those are significant sums as giving of all kinds totaled about $500 billion that year.

As of 2023 there were about 2 million donor-advised funds, according to the National Philanthropic Trust.

40% don’t distribute a dime

Critics of DAFs say that the government should require them to regularly disburse at least some of their charitable funds.

Foundations have faced that kind of obligation for more than five decades. They must pay out at least 5% of their assets each year – although some of that money can be used to pay for their operations or even be set aside in a donor-advised fund.

Supporters of DAFs counter that the payout rate for those accounts is already much higher than the foundation floor of 5%. It hovers around 20%.

However, that statistic applies to all the money held in DAFs, not what happens with each one of them. And almost 40% of them don’t distribute any money at all in a given year.

Calling for change

Other changes have been proposed over the years, including:

Not letting foundations count money they put in a DAF toward their annual 5% payout requirement.

Introducing new disclosure requirements because currently the public, the charity that gets money from a DAF and even the IRS have no way of knowing for sure who originally provided those funds.

Reining in the commercial investment companies that have been at the center of much of the growth in DAFs, by limiting the fees they can earn or restricting the ties between them and their affiliated charities.

IRS regulations

The IRS released proposed new DAF regulations at the end of 2023, and gave the public an opportunity comment on them.

The proposed regulations would clarify what constitutes a DAF, who is considered a fund’s adviser, and restrictions on DAF disbursements.

Though largely focused on definitions, these proposed regulations are not without teeth. Nor have they been immune to controversy.

The proposed regulations would identify certain distributions as taxable and declare that donors are not the only parties considered DAF advisers – the donors’ personal financial advisers are, too. This means the financial advisers, like donors, cannot receive any benefits from a DAF.

In identifying taxable distributions, the regulations include the possibility that funds used to support lobbying or activities tied to political campaigns could lead to penalties for both the donor and the fund’s manager. And evidence suggests DAFs are commonly used to support lobbying.

A tax would be levied on the DAF totaling 20% of the distribution and another 5% charged to a participating fund manager.

By including a donor’s personal financial adviser in the group considered advisers to the DAF, investment fees paid to such financial advisers for their services would become impermissible “excess benefit” transactions. As such, the proposed new rules would require the repayment of their compensation plus a 25% penalty.

Some DAF proponents have objected to the proposed regulations. A key concern they’ve expressed has to do with what the regulations could mean for financial advisers.

Since financial advisers often oversee investments of both the donor and the donor’s charitable funds, such dual advisory roles may be eliminated by the threat of penalties.

Changes possible in Congress

Additional, bigger, changes could occur in the near future through legislation.

Possibilities include requiring DAFs to disclose donors and connect them with distributions so the public can follow the money or delaying tax benefits when donations to DAFs are not immediately distributed to charities to encourage donors with DAFs to dispatch their gifts quickly.

Although legislation aimed at requiring faster payouts was first proposed in 2014, few lawmakers have made it a priority.

The most recent bill, the Accelerating Charitable Efforts Act, was first proposed by Sens. Angus King and Chuck Grassley in 2021. It did not amass enough support to garner a vote. At this point, it is unclear whether the lawmakers will reintroduce that measure.

But as DAFs play an ever larger role in charitable giving, I believe that Congress will eventually have to take action if it wants to meaningfully regulate this new charitable environment.

Brian Mittendorf, Professor of Accounting, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Drinking during Super Bowl could affect how you parent your kids

Tue, 06 Feb 2024 17:01:30 -0500

Originally published in

By Bridget Freisthler, Professor of Social Work, The Ohio State University

How much alcohol do you typically drink in a week? A month? A year? Did your answer take into account how much you drink on New Year’s Eve? On Christmas? During the Super Bowl or World Cup?

When researchers compare how much alcohol is sold to how much people say they drink, alcohol consumption is underestimated by anywhere from 30% in the U.S. to 80% in Australia.

Special occasions such as holidays, weddings or major sporting events make up much of that difference. How much a person drinks at a special event can vary quite a bit, adding an extra four drinks per week for men and three drinks per week for women, and people usually don’t include these splurges in their tallies.

My research team studies alcohol use and its effects on parenting, with an ultimate goal to identify strategies that support positive parenting. Particularly in the festive holiday season – filled with gatherings where drinking is commonplace – understanding how special-occasion drinking affects how parents treat their children could help people change their routines in ways that make these occasions more enjoyable for everyone.

Alcohol’s effects on social problems

It’s not news that alcohol is related to many social problems: violence, traffic crashes, child abuse and neglect. Alcohol can enable bad behavior during special occasions. Incidents of drunken driving are highest after New Year’s Eve, for instance.

Alcohol use by men on days of major sporting events is related to more violence toward their families. However, because this relationship has been primarily studied among men, we don’t know if it is the same for women. Women’s drinking has increased over the past several decades, making this an important topic to understand.

Drinking while parenting can cause lax supervision of children or more harsh parenting practices. In our recent study, my colleagues and I wanted to see if a parent’s alcohol use on two special occasions was related to the use of aggressive discipline – whether physical punishment like spanking, or psychological aggression like yelling and name-calling.

As part of a larger study, we focused on two special occasions where drinking might differ from a typical day: Super Bowl Sunday and Valentine’s Day. What we found surprised us.

Drinking more on special days

In February 2021, we asked 307 parents to take three brief daily surveys for 14 days. We pushed a text message to parents’ phones at 10 a.m., 3 p.m. and 9 p.m. that asked questions about whether they had used specific discipline strategies since the last survey.

On the seventh and 14th day, the survey included questions about whether parents drank alcohol during the past week. If they did, we asked them to tell us on which days, and during what time frames. We matched the days and times they drank with parenting behaviors they’d previously reported. Importantly, 93% of parents in our study were mothers.

A higher percentage of parents drank at some point on Valentine’s Day (23.7%) and Super Bowl Sunday (16.9%) than on non-special occasion days during the study (14.7%).

Drinking alcohol during the Super Bowl was related to a 2.5 times higher odds of using aggressive discipline. However, drinking on Valentine’s Day was related to lower odds of using aggressive discipline.

So special-event drinking did affect parenting behavior – but in different ways depending on the event.

When drinking while watching a fairly violent sport, such as football, parents could be “copycatting” aggressive behavior they see on the screen. Researchers have suggested this link for men’s behavior toward their families. With women now making up 46% of the Super Bowl audience, my colleagues and I suggest there might be a similar relationship for them. When children appear disruptive or are playing in the same room, dads and moms may be quicker to yell instead of redirecting the behavior without resorting to aggression.

Valentine’s Day is different. Although more parents reported drinking on Valentine’s Day than on Super Bowl Sunday, we didn’t see the same increase in aggressive parenting. Valentine’s Day celebrates romance and love. Its norms are markedly different from the Super Bowl, leading to a more relaxed parenting style. Drinking may be more likely to occur at a restaurant with a nice dinner that may or may not include children. For couples who leave their children at home, the holiday provides respite from parenting and focuses attention on other activities.

Celebrating while still parenting with care

Our results suggest parents may want to remember that drinking at special events like holiday parties or family gatherings may not only be different than their regular pattern of alcohol consumption, but also may influence how they interact with their children both during the event and even the next day.

What can moms and dads do to reduce harsh parenting during special occasions when they choose to drink?

Parents can plan ahead and choose a “designated parent” who does not drink and takes the lead on supervising the children. This could be one or multiple people.
Drinking nonalcoholic mocktails or light beers to reduce the alcohol content can bring drinking more in line with a regular day.
Hiring a babysitter during the event, planning a playdate or bringing alternative activities to keep children engaged might lessen everyone’s stress.
For an event like the Super Bowl, having activities supervised in another room, such as watching a child-friendly movie, might reduce problems.

Even special occasions as simple as a summer barbecue with friends or family could change how you parent, especially for those who drink infrequently. With so many adults around, it’s easy to assume another adult is watching the kids when no one actually is. Putting a plan in place around special events where parents will be drinking may reduce possible harm to your children.

Bridget Freisthler, Professor of Social Work, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Wayne LaPierre leaves a financial mess behind at the NRA

Wed, 17 Jan 2024 15:08:08 -0500

Originally published in

By Brian Mittendorf, Professor of Accounting, The Ohio State University

Former NRA Leader Wayne LaPierre arrives for his civil trial at New York State Supreme Court on Jan. 8, 2024, in New York City. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Wayne LaPierre, the National Rifle Association’s longtime leader, plans to retire by the end of January 2024. He cited “health reasons” when he announced his departure three days before the organization’s civil fraud trial got underway in Manhattan.

New York authorities have accused the NRA, LaPierre and three of his current or former colleagues of squandering millions of dollars the gun group had obtained from its members.

As a nonprofit accounting scholar who has followed the NRA’s finances for years, I believe the organization is not only at a legal crossroads but also at a financial one.

NRA business model

To see why the NRA finds itself in this difficult spot, it helps to first see how its business model allows for only a small margin of error. Despite the nonprofit’s long history– it was founded in 1871 by Civil War veterans who fought for the Union – the NRA has never had enough money stowed away to inoculate it from financial problems.

Consider the NRA’s circumstances in terms of its unrestricted net assets, which reflect the money an organization has available to spend after accounting for its commitments to donors.

Comparing this with the scale of an organization’s annual budget can provide a sense of how much of a rainy day fund is on hand.

In 2015, the NRA had unrestricted net assets that constituted just 9% of its total expenses. In contrast, that same year, the AARP, another long-standing social welfare organization with millions of members, had unrestricted net assets that amounted to 87% of its expenses.

In other words, the NRA’s coffers reflected a circumstance more in line with an employee living paycheck to paycheck than an heir living off a trust fund. For this reason, the NRA has always relied on its members’ annual dues to cover its costs, and it is less able to weather financial storms that can last years.

The controversies over the NRA’s spending and the organization’s political entanglements that have swirled around since 2016 constitute that kind of turbulence.

Declining financial fortunes

Following its substantial spending spree during the 2016 election cycle, the NRA found itself needing to dig out of a hole, with a budget deficit of more than US$40 million.

Subsequent years saw fluctuations in spending along with ongoing challenges to generate sufficient revenues to keep up with spending.

In recent years, the organization’s approach to its budget shortfall has been to cut costs, or at least some of its costs.

Spending on programming went from nearly $176 million in 2017 to just $73 million in 2022, its most recent reporting year.

Its traditionally core programs have taken the biggest hit: Spending on education and training fell from $7.7 million to $3.2 million; law enforcement support dropped from $3.8 million to $1.8 million; recreational shooting slipped from $7.2 million to $5.1 million; and field services declined from $11.9 million to $1.3 million.

Back in the red

The NRA hasn’t cut all of its spending, however.

During the same time frame, the NRA’s budget for administrative legal costs ballooned, from $4 million in 2017 to over $40 million in each of the past three reporting years, with this amount hitting $43.7 million in 2022.

The organization’s shrinking programming budget helped eliminate its deficit, at least for a time.

Thanks to its reduced spending, the NRA was able to finish the year with a surplus in both 2020 and 2021. However, that surplus, which came from slashing costs – particularly those geared toward core programs for members – proved short-lived.

The organization has also seen the ranks of its members dwindle. Fewer members mean less revenue from dues. In 2022, revenues were down by more than $100 million from their 2017 levels, a drop of more than one-third.

The declining revenues meant that, despite its trimmed-down budget, the NRA was back in the red in 2022 and again facing a negative unrestricted balance in net assets.

What’s next?

The NRA, in short, is in a financial spiral. Its shrinking budget has begotten a shrinking member base, leading to an even smaller budget. It may be hard to stem.

The organization has pared what it spends on its programs to the bone.

While there are no easy answers for what the organization can do about its financial predicament, it’s not the only pressing question the organization faces.

How long will the NRA’s remaining members stay loyal to it? When will high legal costs subside enough to ease the budgetary pressures? What does a smaller NRA mean for its ability to flex its political muscle?

Despite its many challenges, the NRA’s imminent changing of the guard does offer an opportunity to make more drastic shifts in its priorities, spending approaches and the pitches it makes to members and donors.

Further, with its large legal budget being the last remaining area ripe for cost cutting, perhaps the NRA’s next generation of leaders will set the stage for the organization to rid itself of its oversized legal burdens and refocus on core programs.

What is clear, however, is that financial constraints will dictate much of whatever course the new leadership seeks to chart.

Brian Mittendorf, Professor of Accounting, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The grief of Native American mothers whose children were separated from them

Fri, 08 Dec 2023 10:46:30 -0500

Originally published in

By Ashley L. Landers, Assistant Professor of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University

Native American children are still disproportionately represented in the U.S. child welfare system. grandriver/E+ via Getty Images

Native American mothers whose children were separated from them – either through child removal for assimilation into residential boarding schools or through coerced adoption – experience the kind of grief no parent should ever feel. Yet theirs is a loss that is ongoing, with no sense of meaning or closure.

While some families have eventually been reunited, far too many languish in the child welfare system, where Native American children are overrepresented as a result of discrimination and racial bias, structural racism and increased exposure to poverty.

A panel I attended years ago in California was composed of three birth mothers representing three generations of Native American women who had lost a child to foster care or adoption. While each story was unique, they had one thing in common: a never-ending grief that had stayed with them long after they were separated from their children.

I still vividly recall that, with a lump in her throat, one of these mothers said, “I can still hear my baby crying.” Those mothers and their stories left a lasting impression on me and my colleagues, which was the catalyst for a new line of research for us. After listening to the panel, my collaborator Sandy White Hawk, a Sicangu Lakota elder of the Rosebud Tribe in South Dakota, responded, “We have to do something for our birth mothers. We cannot let them pass to the other side carrying this grief.”

I am an assistant professor of human sciences and I conduct research in partnership with the First Nations Repatriation Institute. This work focuses on the health and well-being of Native American families that have experienced family separation by way of the foster care system and adoption.

For the past 10 years, we have explored the outcomes of fostered and adopted children and what happens when families are reunified.

Foster care and adoption

The adoption era refers to a period of time beginning in the 1950s with the Indian Adoption Project, a collaborative effort between the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Child Welfare League of America. It aimed to promote the adoption of Native American children into non-Native homes and has been criticized as another attempt at forced assimilation into non-Native American culture and the destruction of Native American families.

The adoption era continued until the enactment of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, which aimed to protect the best interests of Native American children by establishing federal standards for their removal and placement. An estimated 25% to 35% of Native American children were removed from their families prior to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978.

The Indian Child Welfare Act protects Indian children by prioritizing placement with extended families, within the tribe or with an Indian family.

The child welfare system tracks when children leave the system through reunification with family of origin. Reunification can occur after aging out of foster care at age 18 or being adopted.

To date, there is no way to consistently track how many fostered and adopted Native American children have reunited with their family of origin. However, our team’s studies suggest that more than 80% of Native American people who were fostered or adopted eventually reunify.

Separated families

The loss of a child to foster care, adoption or both is not uncommon in the United States. In 2021, approximately 606,031 children were involved in the foster care system. According to the latest data provided by the Children’s Bureau, an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in September 2021 more than 391,000 children were residing in foster care and over 113,000 were waiting to be adopted. In addition, more than 54,240 children were adopted through public child welfare agencies in 2021.

Legislation known as the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 requires only that states report adoptions that occur in public child welfare agencies. Therefore, the statistics above do not account for the thousands of children who are adopted, often as infants, through private agencies outside of the child welfare system. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine the total number of children adopted each year in the U.S.

This is especially true for Native American children. Alarming numbers of Native American children remain involved in the child welfare system. Allegations of abuse and neglect of Native children at the hands of their parents and other caregivers are twice as likely to be investigated, and Native American children are four times more likely to be placed out of the home than white children.

In my view, the rights of Native American caregivers to raise their children have been violated by systematic practices of child removal that targeted Native American families. Until recently, Native American mothers have been omitted from research on the grief and loss of birth parents.

Systematic child removal and adoption has left generations of Native American families with unreconciled grief and loss. Alison Wright/Corbis Documentary via Getty Images

Ambiguous loss

As a family therapist, I have sat with hundreds of families that were grieving the loss of a loved one, particularly a child lost to miscarriage, stillbirth and even death. Still, I was struck by the grief of Native American birth mothers. This grief was different. While it sounded like the grief that follows the death of a child, these children had not died. They were taken. They were alive but still lost.

While my colleagues and I have spoken with dozens of Native American birth mothers over the years, we interviewed eight of them who lost a child to adoption for what is called a phenomenological study. Phenomenology is used to explore the lived experiences of a group of people who experienced a similar event or phenomenon.

We wanted to understand the lived experiences of these mothers. We asked them how they became a birth mother, how their child came to be adopted and how this experience affected their health and well-being.

Our study found that these Native American birth mothers experienced ambiguous loss, which is a loss that remains unverified and without resolution.

In Native American culture, mothers are revered as “life givers.” The loss of a child to adoption stripped Native American birth mothers of this respected role and of their dignity.

Loss is often linked to death, but there are other types of losses. In ambiguous loss, there is no closure or resolution. Ambiguous loss is different from other kinds of loss. It is unfathomable, confusing and immobilizing.

There are two primary types of ambiguous loss. One is a psychological absence with physical presence, such as when a loved one has dementia. Another is physical absence with psychological presence, such as the loss of a child to the foster care or adoption system.

The downstream effects

Our research suggests that many Native American birth mothers felt forced to surrender their children to adoption because they were young and lacked resources. In many cases, they were unable to say goodbye or hold the baby. They felt ashamed and unworthy.

In addition to the unresolved grief, these mothers became vulnerable to mental health and substance abuse problems.

From my perspective, there are glaring and unanswered questions on the ethics and well-being of foster and adoption practices for children separated from Native American families. Native American adults who were fostered, adopted or both have also reported experiencing profound grief that parallels the ambiguous loss felt by Native American birth mothers.

The healing of Native American birth mothers will be an ongoing and collective effort. One by one, Native American birth mothers are telling their stories. These stories are gaining momentum. What happened to one woman happened to many others.

Credit to Sicangu Lakota elder Sandy White Hawk, founder and director of First Nations Repatriation Institute, whose vision guides this work. White Hawk is a senior author on studies that emerge from this work.

Ashley L. Landers, Assistant Professor of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

‘Time warp’ takes students to Native American past

Wed, 22 Nov 2023 10:16:22 -0500

Originally published in

By

Eric M. Anderman, Professor of Educational Psychology and Quantitative Research, Evaluation, and Measurement, The Ohio State University

Tzu-Jung Lin, Professor of Educational Psychology, The Ohio State University

Students become more emotionally engaged with history when it’s presented in an interactive way, research shows. SDI Productions via Getty Images

The eyes of the fifth graders in Ms. Evans’ class widened as they saw a dazzling light on the classroom smartboard and the phrase, “Let’s do the Time Warp!”

Ms. Evans, who teaches at a large suburban school in central Ohio, told her students that they were about to take a trip to a Native American community as it existed in the 19th century.

“We are now traveling back in time to Florida in the 1800s to visit a village of the Seminole,” Ms. Evans told her class excitedly as she began to read aloud the story of Seminole leader Osceola.

In the story, Osceola says, “The white man wants our groves of orange trees, our fine harbors, our full forests, and warm fertile lands. But they are ours. Here are our fish and birds and animals, the graves of our fathers, the grounds of our children.”

Immediately, a beautiful village appears on their Chromebooks. The students are welcomed by the Seminole before they engage with a series of interactive slides. They are introduced to the foods the Seminole eat, the clothes they wear and their daily experiences. They are invited to stay and live with the Seminole while they visit. However, on this first day of the history unit, students do not yet know that soon Osceola will face captivity by U.S. troops, who trick him into meeting for a truce.

The experience exemplifies the kinds of social studies lessons that our research group – Digital Civic Learning – has been developing since 2020 to enable students to use immersive storytelling to better understand different perspectives on complex historical issues, as well as current social ones. We’ve been working with elementary school teachers from several school districts in Ohio.

Overcoming a narrow view of history

Whereas other curricula may emphasize memorization of facts and dates, our approach emphasizes dialogue among students to make learning history more exciting.

In our view as educational psychologists, the need for such an approach is made clear by national data, which shows that American teenagers’ knowledge of U.S. history has been declining for the past decade.

Some of the history curricula currently used in schools are rooted in settler colonialism, which focuses on the displacement of Indigenous populations with new settlers, and often minimizes the perspectives of underrepresented populations.

Our approach integrates technology, immersive learning – such as an up-close look at the daily lives of the Seminole – and collaborative small-group discussions into daily social studies instruction.

The interactive experiences that students have with the Seminole were created using Google Slides. The slides consist of illustrations, story narrations, easy-to-read texts and interactive activities developed by our team. Beyond history, we also created units in geography, government and economics. Each unit was designed for upper elementary school students and delivered to students over two weeks.

Discussing dilemmas

Students actively participate in small-group discussions on the third and ninth day of each unit.

In our Seminole example, students are asked to reflect on the Treaty of Payne’s Landing, signed in 1832. The treaty required the Seminole to give up their land in Florida in exchange for new land in the West.

They discuss the dilemma that Osceola faced when deciding whether to accept the treaty in order to maintain peace, or to refuse to agree to the new treaty so that the Seminole could stay on their land.

Our approach to teaching history also emphasizes connections with current events, such as the Dakota Access Pipeline. The construction of the pipeline will help the economy by creating jobs and making the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil. However, the pipeline will be built on land owned by Native Americans who are deeply concerned that the pipeline will lead to contamination of groundwater and soil.

Students learn about a related situation in which the federal government has been debating whether to approve the construction of another pipeline in Minnesota that would go directly through Native American land. Working in groups, students come up with reasons for being either for or against the construction of the pipeline.

Based on our analysis of student discussions and essays over the course of this unit, we’ve found that through these immersive learning and interactive practices, students work more collaboratively and are more likely to consider multiple perspectives in civic debates.

Surveys also found that students who participated in the curriculum became more emotionally engaged with learning history – in part by making emotional connections with story characters – as they developed a deeper understanding of how historical events affect people’s lives.

Eric M. Anderman, Professor of Educational Psychology and Quantitative Research, Evaluation, and Measurement, The Ohio State University and Tzu-Jung Lin, Professor of Educational Psychology, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How nonprofits can become more resilient

Wed, 01 Nov 2023 11:35:31 -0400

Originally published in

By Telesilla Kotsi, The Ohio State University
and Alfonso J. Pedraza Martinez, University of Notre Dame

Food banks can operate on a large scale that requires expensive equipment and skilled management.
Brittany Murray/MediaNews Group/Long Beach Press-Telegram via Getty Images

Most food banks, homeless shelters and other social services nonprofits constantly face hard decisions about how to use their limited funds. Should they spend as much as possible on meeting the immediate needs of people who need help? How much of their budget is appropriate to spend on new equipment, skilled managers and everything else required for an organization to thrive and endure?

To help nonprofits tackle this quandary, we teamed up with two other business professors, Arian Aflaki and Goker Aydin, to develop a mathematical model to guide nonprofits on how to divvy up their spending to optimize both current performance and future resilience through their spending priorities.

Having observed how charity watchdogs like Charity Navigator rate nonprofits, our model takes into account that spending more on core programs leads to increased funding for a nonprofit. In consultation with the Indiana Hoosier Hills Food Bank, we also studied the relationship of administration costs with a nonprofit’s capacity, which comprises the organization’s infrastructure, equipment, staff and other resources. This capacity is crucial for the nonprofit’s ability to meet its immediate and future needs.

Building on this, our research challenges the conventional wisdom that nonprofits should allocate nearly all of their budget to program costs. We found that striking the right balance depends on an organization’s existing capacity.

Our model indicates that new organizations and groups that are operating on small budgets need to spend a larger share of their revenue on administrative costs than larger, more established nonprofits. This investment lays a solid foundation for long-term resilience and ensures they are better equipped to serve their beneficiaries.

As nonprofits grow and establish some level of capacity, the emphasis should then shift to fundraising. That approach allows them to gather the funding necessary to maximize their existing capabilities. Importantly, the share of spending for administration or fundraising should align with the organization’s anticipated future needs.

For instance, if a nonprofit expects to take on larger projects or greater responsibilities in the future, it would be prudent to increase administrative spending now to prepare for those challenges.

Why it matters

Administrative costs, also known as overhead, encompass salaries, training, infrastructure, equipment and upkeep.

Donors and grantmakers often pressure nonprofits to devote as much of their budgets as possible to providing services, generally known as a nonprofit’s program. Many funders even set admin and fundraising caps in grant agreements. These well-meaning practices can compel nonprofits to scrimp in ways that make them less effective.

After years of investing too little money in, say, computers and professional development, nonprofits eventually have to pivot and devote more money to those neglected needs. Once their financial health is no longer shaky, those groups tend to cave again to their donors’ concerns, cutting their budgets for fundraising and administrative activities.

Scholars of nonprofit management have sounded the alarm about this “starvation cycle,” for two decades. But there are some signs that this loop might be breaking.

Big donors like the Ford Foundation are now dedicating 20%-25% of their grants to cover overhead – or even providing their support with no strings attached, recognizing that for a nonprofit to be successful it needs to be well managed. Meanwhile, organizations that rate nonprofits, like Charity Navigator, are starting to broaden their criteria to look at an organization’s overall well-being and impact, not just how they minimize spending on administration and fundraising.

Rather than neglect urgent spending priorities, some nonprofits resort to misclassifying certain expenses. That is, they pay for administrative work with money designated as program related in their budgets. This strategy makes financial distress less likely but interferes with transparency and can undermine budget discipline.

What isn’t known

In the future, we plan to collaborate with charity watchdogs to gain their insights on how our evaluation recommendations could be applied to reflect each organization’s specific capabilities and goals. This will help us understand any limitations and make necessary adjustments for broader use.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Telesilla Kotsi, Assistant Professor of Operations and Business Analytics, The Ohio State University and Alfonso J. Pedraza Martinez, Professor of IT, Analytics, and Operations, University of Notre Dame

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How parents and schools can help improve kids’ reading skills

Sun, 22 Oct 2023 19:28:08 -0400

Originally published in

By Shayne Piasta

Professor of Reading and Literacy, The Ohio State University

According to the U.S. Department of Education, 54% of adult Americans read below the sixth grade level. Teresa Short/Moment via Getty Images

Reading ability among U.S. students remained low in 2022, with 37% of fourth graders and 30% of eighth graders scoring below the basic proficiency levels for reading set by the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Although the COVID-19 school shutdowns are responsible for some of the learning loss, the numbers weren’t particular good prior to the pandemic, either – reading scores for U.S. students have been low for decades.

SciLine interviewed Dr. Shayne Piasta, a professor of reading and literacy at The Ohio State University and a faculty associate at the Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy. Piasta discussed the various methods of reading instruction and how to get kids to love it.

Below are some highlights from the discussion. Answers have been edited for brevity and clarity.

What is meant by the ‘science of reading’? And what are the misconceptions?

Shayne Piasta: The science of reading refers to the accumulated knowledge base we have from scientific research about the reading process, its components, how reading skills develop and how we can best support those who are learning to read.

One of the misconceptions I see is that the science of reading is equated with phonics instruction.

But the science of reading is a knowledge base, not a specific approach. Phonics instruction is a specific approach, whereby one is explicitly and intentionally teaching children all of those important links between letters and sounds, both at an individual letter level – like learning the alphabet – and at higher skill levels, such as learning about some complex spelling conventions that we have in the English language.

Although phonics instruction is a necessary component in learning to read, phonics instruction alone, without attending to other key reading components, such as language, comprehension, and concept and background knowledge, is insufficient.

What critical components are needed for a reading curriculum to be successful?

Shayne Piasta: First and foremost, I would expect a reading program to have a scope and sequence, meaning there is predetermined content of what’s going to be covered. And then that it’s in a particular order, often building from more simple skills or concepts to more complex ones.

This might apply to phonics instruction, where we’re going from simple letter sound correspondences and building up to more complex associations between letters, spelling patterns and how words are pronounced.

Any successful reading program should have a scope and sequence. It should definitely have it for the phonics component, but it should have it for other components as well.

What role does background knowledge play in learning to read?

Shayne Piasta: We’re learning more and more about how critical concept knowledge and background knowledge are for successful reading.

To understand the meaning being conveyed by text, which is the ultimate goal, children use the information they already know to make sense of text. A famous example involves a study in which children read a written passage about baseball. Children who knew a lot about baseball best understood the passage, regardless of reading ability.

This highlights the role of concept and background knowledge as foundations for understanding text meaning, and thus, reading comprehension.

Any reading curriculum should have opportunities for children to build those skills – to learn about our world, to make connections with the world, to make connections across different sources and types of information. This is particularly important given the diversity of classrooms. Educators cannot assume that children share certain knowledge or backgrounds.

Teachers need to provide opportunities to discuss and learn about concepts that children will read about. This includes topics like baseball as well as academic concepts like photosynthesis. And then they bring that conceptual and background knowledge with them when they’re going to read a new piece about a certain topic so they can actually make sense of it.

Again, it’s not phonics only. It’s phonics and these opportunities to support knowledge building as well as language skills.

Are any approaches especially effective for children from marginalized backgrounds?

Shayne Piasta: There are many evidence-based practices for building language for both children who speak English only and those who are English learners. This includes exposing children to more complex grammar during conversations and using routines to improve awareness of new vocabulary words.

The science of reading applies to all learners. Most practices that we would recommend are going to be helpful for students from a range of different backgrounds. That being said, it’s important to be able to identify the strengths and the learning needs of individual children.

How can parents support kids who are learning to read?

Shayne Piasta: For parents, I would recommend focusing on creating positive literacy environments at home. That is, having children see you reading, having children see you writing, and being clear about how literacy plays a role in your everyday life – not just having storybook time together or reading together, but doing activities like making grocery lists together.

Or maybe you could point out, “Hey, I’m reading these instructions so I can put together this piece of Ikea furniture.” So you’re really highlighting all of the important roles that literacy plays in daily life. In doing so, you can help children build positive connections with those reading opportunities so that it’s fun, engaging and something they want to do.

Watch the full interview to hear more.

SciLine is a free service based at the nonprofit American Association for the Advancement of Science that helps journalists include scientific evidence and experts in their news stories.

Shayne Piasta, Professor of Reading and Literacy, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Reflexive military revenge burdened the US − and may do the same for Israel

Wed, 18 Oct 2023 16:30:00 -0400

Originally published in

By Peter Mansoor,
Professor of History, General Raymond E. Mason Jr. Chair in Military History, The Ohio State University

Israeli tanks gather near the border with the Gaza Strip on Oct. 13, 2023. Aris Messinis/AFP via Getty Images

In the wake of the shocking invasion of southern Israel by Hamas militants on Oct. 7, 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to destroy Hamas.

“We are fighting a cruel enemy, worse than ISIS,” Netanyahu proclaimed four days after the invasion, comparing Hamas with the Islamic State group, which was largely defeated by U.S., Iraqi and Kurdish forces in 2017.

On that same day, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant went further, stating, “We will wipe this thing called Hamas, ISIS-Gaza, off the face of the earth. It will cease to exist.” They were strong words, issued in the wake of the horrific terrorist attack that killed more than 1,300 Israelis and culminated in the kidnapping of more than 150 people, including several Americans.

And in a telling comparison, Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Gilad Erdan compared the attack with the toppling of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon in 2001, declaring, “This is Israel’s 9/11.”

As a scholar of military history, I believe the comparison is interesting and revealing. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by al-Qaida on the United States, President George W. Bush made a similar expansive pledge, declaring, “Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”

The U.S. response to 9/11 included the American invasion of Afghanistan in league with the Afghan United Front, the so-called Northern Alliance. The immediate goals were to force the Taliban from power and destroy al-Qaida. Very little thought or resources were put into what happened after those goals were attained. In his 2010 memoir, “Decision Points,” former President Bush recalled a meeting of the war cabinet in late September 2001, when he asked the assemblage, “‘So who’s going to run the country (Afghanistan)?’ There was silence.”

Wars that are based on revenge can be effective in punishing an enemy, but they can also create a power vacuum that sparks a long, deadly conflict that fails to deliver sustainable stability. That’s what happened in Afghanistan, and that is what could happen in Gaza.

A war of weak results

The U.S. invasion toppled the Taliban from power by the end of 2001, but the war did not end. An interim administration headed by Hamid Karzai took power as an Afghan council of leaders, called a loya jirga, fashioned a new constitution for the country.

Nongovernmental and international relief organizations began to deliver humanitarian aid and reconstruction support, but their efforts were uncoordinated. U.S. trainers began creating a new Afghan National Army, but lack of funding, insufficient volunteers and inadequate facilities hampered the effort.

The period between 2002 and 2006 was the best opportunity to create a resilient Afghan state with enough security forces to hold its own against a resurgent Taliban. Because of a lack of focus, inadequate resources and poor strategy, however, the United States and its allies squandered that opportunity.

As a result, the Taliban was able to reconstitute its forces and return to the fight. As the insurgency gained momentum, the United States and its NATO allies increased their troop levels, but they could not overcome the weakness of the Kabul government and the lack of adequate numbers of trained Afghan security forces.

Despite a surge of forces to Afghanistan during the first two years of the Obama administration and the 2011 killing of Osama bin Laden, the Taliban remained undefeated. As Western forces largely departed the country by the end of 2014, Afghan forces took the lead in security operations, but their numbers and competence proved insufficient to stem the Taliban tide.

Negotiations between the United States and the Taliban went nowhere, as Taliban leaders realized they could seize by force what they could not gain at the bargaining table. The Taliban entry into Kabul in August 2021 merely put an exclamation point on a campaign the United States had lost many years before.

A goal that’s hard to achieve

As Israel pursues its response to the Hamas attack, the Israeli government would be well advised to remember the past two decades of often indecisive warfare conducted by both the United States and Israel against insurgent and terrorist groups.

The invasion of Afghanistan ultimately failed because U.S. policymakers did not think through the end state of the campaign as they exacted revenge for the 9/11 attacks. An Israeli invasion of Gaza could well lead to an indecisive quagmire if the political goal is not considered ahead of time.

Israel has invaded Gaza twice, in 2009 and 2014, but quickly withdrew its ground forces once Israeli leaders calculated they had reestablished deterrence. This strategy – called by Israeli leaders “mowing the grass,” with periodic punitive strikes against Hamas – has proven to be a failure. The newly declared goal of destroying Hamas as a military force is far more difficult than that.

As four U.S. presidential administrations discovered in Afghanistan, creating stability in the aftermath of conflict is far more difficult than toppling a weak regime in the first place.

The only successful conflict against a terrorist group in the past two decades, against the Islamic State group between 2014 and 2017, ended with both Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq reduced to rubble and thousands of men, women and children consigned to detention camps.

Israel has the capacity to level Gaza and round up segments of the population, but that may not be wise. Doing so might serve the immediate impulse of exacting revenge on its enemies, but Israel would likely receive massive international condemnation from creating a desert in Gaza and calling it peace, and thus forgo the moral high ground it claims in the wake of the Hamas attacks.

Peter Mansoor, Professor of History, General Raymond E. Mason Jr. Chair in Military History, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

US, China may end science and tech agreement

Tue, 12 Sep 2023 14:00:00 -0400

Originally published in

By Caroline Wagner,

Professor of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University

A decades-old science and technology cooperative agreement between the United States and China expires on Aug. 27, 2023. On the surface, an expiring diplomatic agreement may not seem significant. But unless it’s renewed, the quiet end to a cooperative era may have consequences for scientific research and technological innovation.

The possible lapse comes after U.S. Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., led a congressional group warning the U.S. State Department in July 2023 to beware of cooperation with China. This group recommended to let the agreement expire without renewal, claiming China has gained a military advantage through its scientific and technological ties with the U.S.

The State Department has dragged its feet on renewing the agreement, only requesting an extension at the last moment to “amend and strengthen” the agreement.

The U.S. is an active international research collaborator, and since 2011 China has been its top scientific partner, displacing the United Kingdom, which had been the U.S.’s most frequent collaborator for decades. China’s domestic research and development spending is closing in on parity with that of the United States. Its scholastic output is growing in both number and quality. According to recent studies, China’s science is becoming increasingly creative, breaking new ground.

As a policy analyst and public affairs professor, I research international collaboration in science and technology and its implications for public policy. Relations between countries are often enhanced by negotiating and signing agreements, and this agreement is no different. The U.S.’s science and technology agreement with China successfully built joint research projects and shared research centers between the two nations.

U.S. scientists can typically work with foreign counterparts without a political agreement. Most aren’t even aware of diplomatic agreements, which are signed long after researchers have worked together. But this is not the case with China, where the 1979 agreement became a prerequisite for and the initiator of cooperation.

A 40-year diplomatic investment

The U.S.-China science and technology agreement was part of a historic opening of relations between the two countries, following decades of antagonism and estrangement. U.S. President Richard Nixon set in motion the process of normalizing relations with China in the early 1970s. President Jimmy Carter continued to seek an improved relationship with China.

China had announced reforms, modernizations and a global opening after an intense period of isolation from the time of the Cultural Revolution from the late 1950s until the early 1970s. Among its “four modernizations” was science and technology, in addition to agriculture, defense and industry.

While China is historically known for inventing gunpowder, paper and the compass, China was not a scientific power in the 1970s. American and Chinese diplomats viewed science as a low-conflict activity, comparable to cultural exchange. They figured starting with a nonthreatening scientific agreement could pave the way for later discussions on more politically sensitive issues.

On July 28, 1979, Carter and Chinese Premier Deng Xiaoping signed an “umbrella agreement” that contained a general statement of intent to cooperate in science and technology, with specifics to be worked out later.

In the years that followed, China’s economy flourished, as did its scientific output. As China’s economy expanded, so did its investment in domestic research and development. This all boosted China’s ability to collaborate in science – aiding their own economy.

Early collaboration under the 1979 umbrella agreement was mostly symbolic and based upon information exchange, but substantive collaborations grew over time.

A major early achievement came when the two countries published research showing mothers could ingest folic acid to prevent birth defects like spina bifida in developing embryos. Other successful partnerships developed renewable energy, rapid diagnostic tests for the SARS virus and a solar-driven method for producing hydrogen fuel.

Joint projects then began to emerge independent of government agreements or aid. Researchers linked up around common interests – this is how nation-to-nation scientific collaboration thrives.

Many of these projects were initiated by Chinese Americans or Chinese nationals working in the United States who cooperated with researchers back home. In the earliest days of the COVID-19 pandemic, these strong ties led to rapid, increased Chinese-U.S. cooperation in response to the crisis.

Time of conflict

Throughout the 2000s and 2010s, scientific collaboration between the two countries increased dramatically – joint research projects expanded, visiting students in science and engineering skyrocketed in number and collaborative publications received more recognition.

As China’s economy and technological success grew, however, U.S. government agencies and Congress began to scrutinize the agreement and its output. Chinese know-how began to build military strength and, with China’s military and political influence growing, they worried about intellectual property theft, trade secret violations and national security vulnerabilities coming from connections with the U.S.

Recent U.S. legislation, such as the CHIPS and Science Act, is a direct response to China’s stunning expansion. Through the CHIPS and Science Act, the U.S. will boost its semiconductor industry, seen as the platform for building future industries, while seeking to limit China’s access to advances in AI and electronics.

A victim of success?

Some politicians believe this bilateral science and technology agreement, negotiated in the 1970s as the least contentious form of cooperation – and one renewed many times – may now threaten the United States’ dominance in science and technology. As political and military tensions grow, both countries are wary of renewal of the agreement, even as China has signed similar agreements with over 100 nations.

The United States is stuck in a world that no longer exists – one where it dominates science and technology. China now leads the world in research publications recognized as high quality work, and it produces many more engineers than the U.S. By all measures, China’s research spending is soaring.

Even if the recent extension results in a renegotiated agreement, the U.S. has signaled to China a reluctance to cooperate. Since 2018, joint publications have dropped in number. Chinese researchers are less willing to come to the U.S. Meanwhile, Chinese researchers who are in the U.S. are increasingly likely to return home, taking valuable knowledge with them.

The U.S. risks being cut off from top know-how as China forges ahead. Perhaps looking at science as a globally shared resource could help both parties craft a truly “win-win” agreement.

Caroline Wagner, Professor of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What is most likely going on in Area 51?

Mon, 14 Aug 2023 12:37:49 -0400

Originally published in

By Christopher Nichols

Professor of History, The Ohio State University

For decades, what lay at the end of this road was a mysterious secret. David James Henry/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.

What is most likely going on in Area 51? – Griffin, age 10, South Lyon, Michigan

One of the reasons people can never be entirely sure about what is going on at Area 51 is that it is a highly classified secret military facility. It was not until 2013 that the U.S. government even acknowledged the existence and name “Area 51.”

This information came out as part of a broader set of documents released through a Freedom of Information Act request, which is something regular citizens and groups can do to ask the U.S. government to provide details about government activities. In this case, the request made public formerly classified CIA information regarding the historical development and testing of the U-2 spy plane. The information also revealed where it was tested: Area 51!

As a national security historian, I know there’s a long history of secrets at Area 51. I also know that none of those secrets have anything to do with space aliens.

The place

The base commonly referred to as Area 51 is located in a remote area of southern Nevada, roughly 100 miles (161 kilometers) from Las Vegas. It is in the middle of a federally protected area of the U.S. Air Force’s Nevada Test and Training Range, now known as the Nevada National Security Site, which is inside the larger Nellis Air Force Range.

Area 51 is the secret code name for the site. The airfield at Area 51 is called Homey Airport, and the overall facility is often referred to as Groom Lake. Groom Lake is a salt flat, or dried-out lake, adjacent to the airport.

The history

In the early years of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, both nations sought new technological developments that might give one country more power than the other. A great amount of information about scientific achievements, such as on rockets or weapons – but also even on ways to grow more food or make fuel more efficient – was kept secret as an issue of national security.

A key part of not fighting another world war was, and still is, developing technologies to see what the other side is doing – that is, surveillance technologies that can spy on the enemy. The information gathered by new and improved surveillance technologies about new innovations with planes and weapons was very important to governments.

This meant that both the surveillance information and the technology to get it were closely held national security secrets. Very few people in the governments of the U.S. and Soviet Union knew about the secrets from the 1940s all the way up until the end of the Cold War in 1991.

Central to all this was the U.S.’s U-2 spy plane. It could fly higher and faster than other airplanes and was made to travel over targets all around the world to take high-resolution photographs and measurements. Area 51 was selected in 1955 to test the U-2 in part because its remote location could help keep the plane secret.

Area 51 became the test site for other secret new aircraft. This included the A-12, which, like the U-2, was a fast-flying reconnaissance plane. The A-12 was first test flown at Homey Airport in 1962. It had a bulging disc-like center to carry additional fuel. Its shape and shiny titanium body could well have been responsible for some people’s reports about seeing spherical ships, also known as flying saucers.

Another important – and odd-shaped – aircraft first tested at Area 51 was the stealth fighter known as the F-117. It first flew at Homey Airport in 1981.

Secrets and speculation

“More Flying Objects Seen in Clark Sky,” read the June 17, 1959, headline in the Reno Evening Gazette newspaper. Reports like this of unidentified flying objects in the 1950s and 1960s fueled controversy and attention for Area 51. This was for three main reasons:

Area 51 was highly secret and not publicly accessible.
The area was home to test flights of secret new airplanes that moved fast and in different ways than expected.
The Cold War was an era of political tension, and there were many movies and TV shows about space aliens at the time.

When the government does not tell the public the full truth, no matter the reasons, secrets can lead to wild speculation. Secrecy can leave room for conspiracy theories to develop.

Area 51 remains off-limits to civilian and regular military air traffic, a decade after the government acknowledged its existence. The 68 years of government secrecy has helped to amplify suspicions, speculation and conspiracy theories. These conspiracy theories include crashed alien spaceships, space aliens being experimented on, and even space aliens working at Area 51.

There are much simpler explanations for what witnesses have seen near Area 51. After all, the public now knows about what was being tested at Area 51, and when. For example, as U-2 and A-12 flights increased in the 1950s and 1960s, so did local sightings of UFOs. As balloons and planes crashed, and secret testing of new technologies as well as captured Soviet equipment continued, so did reports of UFO crashes and landings.

In fact, many UFO sightings match almost exactly with dates and times of flights of then-classified experimental aircraft. We also know that prototype drones and more recent versions have been tested at the site.

In the end, there is no reason to think that anything other than earthly technologies have been behind the strange sights and sounds at Area 51.

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

Christopher Nichols, Professor of History, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Canada’s extreme wildfire season offers a glimpse of new risks

Fri, 21 Jul 2023 15:02:59 -0400

Originally published in

By Patrick Louchouarn, The Ohio State University

Thick smoke rises from a peat bog fire in June 2023. Bernd Wüstneck/picture alliance via Getty Images

The blanket of wildfire smoke that spread across large parts of the U.S. and Canada in 2023 was a wake-up call, showing what climate change could feel like in the near future for millions of people.

Apocalyptic orange skies and air pollution levels that force people indoors only tell part of the story, though.

As global temperatures rise, fires are also spreading farther north and into the Arctic. These fires aren’t just burning in trees and grasses. New research on the exceptional Arctic fire seasons of 2019 and 2020 points to fires moving into the ground as well.

These underground fires are known as “zombie fires,” and there are a number of reasons to worry about the trend.

First, as the organic-rich Arctic soils dry up because of changing climate conditions, they can burn slowly and release vast amounts of smoke into the atmosphere.

Second, soil fires that spread underground are harder for firefighters to tame and extinguish, thus demanding more resources for longer periods of time. Firefighters in Alberta, Canada, where carbon-rich peatlands are common, have been dealing with fires smoldering to depths dozens of feet underground in 2023. Because peat fires can make the ground unstable, using heavy equipment to excavate the fire areas also becomes risky.

Finally, these soil fires don’t die easily. Recent research finds that Arctic soil fires can smolder through the winter and reignite during early spring when temperatures rise, hence the nickname “zombie fires.”

The Arctic is increasingly flammable

Wildfires have been a natural part of northern forest and tundra ecosystems for thousand of years. However, the severity, frequency and types of wildfires in northern and Arctic regions have changed in recent decades.

One major culprit is the rising temperature: The Arctic is warming nearly four times faster than the rest of the world, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification.

A visualization of temperature changes compared with the 1951-1980 average shows the Arctic warming significantly faster than much of the world.

While governing bodies that are working to curtail the pace of climate change worry about exceeding a 1.5-degree Celsius (2.7-degree Fahrenheit) threshold globally, the Arctic has already exceeded a 2 C (3.6 F) increase compared with pre-industrial times. That rise in temperature brings with it a number of changes to the environment that make the forest and tundra more susceptible to burning, for longer, and in more extensive ways than just a few decades ago.

Among the changing conditions that favor wildfires are changes in atmospheric circulation that create periods of extreme heat, dry out vegetation and reduce moisture in soils, and, importantly, lead to more frequent lightning strikes that can spark blazes.

Although lightning remains infrequent at very high latitudes, it is expected to increase and expand over larger territories into the far north as the climate warms and generates more storms that can produce lightning. In 2022, thousands of lightning strikes help sparked one of Alaska’s worst fire seasons on record.

As the Arctic warms and fires move farther northward, peat soils rich in dead plant material burn at an accelerated rate.

The burning peat also removes the layer insulating permafrost, the region’s frozen carbon-rich soil. Northern ecosystems store twice as much carbon in their peat and permafrost as the atmosphere, and both are increasingly vulnerable to fire.

About 70% of recorded area of Arctic peat affected by burning over the past 40 years occurred in the last eight years, and 30% of it was in 2020 alone, showing the acceleration.

What is a zombie fire?

Most people picture wildfires as catastrophic flames consuming trees and grasses. Ground fires, on the other hand, do not flame but burn more slowly and have the tendency to spread deep into the ground and spread laterally.

The result is that ground-smoldering fires are not only less visible, but they are also less accessible and require digging up and dousing with lots of water.

These smoldering fires also produce more smoke because of their lower temperature of combustion. Ultra-fine particles in smoke are particularly harmful to the respiratory and cardiovascular systems and can be carried far and wide by winds.

Because of the slow combustion process and the abundance of fuel in the form of carbon and oxygen, smoldering ground fires can also burn for months and sometimes years. They have been shown to “overwinter,” persisting through the cold season to reemerge in the warm, dry season. During the 2019-2020 fire season in Siberia, zombie fires were blamed for rekindling fires the following year.

Some of these ground fires can become so massive that they release smoke plumes that cover vast geographical regions. In 1997, peat fires in Indonesia sent dangerous levels of smoke across Southeast Asia and parts of Australia and increased carbon emissions. They were ignited by slash-and-burn activities to plant palm plantations and amplified by drought conditions during a severe El Niño event.

Some hope and caution from past lessons

I have been studying the effects of wildfires on air and water, including in the Arctic, for many years. My work and that of many colleagues, however, focus on the combustion of above-ground biomass. More work is needed to understand the full extent of zombie fires in the Arctic and their potential for carbon and smoke emissions on a large scale. One recent study conducted at a handful of Canadian sites offered some hope, suggesting underground fires there were burning more in tree roots than in soil, suggesting potentially lower carbon emissions in some areas.

In the meantime, the continuing waves of wildfire haze in Canada and the U.S. are a reminder of the impact of these fires.

More regions will need help from trained firefighters, meaning sharing firefighting resources. Canada has seen an unprecedented level of international fire support in 2023. Best practices for safely fighting zombie fires are also needed, along with better public education about the health risks of wildfire smoke.

As a society, we are learning to live with some of the effects of climate change, but the risks are rising around the world.

Patrick Louchouarn, Professor of Earth Sciences, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Why Trump’s prosecution for keeping secret documents is lawful

Thu, 20 Jul 2023 16:16:02 -0400

Originally published in

By Dakota Rudesill, The Ohio State University

Donald Trump and his allies have responded with a variety of objections to his federal indictment, brought in June 2023 by special counsel Jack Smith. The federal charges – the first against a former president – listed 37 counts of obstruction of justice and wrongful retention of classified documents after Trump left office in January 2021.

Trump pleaded not guilty.

The objections made by Trump and his allies: The former president simply cannot be charged, the indictment is political “weaponization” of the justice system, the charges are groundless and the charges are unfair. The unfairness claim often involves a comparison to Hillary Clinton, Trump’s 2016 presidential opponent, who was not charged in an investigation into her handling of government documents.

As a scholar of secrecy law and a longtime national security practitioner, based on all that is known, I do not see merit in those claims.

A former president can be charged

Trump and his allies have argued that it is completely inappropriate for the former president to be charged.

But no part of the Constitution, no statute and no Supreme Court precedent sets a former chief executive above the law. Alexander Hamilton, writing in The Federalist Papers, stated the founders’ view that a former president is “liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” Hamilton added that a former president would be no different in this respect from a state governor.

American history is replete with criminal charges against state officials, vice presidents – a former one during the founding era, and a sitting one in the 1970s – members of Congress and other prominent politicians.

Not a partisan prosecution

Trump is right that his is inevitably a sensitive case because of his continued presence in the political arena.

What he does not acknowledge is that maintaining the bedrock legal principle of equal justice requires avoiding twin hazards: politically motivated prosecutions and exempting elite politicians from the law.

Navigating these shoals is challenging because under the U.S. Constitution, the executive branch is headed by the sitting president, and it includes the Justice Department. That means there will always be at least a potential risk of “weaponization” of prosecution – or just the risk of that allegation – when the defendant is in a different party from the president.

But if a former president who is a political adversary of the current president cannot be charged, then that former president can commit any federal crime they please. That is the opposite of the founders’ intent, and not the law.

Sorting this out requires careful analysis of the facts and law.

Here, the “weaponization” allegation lacks substance. All it has are the circumstances of President Joe Biden’s position atop the executive branch, and Trump’s challenge to Biden’s candidacy. In contrast to President Thomas Jefferson’s detailed direction of the prosecution of political adversary and former Vice President Aaron Burr, there is no credible evidence that Biden is telling the prosecutor what to do.

The charges have merit

Trump claims that he had an “absolute right” to take the documents. In reality, when Trump left office he lost the presidency’s authority to possess presidential records and national security documents. The indictment presents strong evidence that the documents Trump held on to contained extremely sensitive secrets, including U.S. war plans, and that Trump knew it and worked to block recovery of all of them by the government.

By law, documents of former presidents and national defense information must be stored by the National Archives or other federal agencies. Instead, the indictment alleges that the former president stored classified information at the busy Mar-a-Lago resort in a room accessible from the pool, an office, ballroom stage, bathroom and shower.

The indictment lays out clear evidence of Trump’s knowing refusal over many months to comply fully with lawful requests, and a subsequent court-issued subpoena, for the return of all the documents. It includes pictures, and a recorded statement in which Trump checks all the boxes for criminal liability: knowing possession after leaving office of documents he calls “secret” and showing of those documents to people not authorized to see them – plus admitting that he could have declassified them while president but did not.

Not comparable to Biden, Pence or Clinton

That recording and other contents of the indictment will be powerful evidence at trial of Trump’s state of mind.

The law concerning government documents and national defense information requires willfulness for criminal liability – basically, keeping documents you know you should not. Other statutes criminalize lying to investigators, other obstruction of justice and getting others to commit crimes.

It is Trump’s alleged knowingness and obstruction that make complaints of unfairness fall flat.

President Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence both instructed aides to return documents with classification markings after such records were discovered in files that had been quickly packed and went home with the former vice presidents at the end of their terms as veep.

A federal investigation of Pence was dropped in June 2023. One of Biden likely will be, too. Both former vice presidents wrongfully retained national defense information, but not knowingly. Neither was obstructive.

In Trump’s 2016 campaign, he criticized former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her use of private email systems, including to send emails with classified information. The FBI concluded that she had been extremely careless rather than knowing or obstructing.

Echoes of Reality Winner and Edward Snowden

The evidence of Trump’s knowing retention of secret documents and obstruction makes his case quite like many in which people have faced fines or prison. Those include cases in which people once had lawful access to secrets but knowingly stole and shared them to make political points.

A junior Air Force linguist, Reality Winner, unlawfully removed one top-secret document and sent it to the media because she thought the public should know about it. Winner was prosecuted during Trump’s presidency and sentenced to five years in prison. The law in question? One of the same Espionage Act provisions under which Trump has been charged with over 30 counts.

Edward Snowden, the National Security Agency contractor who in 2013 leaked tens of thousands of classified documents to inform the public about secret U.S. surveillance activities, was also charged under another very similar section of the same statute before fleeing to Russia.

Trump’s case also looks a lot like those of other senior officials who have been prosecuted for knowingly mishandling secret documents, plus lying and other obstruction.

The indictment alleges that Trump, after leaving office, showed classified information to a biographer. That recalls then-CIA Director David Petraeus’ giving his biographer – who was also his lover – top-secret papers.

Both Trump and Petraeus were charged under the same Espionage Act sections and the same law criminalizing lying to investigators. After being fired as CIA director, Petraeus pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, paid a fine and got two years’ probation.

Trump’s situation strikes me as worse than Petraeus’. Trump’s documents are more numerous. Prosecutors allege that Trump’s were viewed by more people and were stored less securely. Trump’s obstruction also appears far greater.

A final category of cases also suggests Trump is in big trouble: the prosecutions of hoarders. There are multiple instances of U.S. intelligence personnel having been indicted, like Trump, for keeping troves of secret documents at home. Their mental health defenses failed. During Trump’s presidency, sentences in these cases included five years and nine years in prison.

Despite all of that, Trump and his allies will likely argue that indictment of a former president violates an important tradition against such prosecutions.

The real tradition is that former presidents tend not to break the law. The considerable evidence of the former president’s hoarding of secret documents and obstruction have forced the justice system either to exempt an elite politician from the law – or proceed with the well-merited prosecution that is now underway.

Dakota Rudesill, Associate Professor of Law; Senior Faculty Fellow, Mershon Center for International Security Studies, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What is ‘ethical AI’ and how can companies achieve it?

Fri, 23 Jun 2023 14:21:50 -0400

Originally published in

By Dennis Hirsch and Piers Norris Turner, The Ohio State University

In the absence of legal guidelines, companies need to establish internal processes for responsible use of AI. Oscar Wong/Moment via Getty Images

The rush to deploy powerful new generative AI technologies, such as ChatGPT, has raised alarms about potential harm and misuse. The law’s glacial response to such threats has prompted demands that the companies developing these technologies implement AI “ethically.”

But what, exactly, does that mean?

The straightforward answer would be to align a business’s operations with one or more of the dozens of sets of AI ethics principles that governments, multistakeholder groups and academics have produced. But that is easier said than done.

We and our colleagues spent two years interviewing and surveying AI ethics professionals across a range of sectors to try to understand how they sought to achieve ethical AI – and what they might be missing. We learned that pursuing AI ethics on the ground is less about mapping ethical principles onto corporate actions than it is about implementing management structures and processes that enable an organization to spot and mitigate threats.

This is likely to be disappointing news for organizations looking for unambiguous guidance that avoids gray areas, and for consumers hoping for clear and protective standards. But it points to a better understanding of how companies can pursue ethical AI.

Grappling with ethical uncertainties

Our study, which is the basis for a forthcoming book, centered on those responsible for managing AI ethics issues at major companies that use AI. From late 2017 to early 2019, we interviewed 23 such managers. Their titles ranged from privacy officer and privacy counsel to one that was new at the time but increasingly common today: data ethics officer. Our conversations with these AI ethics managers produced four main takeaways.

First, along with its many benefits, business use of AI poses substantial risks, and the companies know it. AI ethics managers expressed concerns about privacy, manipulation, bias, opacity, inequality and labor displacement. In one well-known example, Amazon developed an AI tool to sort résumés and trained it to find candidates similar to those it had hired in the past. Male dominance in the tech industry meant that most of Amazon’s employees were men. The tool accordingly learned to reject female candidates. Unable to fix the problem, Amazon ultimately had to scrap the project.

Generative AI raises additional worries about misinformation and hate speech at large scale and misappropriation of intellectual property.

Second, companies that pursue ethical AI do so largely for strategic reasons. They want to sustain trust among customers, business partners and employees. And they want to preempt, or prepare for, emerging regulations. The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which Cambridge Analytica used Facebook user data, shared without consent, to infer the users’ psychological types and target them with manipulative political ads, showed that the unethical use of advanced analytics can eviscerate a company’s reputation or even, as in the case of Cambridge Analytica itself, bring it down. The companies we spoke to wanted instead to be viewed as responsible stewards of people’s data.

The challenge that AI ethics managers faced was figuring out how best to achieve “ethical AI.” They looked first to AI ethics principles, particularly those rooted in bioethics or human rights principles, but found them insufficient. It was not just that there are many competing sets of principles. It was that justice, fairness, beneficence, autonomy and other such principles are contested and subject to interpretation and can conflict with one another.

This led to our third takeaway: Managers needed more than high-level AI principles to decide what to do in specific situations. One AI ethics manager described trying to translate human rights principles into a set of questions that developers could ask themselves to produce more ethical AI software systems. “We stopped after 34 pages of questions,” the manager said.

Fourth, professionals grappling with ethical uncertainties turned to organizational structures and procedures to arrive at judgments about what to do. Some of these were clearly inadequate. But others, while still largely in development, were more helpful, such as:

Hiring an AI ethics officer to build and oversee the program.
Establishing an internal AI ethics committee to weigh and decide hard issues.
Crafting data ethics checklists and requiring front-line data scientists to fill them out.
Reaching out to academics, former regulators and advocates for alternative perspectives.
Conducting algorithmic impact assessments of the type already in use in environmental and privacy governance.

Ethics as responsible decision-making

The key idea that emerged from our study is this: Companies seeking to use AI ethically should not expect to discover a simple set of principles that delivers correct answers from an all-knowing, God’s-eye perspective. Instead, they should focus on the very human task of trying to make responsible decisions in a world of finite understanding and changing circumstances, even if some decisions end up being imperfect.

In the absence of explicit legal requirements, companies, like individuals, can only do their best to make themselves aware of how AI affects people and the environment and to stay abreast of public concerns and the latest research and expert ideas. They can also seek input from a large and diverse set of stakeholders and seriously engage with high-level ethical principles.

This simple idea changes the conversation in important ways. It encourages AI ethics professionals to focus their energies less on identifying and applying AI principles – though they remain part of the story – and more on adopting decision-making structures and processes to ensure that they consider the impacts, viewpoints and public expectations that should inform their business decisions.

Ultimately, we believe laws and regulations will need to provide substantive benchmarks for organizations to aim for. But the structures and processes of responsible decision-making are a place to start and should, over time, help to build the knowledge needed to craft protective and workable substantive legal standards.

Indeed, the emerging law and policy of AI focuses on process. New York City passed a law requiring companies to audit their AI systems for harmful bias before using these systems to make hiring decisions. Members of Congress have introduced bills that would require businesses to conduct algorithmic impact assessments before using AI for lending, employment, insurance and other such consequential decisions. These laws emphasize processes that address in advance AI’s many threats.

Some of the developers of generative AI have taken a very different approach. Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, initially explained that, in releasing ChatGPT to the public, the company sought to give the chatbot “enough exposure to the real world that you find some of the misuse cases you wouldn’t have thought of so that you can build better tools.” To us, that is not responsible AI. It is treating human beings as guinea pigs in a risky experiment.

Altman’s call at a May 2023 Senate hearing for government regulation of AI shows greater awareness of the problem. But we believe he goes too far in shifting to government the responsibilities that the developers of generative AI must also bear. Maintaining public trust, and avoiding harm to society, will require companies more fully to face up to their responsibilities.

Dennis Hirsch, Professor of Law and Computer Science; Director, Program on Data and Governance; core faculty TDAI, The Ohio State University and Piers Norris Turner, Associate Professor of Philosophy & PPE Coordinator; Director, Center for Ethics and Human Values, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Keeping Coca-Cola cold complicates greening its operations

Tue, 13 Jun 2023 11:59:45 -0400

Originally published in

By Bart Elmore, The Ohio State University

Egyptian workers push Coca-Cola branded refrigerators, provided free to grocers, through a Cairo street. Mohammed Al-Sehiti/AFP via Getty Images

Coca-Cola is one of the world’s most widely recognized brands. Its global reach, spanning more than 200 countries, was the theme of a 2020 commercial that showed families drinking Coke with their meals in cities from Orlando, Florida, to Shanghai, London, Mexico City and Mumbai, India.

Operating on that scale creates a big carbon footprint. The company uses over 200,000 vehicles to distribute its products every day and runs hundreds of bottling plants and syrup factories across the globe.

But Coke’s single largest contribution to climate change comes from its refrigeration equipment.

Running refrigerators uses a lot of electricity, and some coolants in these systems are greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. Almost two-thirds of the climate impact of refrigeration comes from electricity consumption, and refrigerants account for the rest. As of 2020, refrigeration produced nearly 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

History suggests that the most effective way to shrink Coca-Cola’s refrigeration emissions may be to question whether the company needs that cooling equipment running around the clock at convenience stores on street corners worldwide. That’s a heretical notion for a company obsessed with making sure Coca-Cola is always within “an arm’s reach of desire,” as one Coke president put it.

As I show in my new book, “Country Capitalism: How Corporations from the American South Remade Our Economy and the Planet,” major companies like Coca-Cola have profited handsomely by making their products readily available worldwide. In doing so, they have created a fast-paced, long-distance form of commerce that is a major driver of our planet’s current ecological crisis.

Wanted: An ideal refrigerant

Refrigerants first became an environmental issue because of concerns about ozone loss, not climate change. Before the 1980s, the primary coolants used in refrigerators were chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. Discovered in the 1920s by a chemist at General Motors, these compounds were odorless, nonflammable and seemingly nontoxic – all properties that made them useful to industry. In the following decades, CFCs became the chief refrigerant used to keep things cool.

Then, in the 1970s, researchers at the University of California found that CFCs could destroy stratospheric ozone, a gas in the atmosphere that protects life on Earth from the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation. Nations ultimately moved to ban use of CFCs through the 1987 Montreal Protocol, one of the most successful environmental treaties on record.

Chemical companies such as DuPont led the way in promoting new chlorine-free refrigerants, called hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs, that would not deplete the ozone layer. Like CFCs, HFCs appealed to industry because they were odorless, nonflammable and posed no serious threats to human health.

But HFCs had a big drawback: They were powerful greenhouse gases that trapped heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, warming the planet’s surface. Some HFCs had warming impacts more than 1,000 times greater than carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas.

How refrigerants work and why they’re bad for the climate.

HFC politics

Companies like Coca-Cola knew about HFCs’ climate-warming effects when they began transitioning to this new refrigerant in the 1990s. Bryan Jacobs, a Coca-Cola engineer who worked on this transition, told me in an interview that early on, refrigeration technicians in Europe recommended another promising path instead.

Greenpeace advocates in Germany had worked closely with refrigeration engineers to develop what came to be known as Greenfreeze cooling equipment: machines that used hydrocarbons, including isobutane and propane, as refrigerants. These refrigerants, which had a global warming impact radically lower than HFCs, offered the prospect of protecting both the ozone layer and the climate.

Jacobs told me that Coca-Cola was “pretty dismissive,” largely because his team feared that these refrigeration units filled with flammable material might explode – especially in rural areas lacking technical support. Instead, Coca-Cola shifted to HFCs.

In response, Greenpeace launched a major campaign at the 2000 Sydney Olympics to expose how Coca-Cola’s HFC units were warming the planet. Doug Daft, an Australian who was Coke’s CEO at the time, committed the company to eliminating HFC refrigeration from its systems in the years ahead.

Always within arm’s reach

Since 2000, Coca-Cola has become a world leader in developing HFC-free refrigeration equipment. At first it invested heavily in a novel type of refrigerator that used carbon dioxide as the key refrigerant. Soon, however, the company recognized that hydrocarbon refrigerants posed fewer safety risks than they had initially feared, and began adopting these units as well.

Coca-Cola also convinced other companies to shift away from HFCs. Partnering with Unilever, Pepsi, Red Bull and other big firms, the company launched Refrigerants, Naturally!, an organization committed to transitioning major food and beverage companies toward HFC-free refrigeration. In 2010, Coke CEO Muhtar Kent persuaded some 400 consumer goods companies to commit to eliminating HFCs from their refrigeration systems.

By 2016, Coke reported that 61% of all new cooling equipment it purchased was HFC-free. Four years later, that figure reached 83%.

Still, as of 2022, more than 10% of Coke’s new refrigeration units contained HFCs, and refrigeration remained its single largest greenhouse gas emissions source. Part of the problem is that all of these units run on electricity, much of which is generated by burning fossil fuels. With Coca-Cola selling roughly 2.2 billion drinks every day, keeping Coke cold still has an enormous carbon footprint. The same is true for Coke’s competitors.

In an interview with Coca-Cola’s former chief sustainability officer, Jeff Seabright, I asked him whether the company had ever considered thinking more broadly about the necessity of cooling all those Cokes around the clock. Seabright’s response was an emphatic “No,” and that the company was still driven by the mantra of making Coke available for immediate consumption at the point of sale.

Despite the resources that Coca-Cola has invested in changing refrigerants, its cooling equipment is still warming our planet. As I see it, perhaps it’s time for Coke to question whether it needs all those machines in the first place – and for consumers to consider whether their have-it-now expectations are worth the environmental costs they impose.

Bart Elmore, Professor of History, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

3 ways to use ChatGPT to help students learn – and not cheat

Wed, 07 Jun 2023 16:00:00 -0400

Originally published in

By Kui Xie and Eric M. Anderman, The Ohio State University

Students can use AI chatbots to break down a complex assignment into smaller steps. Maskot/Getty Images

Since ChatGPT can engage in conversation and generate essays, computer codes, charts and graphs that closely resemble those created by humans, educators worry students may use it to cheat. A growing number of school districts across the country have decided to block access to ChatGPT on computers and networks.

As professors of educational psychology and educational technology, we’ve found that the main reason students cheat is their academic motivation. For example, sometimes students are just motivated to get a high grade, whereas other times they are motivated to learn all that they can about a topic.

The decision to cheat or not, therefore, often relates to how academic assignments and tests are constructed and assessed, not on the availability of technological shortcuts. When they have the opportunity to rewrite an essay or retake a test if they don’t do well initially, students are less likely to cheat.

We believe teachers can use ChatGPT to increase their students’ motivation for learning and actually prevent cheating. Here are three strategies for doing that.

1. Treat ChatGPT as a learning partner

Our research demonstrates that students are more likely to cheat when assignments are designed in ways that encourage them to outperform their classmates. In contrast, students are less likely to cheat when teachers assign academic tasks that prompt them to work collaboratively and to focus on mastering content instead of getting a good grade.

Treating ChatGPT as a learning partner can help teachers shift the focus among their students from competition and performance to collaboration and mastery.

For example, a science teacher can assign students to work with ChatGPT to design a hydroponic vegetable garden. In this scenario, students could engage with ChatGPT to discuss the growing requirements for vegetables, brainstorm design ideas for a hydroponic system and analyze pros and cons of the design.

These activities are designed to promote mastery of content as they focus on the processes of learning rather than just the final grade.

2. Use ChatGPT to boost confidence

Research shows that when students feel confident that they can successfully do the work assigned to them, they are less likely to cheat. And an important way to boost students’ confidence is to provide them with opportunities to experience success.

ChatGPT can facilitate such experiences by offering students individualized support and breaking down complex problems into smaller challenges or tasks.

For example, suppose students are asked to attempt to design a hypothetical vehicle that can use gasoline more efficiently than a traditional car. Students who struggle with the project – and might be inclined to cheat – can use ChatGPT to break down the larger problem into smaller tasks. ChatGPT might suggest they first develop an overall concept for the vehicle before determining the size and weight of the vehicle and deciding what type of fuel will be used. Teachers could also ask students to compare the steps suggested by ChatGPT with steps that are recommended by other sources.

3. Prompt ChatGPT to give supportive feedback

It is well documented that personalized feedback supports students’ positive emotions, including self-confidence.

ChatGPT can be directed to deliver feedback using positive, empathetic and encouraging language. For example, if a student completes a math problem incorrectly, instead of merely telling the student “You are wrong and the correct answer is …,” ChatGPT may initiate a conversation with the student. Here’s a real response generated by ChatGPT: “Your answer is not correct, but it’s completely normal to encounter occasional errors or misconceptions along the way. Don’t be discouraged by this small setback; you’re on the right track! I’m here to support you and answer any questions you may have. You’re doing great!”

This will help students feel supported and understood while receiving feedback for improvement. Teachers can easily show students how to direct ChatGPT to provide them such feedback.

We believe that when teachers use ChatGPT and other AI chatbots thoughtfully – and also encourage students to use these tools responsibly in their schoolwork – students have an incentive to learn more and cheat less.

Kui Xie, Professor of Educational Psychology and Learning Technologies, The Ohio State University and Eric M. Anderman, Professor of Educational Psychology and Quantitative Research, Evaluation, and Measurement, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Lack of child care hurts farm families’ ability to grow their businesses

Tue, 23 May 2023 15:25:54 -0400

Originally published in

By Shoshanah Inwood and Florence Becot, The Ohio State University

Kerissa and Charlie Payne are beginning farmers living their dream of raising two daughters on a farm in Central Ohio. By conventional measures, their livestock farm, Covey Rise, is a success. Yet, below the surface, the challenge of finding quality affordable child care has kept their business from growing and reaching its full potential.

“It feels like we’re always split between keeping the kids safe on the farm, being a good parent, and the needs of the farm,” Kerissa Payne said.

The United States has a child care crisis, yet the issue remains largely invisible in the farm sector. For too long, the nation has ignored the fact that farm parents are working parents who must juggle child care while working what can be one of the most dangerous and stressful jobs in America.

But as Bob Dylan might say, “The times they are a-changin’.”

For the first time in history, the two largest farm organizations, the American Farm Bureau and the National Farmers Union, have included child care in their policy priorities for the 2023 federal farm bill, a massive spending bill that passes every five years. As rural researchers, our conversations with policymakers suggest that there may be bipartisan support to help increase access to affordable quality rural child care as lawmakers hear from families.

Over the past 10 years, we have interviewed and surveyed thousands of farmers across the country to understand how child care affects farm business economic viability, farm safety, farm families’ quality of life and the future of the nation’s food supply. What we found debunks the three most common myths that have kept child care in the shadows of farm policy debates and points to solutions that can support farm parents.

Myth #1: Child care is a not a problem in the farm sector

Despite hearing from countless parents about their challenges with child care, the issue has been largely invisible among farm business advisers, farm organizations, and federal and state agricultural agencies. When we were interviewing advisers and decision-makers about this topic early in the COVID-19 pandemic, common first reactions we heard were: “child care is not an issue for farmers,” “we have never thought to ask about it” and “does it affect the farm business?”

Nationally, three-quarters (77%) of farm families with children under 18 report difficulties securing child care because of lack of affordability, availability or quality. Almost half (48%) report that having access to affordable child care is important for maintaining and growing their farm business.

Our research has consistently found child care is an issue that affects all of agriculture regardless of farm size, production system or location.

Access to child care is especially acute in rural areas, where even before COVID-19, 3 in 5 rural communities were categorized as child care deserts. The high cost of child care left the Paynes in a position familiar to many Americans – they make too much to qualify for child care support, but they don’t make enough to afford the type of quality child care they want.

The Paynes’ experience reflects what we consistently hear from farmers: Child care affects the trajectory of the farm business and the ability of a farm family to stay on the land.

Myth #2: Farmers don’t want or need help with child care because they have family help

Perhaps one of the biggest myths we have heard is that farm parents want to do it all on their own, and when they need help, they have family members who can watch the children.

This might work if relatives are nearby, but almost half of farmers we surveyed said their own parents were too busy to help with child care, had died or were in declining health.

Often, farm parents have had to move away from family and friends to find affordable land. These parents consistently said the lack of community made it harder to take care of their children.

Farmers have repeatedly said that it is a myth that they don’t want help taking care of children. The problem is that they cannot find or afford help.

Myth #3: Children can just come along when doing farm work

While wonderful places to grow up, farms can be dangerous, with large equipment, electric fencing, large animals, ponds and other potential hazards. Every day, 33 children are seriously injured in agricultural-related incidents, and every three days a child dies on a farm.

Farm parents we spoke with recounted stories of children who died after falling out of a tractor, drowned when they fell into a pond, or were maimed by a cow. Almost all farm parents – 97% – have worried that their children could get hurt on the farm.

In our research, parents talked about constantly weighing the risks and benefits of having children on the farm. One farmer had hoped his young son would “be my little sidekick and do everything I did.” However, the reality was different. He admitted he “didn’t think about a baby not being able to be out in the sun all day,” and he was struggling to balance care work and farm work. The government has spent millions of dollars on farm stress programs, yet child care’s role in creating and exacerbating farm stress is rarely talked about.

The Paynes asked a question we heard from many other parents: “Why is farming the only occupation where you are expected to take your kids to work?”

Farm safety programs have traditionally focused on education. However, our research shows that farm parents are highly aware of the risks. Instead of education, parents explain that they need resources to help with child care – 86% said they sometimes bring children to the farm worksite because they lack other options.

Finding solutions to support child care

There is no one-size-fits-all solution to America’s child care problems, particularly for farm parents, who are juggling raising their own families while working to feed and clothe the nation.

In our research, farmers spoke about a wide range of solutions: free or affordable quality child care, before- and after-school programs, better parental leave policies for wage and self-employed workers, financial support for safe play areas on the farm, college debt relief, free college tuition and more affordable health insurance.

Seeing his farm community struggling with child care, Adam Alson, a corn and soybean farmer in Jasper County, Indiana, co-founded Appleseed Childhood Education, a nonprofit dedicated to creating care and education opportunities for children from birth through high school. It opened its first early learning center in 2023 with a mix of public and private support.

Alson sees investing in child care as a path to attracting and retaining young farmers and families, and a strategy for growing and retaining the rural workforce.

“Throughout our country’s history, we have valued the importance of our rural communities and have invested in them and in sectors where the market does not go,” he said. “In 2023, quality child care is one of those sectors.”

As one Ohio farmer put it: “If America wants farmers, farm families need help with child care.”

Shoshanah Inwood, Associate Professor of Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University and Florence Becot, Associate Research Scientist in Rural Sociology, Adjunct Faculty - National Farm Medicine Center, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Fort Lauderdale flooding was a sign of things to come

Tue, 16 May 2023 14:32:14 -0400

Originally published in

By Smitha Rao
Assistant Professor of Social Work, The Ohio State University

Residents walk out of a flooded neighborhood in Fort Lauderdale on April 13, 2023. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

When a powerful storm flooded neighborhoods in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, in April with what preliminary reports show was 25 inches of rain in 24 hours, few people were prepared. Even hurricanes rarely drop that much rain in one area that fast. Residents could do little to stop the floodwater as it spread over their yards and into their homes.

Studies show that as global temperatures rise, more people will be at risk from such destructive flooding – including in areas far from the coasts that rarely faced extreme flooding in the past.

In many of these communities, the people at greatest risk of harm from flash flooding are low-wage workers, older adults and other vulnerable residents who live in low-lying areas and who have few resources to protect their properties and themselves.

I study the impact of extreme weather on vulnerable communities as an assistant professor of social work. To limit the damage, communities need to know who is at risk and how they can be better prepared.

More extreme downpours in a warming world

The Fort Lauderdale storm on April 12-13, 2023, offered a view into the risks ahead as temperatures rise.

A warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture, leading to stronger downpours. The resulting deluges can be devastating. These events are expected to increase in frequency and intensity in many regions as greenhouse gas emissions from human activities continue to heat up the planet.

Recent disasters, including several in 2022 and in 2023 already, show how the risk of flash flooding is expanding beyond areas traditionally considered at risk.

Knowing who is most at risk

To plan for extreme weather, it’s crucial for community leaders and residents to know where the risks are highest and who might not be prepared.

Low-lying areas with poorly planned development, lack of investment in protective infrastructure and the lingering effects of historic disinvestment and discrimination are often at higher risk. So are low-income communities with tight budgets that can’t afford protective measures like upgraded levees or stormwater systems and can’t recover from damage quickly.

When older adults live in these flood-prone areas, they are at even higher risk. Older adults have a higher likelihood of having health needs or some form of disability that could affect their ability to leave quickly during a disaster. They are also more likely to be socially isolated, which may mean they don’t hear timely information or have help to evacuate or quick access to resources for recovering.

Renters and the impact of housing insecurity

In a recent study, my colleagues and I looked at how prepared people were for disasters of any kind across the U.S. – flooding, tornadoes, hurricanes and others – and how housing security played a role. The numbers were sobering.

Overall, we found 57% of the population, among 29,070 housing units surveyed nationwide, reported they were not prepared with food, water, emergency funds and transportation in case disaster struck. We found that households facing housing insecurity – those behind on their payments for rent, mortgage or utilities – were less prepared for disasters than others, even when the occupants had similar incomes and educations.

People who are struggling to meet day-to-day needs often don’t have the ability and resources to plan for everyday events, let alone for disasters. Our research has shown that households with children, households led by women, and low-income households were less prepared than others for disasters.

Renting adds additional challenges. In the U.S., lower-income families often depend on the rental market. They tend to move more frequently, and since they don’t own the property, they often can’t make upgrades for safety. And landlords might not prioritize those risks that seem rare but carry costs.

How to help communities stay safe

The most effective way to address these challenges is through solutions that are tailored to the community.

That can involve investing in infrastructure, including state-funded priorities like drainage systems and large-scale flood prevention measures, as well as ensuring that people have access to safe and affordable housing. Some communities and federal agencies have bought out properties that frequently flood and changed zoning rules to prevent more people from moving into harm’s way.

Raising community awareness about climate change and extreme weather risks is also crucial, especially among those most at risk, such as older adults. If people understand the risks, know how to prepare their homes, know how to plan for emergencies and know where to find assistance, they’re more likely to be prepared when disasters strikes.

I believe the most successful efforts are those that bring at-risk communities into planning discussions.

For example, in Columbus, Ohio, the city is working with the Central Ohio Area Agency on Aging, Age Friendly Innovation Center and my team to improve disaster preparedness among older residents. We hope to learn from older adults in affordable housing communities who have experienced extreme weather in recent years to help design action plans for communities with special needs. The goal is to ensure residents are better prepared for climate- and weather-related emergencies in the future.

Smitha Rao, Assistant Professor of Social Work, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

NRA vulnerable as it seeks financial recovery

Tue, 28 Mar 2023 09:46:21 -0400

Originally published in

By Brian Mittendorf

Fisher Designated Professor of Accounting, The Ohio State University

The gun group might be less sturdy than it appears. Kelly Nigro/Moment Open via Getty Images

The National Rifle Association’s financial firepower, which arose in part due to its large and loyal membership base, has long been one of the gun group’s main sources of strength.

But the NRA has in recent years faced a financial tsunami, one that came to light after the 2016 election. A swirl of disagreements with longtime business partners, accusations of waste and misspending, ballooning debt and lawsuits from the New York and Washington, D.C. attorneys general have triggered one embarrassment after another. The NRA tried to declare bankruptcy to cushion some of these blows, with no luck.

At this point, the threat of being forced by the authorities to shut down due to alleged improprieties is minimal. But has the NRA managed to weather its financial storm?

As an accounting researcher who focuses on the financial performance of nonprofits, I have been closely studying NRA finances throughout its crisis. I can say the NRA financial picture is, as of early 2023, a mixed bag. The gun group has shored up its financial position over the last few years. However, the way in which that financial recovery came about risks hemorrhaging the NRA’s core supporters.

Digging out of a financial hole

The NRA’s financial troubles arose at the same time that scandalous aspects of the organization’s woes – such as longtime NRA leader Wayne LaPierre’s free yacht getaways and luxury suit purchases billed to an NRA contractor – were drawing public attention.

Perhaps the best measure of a nonprofit’s financial health is its unrestricted net assets – the money at the organization’s disposal after leaving out amounts it has to spend on activities promised to donors and what it owes to others. A multimillion-dollar unrestricted net asset reserve for an organization the size of the NRA can provide financial security. On the other hand, a negative reserve is typically a sign of serious trouble.

The NRA’s reserve was negative at the end of 2017, with a deficit of more than US$30 million – a sure sign of the troubles already underway. Such a negative balance indicates that after satisfying donor promises, the organization owes more money to others than the value of its assets.

Things only got worse in the following two years, with the NRA approaching an unrestricted net asset deficit of nearly $50 million in 2019. This degree of weakness even led the organization to suggest that it risked imminent failure. However, there was time for a turnaround.

And that’s what happened. In 2020, the NRA slashed its unrestricted net asset deficit by over $38 million. Ironically, it was shortly after pulling off this marked improvement that it filed – unsuccessfully – for bankruptcy.

This financial resurgence continued in 2021, with the organization reporting it had eliminated its unrestricted net asset deficit, building up a surplus of over $10 million. When also including the money set aside for specific uses stipulated by donors – the group’s net assets – the NRA’s total available funds reached over $75 million.

These developments may seemingly bode well for the organization’s ability to withstand its continuing financial troubles. Below the surface, however, there’s an ominous trend.

Selective cost cutting

How did the NRA get on a steadier financial footing?

It wasn’t through growth. NRA revenue declined in 2020 by 4% from $296 million to $284 million, even without taking inflation into account. Revenue fell another 18% to under $234 million in 2021.

Instead, it cut many core programs, including education and training, field services, law enforcement initiatives and recreational shooting.

Cost cutting can help stabilize faltering companies or nonprofits, depending on which costs they cut. The NRA’s over 4 million dues-paying members may tolerate lean spending only on certain things and only for so long. What the NRA spent on programs fell by $45 million – more than a 35% decline – in 2020. The organization was quick to attribute the change to the nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, program spending declined even further in 2021, when life had begun to return to normal, especially for gun enthusiasts. The NRA spent just $75 million on its programs in 2021, nearly $53 million less than it had two years earlier.

It didn’t cut all costs during these lean years.

Administrative spending in the “legal, audit and taxes” category skyrocketed, from just over $4 million in 2017 to almost $47 million in 2021. Much of this reflects the money NRA paid for its various legal entanglements, largely in fees to its new legal team.

What once was a member-focused organization has quickly become an organization whose primary growth area is legal fees.

Was 2022 a turning point?

Though the NRA apparently shored up its bottom line, its financial neglect of programs like firearms training, competitions and field services could ultimately disappoint its members and donors.

The organization has seen membership dues decline in the past several years, with a loss of more than 1 million members since the start of the crisis. I see a risk of a downward spiral: lower revenue, leading to less spending on programs, which leads to further declines in member dues, donations and so on.

The full NRA financial filing for 2022 is not yet available, but there are early signs that it may have been a turning point.

Journalist Stephen Gutowski has reported at The Reload that NRA membership declines meant that even with its more lean spending profile, the organization was poised to end 2022 at a loss.

I believe that with fewer members and fewer items left to cut, the NRA may take more drastic steps in the years ahead. And, with 2022 having been an election year – prime time for the NRA to take center stage – declining funds prevented an all-out political spending blitz.

Though it may once have seemed like the NRA would suddenly implode due to its weak finances, its decline today is more of a slow burn that’s diminishing its scale and threatens its future. The growth of other pro-gun groups, such as Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation, poses further risks for a shrinking NRA.

In my view, the NRA’s risky strategy of cutting program costs while spending more on legal battles could portend a further and continued weakening of the organization in the years ahead.

Brian Mittendorf, Fisher Designated Professor of Accounting, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Pancakes won’t turn you into a zombie

Sun, 12 Mar 2023 11:34:42 -0400

Originally published in

By Sheryl Barringer

Professor of Food Science and Technology, The Ohio State University

A human fungal zombie from the TV show ‘The Last of Us.’ Liane Hentscher/HBO

In the HBO series “The Last of Us,” named after the popular video game of the same name, the flour supplies of the world are contaminated with a fungus called Cordyceps. When people eat pancakes or other foods made with that flour, the fungi grow inside their bodies and turn them into zombies.

As a food scientist, I study the effect of processing on the quality and safety of fruits and vegetables, including the flour used to make pancakes. While no one is going to turn into a zombie from eating pancakes in real life, flour is often contaminated with fungi that can produce mycotoxins that make people sick. Proper processing and cooking, however, can generally keep you safe.

How common is fungi in flour?

People have been eating bread made from wheat for approximately 14,000 years and cultivating wheat for at least 10,000 years. In 1882, “drunken bread disease” was first documented in Russia, where people reported dizziness, headache, trembling hands, confusion and vomiting after eating bread. Long before that, Chinese peasants were reporting that eating pinkish wheat – a key sign of infection with a mold called Fusarium – caused them to feel ill. Clearly, fungi have been making people sick for a long time.

Wheat, corn, rice and even fruits and vegetables can be infected with fungi as they grow in the field. In “The Last of Us,” an epidemiologist theorizes that climate change is causing the fungus to mutate so it can infect humans. The unfortunate reality is that fungi have become more of a problem in recent years as warmer temperatures encourage their growth.

A 2017 study found that over 90% of wheat and corn flour samples in Washington, D.C., contained live fungi, with Aspergillus and Fusarium the predominant types of mold in wheat flour. Fusarium grows on wheat in the field and can cause a common agricultural plant disease called fusarium head blight, or scab.

Farmers use multiple techniques to reduce this devastating plant disease, including implementing crop rotation, using resistant varieties and fungicides and minimizing irrigation during flowering. After harvesting, they sort the grains to remove contaminated wheat before grinding them into flour. While sorting removes most of the contaminated wheat, small amounts of fungi can still make it into the flour.

Wheat infected with fusarium head blight have a characteristic pink hue. Tomasz Klejdysz/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Killing microorganisms in flour

The good news is that most fungi and other microorganisms die at 160-170 degrees Fahrenheit (71-77 degrees Celsius). Pancakes are typically cooked to an internal temperature of 190-200 F (88-93 C). Other cakes and breads are cooked to internal temperatures anywhere from 180 to 210 degrees Fahrenheit (82-99 C). So, unlike in “The Last of Us,” as long as you bake or fry your dough, you’ll have killed the fungi.

The problem comes when people eat the flour without cooking it first, such as by consuming raw cookie dough or “licking the bowl clean.” Both raw egg and raw flour can contain microorganisms that make people sick. The microorganisms that public health officials are most worried about are E. coli and Salmonella, dangerous pathogens that can cause severe illness.

Most people don’t realize that the flour they buy at the store is raw flour that still contains live microorganisms. Flour is rarely commercially treated to be safe to eat raw because consumers almost always cook flour-based foods. While consumers can also attempt to heat-treat raw flour at home, this isn’t recommended because the flour may not be spread thinly enough to kill all of the microorganisms.

Aspergillus is one of the predominant molds found in wheat flour. tonaquatic/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Some fungi and microorganisms can create spores, which are like seeds that help them survive adverse conditions. These spores can survive cooking, drying and freezing. There are even 4,500-year-old yeast spores that have been reawakened and made into bread. These fungal spores rarely cause serious illness in people, except in those with weakened immune systems.

Chemicals can be added to food to stop fungal growth. These additives include sorbates, benzoates and propionates. However, you almost never see these additives in flour or pancake mix because fungi can’t grow in a dry powder. The fungi either grew on the wheat in the field or on the bread after it is baked. For that reason, you may see these additives in bread but not in a powdered mix.

Mycotoxins

The biggest risk from fungi is not that it will grow inside our bodies, but that it will grow on wheat or other foods and produce chemicals called mycotoxins that can cause severe health problems. When wheat is harvested and ground into flour, mycotoxins can get mixed in.

Unfortunately, while normal cooking can kill the microorganisms, it doesn’t destroy the mycotoxins. Eating mycotoxins can cause problems ranging from hallucinations to vomiting and diarrhea to cancer or death. Some of the common mycotoxins found in grain include aflatoxins, deoxynivalenol, ochratoxin A and fumonisin B.

It might be best to leave that moldy bread alone. Yulia Naumenko/Moment via Getty Images

The oldest known case of mycotoxin poisoning is recorded as a disease called ergotism. Ergotism was mentioned in the Old Testament and has been reported in Western Europe since A.D. 800. It has even been suggested that the Salem witch trials were caused by an outbreak of ergotism that led its victims to hallucinate, though many have disputed this idea. Wheat is less likely than other grains to have dangerous mycotoxins, which is why some have proposed that declining mortality in 18th-century Europe, especially in England, was due to the switch from a rye-based diet to a wheat-based diet.

Ultimately, you don’t need to worry about eating those pancakes. Farmers use many techniques to minimize fungal growth and remove moldy grain, and the government keeps a close eye on mycotoxin levels during crop production and storage. Just make sure you cook your bakery products before eating, and don’t eat anything that has started to mold.

Sheryl Barringer, Professor of Food Science and Technology, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The fascinating chemistry of chocolate

Fri, 10 Feb 2023 16:09:01 -0500

Originally published in

By Sheryl Barringer

Professor of Food Science and Technology, The Ohio State University

In what form do you eat your annual share of the approximately 5 million tons of cocoa produced worldwide? Tracey Kusiewicz/Foodie Photography/Moment via Getty Images

Whether it is enjoyed as creamy milk chocolate truffles, baked in a devilishly dark chocolate cake or even poured as hot cocoa, Americans on average consume almost 20 pounds (9 kilograms) of chocolate in a year. People have been enjoying chocolate for at least 4,000 years, starting with Mesoamericans who brewed a drink from the seeds of cacao trees. In the 16th and 17th centuries, both the trees and the beverage spread across the world, and chocolate today is a trillion-dollar global industry.

As a food scientist, I’ve conducted research on the volatile molecules that make chocolate taste good. I also developed and taught a very popular college course on the science of chocolate. Here are the answers to some of the most frequent questions I hear about this unique and complex food.

How does chocolate get its characteristic flavor?

Chocolate starts out as a rather dull-tasting bean, packed into a pod that grows on a cacao tree. Developing the characteristic flavor of chocolate requires two key steps: fermentation and roasting.

Immediately after harvest, the beans are piled under leaves and left to ferment for several days. Bacteria create the chemicals, called precursors, needed for the next step: roasting.

The flavor you know as chocolate is formed during roasting by something chemists call the Maillard reaction. It requires two types of chemicals – sugar and protein – both of which are present in the fermented cacao beans. Roasting brings them together under high heat, which causes the sugar and protein to react and form that wonderful aroma.

Roasting is something of an art form. Different temperatures and times will produce different flavors. If you sample a few chocolate bars on the market, you will quickly realize that some companies roast at a much higher temperature than others. Lower temperatures maximize the floral and fruity notes, while higher temperatures create more caramel and coffee notes. Which is better is really a matter of personal preference.

Interestingly, the Maillard reaction is also what creates the flavor of freshly baked bread, roasted meat and coffee. The similarity between chocolate and coffee may seem fairly obvious, but bread and meat? The reason those foods all smell so different is that the flavor chemicals that get formed depend on the exact types of sugar and protein. Bread and chocolate contain different types, so even if you roasted them in exactly the same manner, you wouldn’t get the same flavor. This specificity is part of the reason it’s so hard to make a good artificial chocolate flavor.

How long can you store chocolate?

Once the beans are roasted, that wonderful aroma has been created. The longer you wait to consume it, the more of the volatile compounds responsible for the smell evaporate and the less flavor is left for you to enjoy. Generally you have about a year to eat milk chocolate and two years for dark chocolate. It’s not a good idea to store it in the refrigerator, because it picks up moisture and odors from the other things in there, but you can store it tightly sealed in the freezer.

What’s different about hot chocolate?

To make powdered hot chocolate, the beans are soaked in alkali to increase their pH before roasting. Raising the pH to be more basic helps make the powdered cocoa more soluble in water. But when the beans are at a higher pH during roasting, it changes the Maillard reaction so that different flavors are formed.

The flavor of hot chocolate is described by experts as a smooth and mellow flavor with earthy, woodsy notes, while regular chocolate flavor is sharp, with an almost citrus fruit finish.

What creates the texture of a chocolate bar?

Historically, chocolate was consumed as a drink because the ground beans are very gritty – far from the smooth, creamy texture people can create today.

After removing the shells and grinding the beans, modern chocolate makers add additional cocoa butter. Cocoa butter is the fat that occurs in the cacao beans. But there isn’t enough fat naturally in the beans to make a smooth texture, so chocolate makers add extra.

Next the cacao beans and cocoa butter undergo a process called conching. When the process was first invented, it took a team of horses a week walking in a circle, pulling a large grinding stone, to pulverize the particles small enough. Today machines can do this grinding and mixing in about eight hours. This process creates a smooth texture, and also drives off some of the undesirable odors.

Why is chocolate so difficult to cook with?

The chocolate you buy in a store has been tempered. Tempering is a process of heating up the chocolate to just the right temperature during production, before letting it cool to a solid. This step is necessary because of the fat.

Cocoa butter’s fat can naturally exist in six different crystal forms when it is a solid. Five of these are unstable and want to convert into the most stable, sixth form. Unfortunately, that sixth form is white in appearance, gritty in texture and is commonly called “bloom.” If you see a chocolate bar with white spots on it, it has bloomed, which means the fat has rearranged itself into that sixth crystal form. It is still edible but doesn’t taste as good.

You can’t prevent bloom from happening, but you can slow it down by heating and cooling the chocolate through a series of temperature cycles. This process causes all the fat to crystallize into the second-most stable form. It takes a long time for this form to rearrange itself into the white, gritty sixth form.

When you melt chocolate at home, you break the temper. The day after you’ve created your confection, the chocolate usually blooms with an unattractive gray or white surface.

Is chocolate an aphrodisiac or antidepressant?

The short answer is, sorry, no. Eating chocolate may make you feel happier, but that’s because it tastes so good, not because it is chemically changing your brain.

Sheryl Barringer, Professor of Food Science and Technology, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Now what? Biden plans end to COVID-19 emergency declaration

Tue, 07 Feb 2023 14:58:30 -0500

Originally published in

By

Amy Lauren Fairchild

Dean and Professor of Public Health, The Ohio State University

Marian Moser Jones

Associate Professor and Graduate Director of Family Science, The Ohio State University

COVID-19 emergency status prompted coordinated vaccination efforts by health care providers, paramedics, volunteers and others.

President Joe Biden announced on Jan. 30, 2023, that he intends to end both the national emergency and the public health emergency declarations related to COVID-19 on May 11, 2023.

Biden’s announcement came on the same day that the World Health Organization said it still considers the COVID-19 pandemic to be a public health emergency of international concern, or PHEIC, a status that is reassessed every three months. The WHO’s advisory committee noted that although the pandemic is at a turning point, “COVID-19 remains a dangerous infectious disease with the capacity to cause substantial damage to health and health systems.”

The Conversation asked public health experts Marian Moser Jones and Amy Lauren Fairchild to put these statements into context and to explain their ramifications for the next stage of the pandemic.

What does ending the emergency phase of the COVID-19 pandemic mean?

Ending the federal emergency reflects both a scientific and political judgment that the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic crisis has ended and that special federal resources are no longer needed to prevent disease transmission across borders.

In practical terms, it means that two declarations – the federal Public Health Emergency, first declared on Jan. 31, 2020, and the COVID-19 national emergency that President Donald Trump announced on March 13, 2020 – will be allowed to expire in May 2023.

Declaring those emergencies enabled the federal government to cut through a mountain of red tape, with the goal of responding to the pandemic more efficiently. For instance, the declarations allowed funds to be made available so that federal agencies could direct personnel, equipment, supplies and services to state and local governments wherever they were needed. In addition, the declarations made resources available to launch investigations into the “cause, treatment or prevention” of COVID-19 and to enter into contracts with other organizations to meet needs stemming from the emergency.

The emergency status also allowed the federal government to make health care more widely available by suspending many requirements for accessing Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Program. And they made it possible for people to receive free COVID-19 testing, treatment and vaccines and enabled Medicaid and Medicare to more easily cover telehealth services.

What policy changes will occur once the emergency is declared over?

The end to the federal emergency could substantially reduce the number of people insured under Medicaid. Before the pandemic, states required people to prove every year that they met income and other eligibility requirements.

In March 2020, Congress enacted a continuous enrollment provision in Medicaid that prevented states from removing anyone from their rolls during the pandemic. In a December 2022 appropriations bill, Congress passed a provision that will end continuous enrollment on March 31, 2023.

The Biden administration has defended this time frame as sufficient to ensure that “patients do not lose access to care unpredictably” and that state Medicaid budgets – which have been infused with emergency funds since 2020 – “don’t face a radical cliff.” But many people with Medicaid may be unaware of these changes until they actually lose their benefits.

Some states have already indicated that they will begin disenrolling members in April 2023 or require members to apply to be considered for renewal. This could result in between 5 million and 14 million people losing coverage.

People with Medicare do not have to worry about losing their benefits, since this program is age-based, not income-based. The array of telehealth services that Medicare began covering during the pandemic will continue to be covered through December 2023. Medicare coverage for many telehealth services could also be made permanent after this year.

The end of the emergency could additionally curb access to COVID-19 drugs, tests and vaccines. Federal emergency funding for free treatment or vaccination will end when the emergency status is lifted on May 11. If such programs are to continue, the cost will fall to state and local health agencies or insurance companies.

We are concerned that the withdrawal of federal emergency funds for vaccination may further slow the already sluggish uptake of boosters. As of Jan. 25, 2023, about 20% of the population ages 5 and up and only 40.1% of those 65 and older – who are at the highest risk of death from COVID-19 – had received an updated bivalent booster dose. Once the emergency ends, measures that allowed a broad array of health providers – from pharmacist interns to retired nurses and even veterinarians – to administer vaccines will expire, which could lead to decreased access to vaccination in many parts of the U.S.

What does this mean for the status of the pandemic?

A pandemic declaration represents an assessment that human transmission of a disease, whether well known or novel, is “extraordinary,” that it constitutes a public health risk to two or more states and that controlling it requires an international response.

At some point the WHO will end its pandemic declaration. On Jan. 30, 2023, World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus described the pandemic as being “at a transition point.” But the WHO’s assessment is that the risks are still considerable. Ghebreyesus noted that COVID-19 continues to strain health care systems, exacerbate health care workforce shortages and exceed surveillance system capacities.

The U.S. remains one of the global COVID-19 hot spots. With more than 3,500 hospitalizations per week on average in January 2023, and 3,452 deaths per week as of early February 2023, the U.S. has among the highest deaths per capita in the world.

How does the Biden administration’s stance differ from the WHO’s position?

In some ways they are very similar. The WHO is looking at the pandemic from a global perspective while the Biden administration is examining it from a national perspective. The WHO’s stance reflects the assessment that the world is not sufficiently vaccinated, that health care systems remain vulnerable and that unchecked disease transmission in some parts of the world should remain a source of international concern and attention.

China’s massive outbreak after the lifting of its zero-COVID policy in early December 2022 has received a great deal of media attention. But less noted is the fact that vaccination rates across African nations average 40%, and that vaccination rates are very low in countries that are experiencing conflict, such as Syria, where only 15% of the population has received any COVID-19 vaccine.

The WHO’s continuation of the global pandemic status signals that there is more international coordination and work to be done. In contrast, the Biden administration is making a social and political judgment that it is time to wind down the federal role.

Biden’s order will not affect state-level or local-level emergency declarations. These declarations have allowed states to allocate resources to meet pandemic needs and have included provisions allowing them to respond to surges in COVID-19 cases by allowing out-of-state physicians and other health care providers to practice in person and through telehealth.

Almost all U.S. states, however, have ended their own public health emergency declarations. Eight states – California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Texas – still have emergency declarations in effect, but all of them will expire by the end of February 2023 unless renewed.

While some states may choose to make permanent some COVID-era emergency standards, such as looser restrictions on telemedicine or out-of-state health providers, it could be a long time before either politicians or the public regain an appetite for any emergency orders directly related to COVID-19.

Amy Lauren Fairchild, Dean and Professor of Public Health, The Ohio State University and Marian Moser Jones, Associate Professor and Graduate Director of Family Science, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

China now publishes more high-quality science than any other nation

Fri, 20 Jan 2023 13:28:41 -0500

Originally published in

By Caroline Wagner

Milton & Roslyn Wolf Chair in International Affairs

John Glenn College of Public Affairs

The Ohio State University

In 2022, Chinese researchers published more scientific papers on artificial intelligence than any other nation. Mf3D/E+ via Getty Images

By at least one measure, China now leads the world in producing high-quality science. My research shows that Chinese scholars now publish a larger fraction of the top 1% most cited scientific papers globally than scientists from any other country.

I am a policy expert and analyst who studies how governmental investment in science, technology and innovation improves social welfare. While a country’s scientific prowess is somewhat difficult to quantify, I’d argue that the amount of money spent on scientific research, the number of scholarly papers published and the quality of those papers are good stand-in measures.

China is not the only nation to drastically improve its science capacity in recent years, but China’s rise has been particularly dramatic. This has left U.S. policy experts and government officials worried about how China’s scientific supremacy will shift the global balance of power. China’s recent ascendancy results from years of governmental policy aiming to be tops in science and technology. The country has taken explicit steps to get where it is today, and the U.S. now has a choice to make about how to respond to a scientifically competitive China.

Growth across decades

In 1977, Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping introduced the Four Modernizations, one of which was strengthening China’s science sector and technological progress. As recently as 2000, the U.S. produced many times the number of scientific papers as China annually. However, over the past three decades or so, China has invested funds to grow domestic research capabilities, to send students and researchers abroad to study, and to encourage Chinese businesses to shift to manufacturing high-tech products.

Since 2000, China has sent an estimated 5.2 million students and scholars to study abroad. The majority of them studied science or engineering. Many of these students remained where they studied, but an increasing number return to China to work in well-resourced laboratories and high-tech companies.

Today, China is second only to the U.S. in how much it spends on science and technology. Chinese universities now produce the largest number of engineering Ph.D.s in the world, and the quality of Chinese universities has dramatically improved in recent years.

Producing more and better science

Thanks to all this investment and a growing, capable workforce, China’s scientific output – as measured by the number of total published papers – has increased steadily over the years. In 2017, Chinese scholars published more scientific papers than U.S. researchers for the first time.

Quantity does not necessarily mean quality though. For many years, researchers in the West wrote off Chinese research as low quality and often as simply imitating research from the U.S. and Europe. During the 2000s and 2010s, much of the work coming from China did not receive significant attention from the global scientific community.

But as China has continued to invest in science, I began to wonder whether the explosion in the quantity of research was accompanied by improving quality.

To quantify China’s scientific strength, my colleagues and I looked at citations. A citation is when an academic paper is referenced – or cited – by another paper. We considered that the more times a paper has been cited, the higher quality and more influential the work. Given that logic, the top 1% most cited papers should represent the upper echelon of high-quality science.

My colleagues and I counted how many papers published by a country were in the top 1% of science as measured by the number of citations in various disciplines. Going year by year from 2015 to 2019, we then compared different countries. We were surprised to find that in 2019, Chinese authors published a greater percentage of the most influential papers, with China claiming 8,422 articles in the top category, while the U.S had 7,959 and the European Union had 6,074. In just one recent example, we found that in 2022, Chinese researchers published three times as many papers on artificial intelligence as U.S. researchers; in the top 1% most cited AI research, Chinese papers outnumbered U.S. papers by a 2-to-1 ratio. Similar patterns can be seen with China leading in the top 1% most cited papers in nanoscience, chemistry and transportation.

Our research also found that Chinese research was surprisingly novel and creative – and not simply copying western researchers. To measure this, we looked at the mix of disciplines referenced in scientific papers. The more diverse and varied the referenced research was in a single paper, the more interdisciplinary and novel we considered the work. We found Chinese research to be as innovative as other top performing countries.

Taken together, these measures suggest that China is now no longer an imitator nor producer of only low-quality science. China is now a scientific power on par with the U.S. and Europe, both in quantity and in quality.

On August 9, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law to support the growth of U.S. research and technology firms as a way to counter China’s scientific growth. The White House/Flickr

Fear or collaboration?

Scientific capability is intricately tied to both military and economic power. Because of this relationship, many in the U.S. – from politicians to policy experts – have expressed concern that China’s scientific rise is a threat to the U.S., and the government has taken steps to slow China’s growth. The recent Chips and Science Act of 2022 explicitly limits cooperation with China in some areas of research and manufacturing. In October 2022, the Biden administration put restrictions in place to limit China’s access to key technologies with military applications.

A number of scholars, including me, see these fears and policy responses as rooted in a nationalistic view that doesn’t wholly map onto the global endeavor of science.

Academic research in the modern world is in large part driven by the exchange of ideas and information. The results are published in publicly available journals that anyone can read. Science is also becoming ever more international and collaborative, with researchers around the world depending on each other to push their fields forward. Recent collaborative research on cancer, COVID-19 and agriculture are just a few of many examples. My own work has also shown that when researchers from China and the U.S. collaborate, they produce higher quality science than either one alone.

China has joined the ranks of top scientific and technological nations, and some of the concerns over shifts of power are reasonable in my view. But the U.S. can also benefit from China’s scientific rise. With many global issues facing the planet – like climate change, to name just one – there may be wisdom in looking at this new situation as not only a threat, but also an opportunity.

Caroline Wagner, Milton & Roslyn Wolf Chair in International Affairs, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What is the FAA’s NOTAM? An aviation expert explains

Sun, 15 Jan 2023 13:49:05 -0500

Originally published in

By Brian Strzempkowski

Interim Director, Center for Aviation Studies, The Ohio State University

Pilots must check the NOTAM system before takeoff so that they know about any situations that may affect safety. Bill Abbott/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Late in the evening of Jan. 10, 2023, an important digital system known as NOTAM run by the Federal Aviation Administration went offline. The FAA was able to continue getting necessary information to pilots overnight using a phone-based backup, but the stopgap couldn’t keep up with the morning rush of flights, and on Jan. 11, 2022, the FAA grounded all commercial flights in the U.S. In total, nearly 7,000 flights were canceled. Brian Strzempkowksi is the interim director of the Center for Aviation Studies at The Ohio State University and a commercial pilot, flight instructor and dispatcher. He explains what the NOTAM system is and why planes can’t fly if the system goes down.

What is NOTAM?

Aviation is full of acronyms, and Notice to Air Missions, or NOTAM, is one acronym that pilots learn early on in their training. A NOTAM is quite simply a message that is disseminated to flight crews of every aircraft in the U.S.

The NOTAM system is a computer network run by the Federal Aviation Administration that provides real-time updates to crews about situations relating to weather, infrastructure, ground conditions or anything else that may affect the safety of flight. Trained professionals – like air traffic controllers, airport managers, airport operations personnel and FAA personnel in charge of national airspace infrastructure – can access the system and enter any information they need to share broadly.

Pilots, air traffic controllers and anyone else who needs to know about flying conditions can access the NOTAM system and make appropriate changes to planned flights. It’s similar to checking the traffic on your phone or on the local news before you head to work in the morning. A traffic report will inform you of potential hazards or backups on the roadways that may lead you take a different route to work.

What’s in the NOTAM system and how is it used?

NOTAMs are issued for a wide range of reasons. Some of the notices are good to know but don’t affect a flight – such as personnel mowing grass alongside a runway or a crane working on a building next to the airport. Others are more critical, such as a runway being closed because of snow, ice or damage, forcing a plane to take off or land on a different runway. Changes in access to airspace are also logged with a NOTAM. For example, airspace is always closed above the president and when he or she travels; a NOTAM will alert pilots to changes in airspace closures.

Pilots review these NOTAMs during their preflight briefings. Generally this is done digitally using a computer, but pilots and air traffic controllers can also access the system by calling flight service briefers, who can share live weather and NOTAM information. Airline pilots also rely on their dispatchers to relay any relevant NOTAMs not only before but also during the flight.

The NOTAMs themselves use a lot of abbreviations and are often cryptic to nonaviation folks, but a small amount of text can carry a lot of information. Hundreds of different acronyms can convey a range of information, from taxiway closures to certain types of airport lighting being out of service to a notice that some pavement markings may be obscured.

But not all NOTAMs are straightforward. I remember once seeing a notice from an airport alerting pilots that a fire department was conducting a controlled burn of a house nearby.

Why can’t you fly if the NOTAM system is down?

The Federal Aviation Authority requires flight crews to review NOTAMs before every flight for safety reasons. Without access to this information, a plane cannot legally depart, because there may be an unknown hazard ahead.

As an example, a pilot departing Seattle to fly to Miami would need to know that the Miami airport is open, that the runways are clear and that all the navigational sources – like GPS signals and ground-based navigation antennas – that a pilot may use while in the air are working. Theoretically, they could call the Miami airport and ask, and then call the person who oversees every navigational aid on their route, but that would take a lot of time. A much more efficient way to gather this information before and during a flight is to use the NOTAM system.

At the end of the day, the NOTAM system is about safety. When the system is down, pilots can’t fly as safely. It is for good reason that planes don’t go anywhere unless the NOTAM system is up and running.

Brian Strzempkowski, Interim Director, Center for Aviation Studies, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How does a child become a shooter?

Sat, 14 Jan 2023 13:09:27 -0500

Originally published in

By Brad Bushman

Professor of Communication and Rinehart Chair of Mass Communication, The Ohio State University

Dan Romer

Research Director, Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania

The shooting of an elementary school teacher by one of her students is a shocking example of gun violence. Jay Paul/Getty Images

In the aftermath of a shocking incident in which a first grader shot and seriously injured a teacher at a school in Newport News, Virginia, the city’s mayor asked the question: “How did this happen?”

Some details are now known: The child took the gun from his home, and the firearm was legally purchased by his mother.

Many other aspects of the incident have yet to be established – not least, the likely many factors that resulted in the boy shooting his teacher. But as experts in media use and its connections to violence, we have reported some disturbing findings about how children are influenced by gun violence depicted in media like television, movies and video games. What makes this more troubling is the fact that millions of children in the U.S. have easy access to firearms in their homes, increasing the risk of gun deaths, including suicides.

The effect of media violence on children

Research has shown that the depiction of gun violence is increasing in both movies and on TV. Our research found that acts of gun violence in PG-13 movies has nearly tripled in the 30 years since the rating was introduced in 1984. And PG-13 movies are not exclusively watched by teens and above. A survey of adults in 2019 found that 12% said they were allowed to watch PG-13 movies between the ages of 6 and 9, with 6% saying they watched such films aged even younger.

Although some skeptics say violent media do not lead children to become more aggressive, a large survey conducted in 2015 found that most pediatricians and media scholars agree that there is a link.

Violent media can also lead children to engage in more dangerous behavior if they find a real gun. In studies one of us conducted, exposure to both movies and video games with guns was found to encourage children ages 8-12 years old to pick up a real gun that had been hidden in a drawer and pull the trigger, including while pointing the gun at themselves or their friend. This behavior was observed by a hidden camera.

This is what can happen if parents do not store a gun in a secure location in the home.

The child in the Virginia shooting was younger than 8 years old, but there is no reason to believe the effects we found would differ in a younger child. In fact, the effects might be stronger in younger children because those younger than about 8 can have more difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy.

Violence in the media can desensitize or numb children to violence. In one study, researchers found that “children exposed to multiple sources of violence may become desensitized, increasing the possibility of them imitating the aggressive behaviors they watch and considering such behavior as normal.”

Movies containing gun violence that are rated PG-13 portray the use of guns in ways that are unrealistic. The effects of gun use in such films are often sanitized so that one rarely sees much blood or serious harm, unlike what is typically shown in movies that are rated R. This could give a child the sense that using a gun to harm someone is not as dangerous as it actually could be.

What concerns us about these findings is that they come at a time of increased media consumption by younger children. A 2021 report by Common Sense Media found that media use by children has risen faster in the two years since the pandemic than the four years before. Research has found that children ranging in age from 5 to 11 years old spent an average of more than three hours a day on screens and consuming media during the pandemic.

Guns in the home

Children are naturally curious, and adults often underestimate their ability to find guns hidden in the home. As one firearms expert noted, “Their brains are developing. That same curiosity that can inspire them to pick up a book and want to learn how to read can inspire them to go looking for a parent’s gun.”

And the U.S. has far more civilian-owned guns per capita than any country in the world, with 120.5 guns per 100 residents – the next highest country is Yemen, with 52.8 guns per 100 residents.

The U.S. is also an outlier when it comes to gun-related violence, with rates about 23 times higher than in other developed countries.

Figures from the nonprofit organization Everytown for Gun Safety show that every year more than 300 people are either wounded or killed in unintentional shootings by children. Data on the number of people shot by children intentionally is not, to our knowledge, available.

It is vital for gun owners to lock away firearms, unloaded, with ammunition stored separately – especially if there are children in the home. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that all guns be secured to decrease “the risk of both unintentional gun injuries and intentional shootings.” Roughly a third of U.S. homes with children have guns, but less than half of gun owners secure their guns. As of 2022, an estimated 4.6 million children in the U.S. live in a home with unlocked, loaded guns.

What drove the child at an elementary school in Virginia to shoot his teacher is something that is not publicly known. But what the research clearly shows is that exposure to gun violence in media and easy access to firearms around the home all serve to increase the risks of any child picking up a gun.

Brad Bushman, Professor of Communication and Rinehart Chair of Mass Communication, The Ohio State University and Dan Romer, Research Director, Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

How sports broadcasters responded to the Damar Hamlin injury

Thu, 05 Jan 2023 10:47:04 -0500

Originally published in

By Nicole Kraft

Associate Professor of Clinical Communication, The Ohio State University

Medical personnel attend to Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin after he collapsed on the field during an NFL game in Cincinnati on Jan. 2, 2023. AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel

Injuries are an unfortunate part of any sport – none more so than in the NFL, where players can be felled in front of a TV audience in the tens of millions.

Typically, when a player suffers an injury, the media cuts to commercial and returns with replays of the injury – sometimes running it over and over, using every available camera angle, while analyzing what might have happened and the ramifications for the player and team.

But in the case of Buffalo Bills safety Damar Hamlin, who collapsed to the ground after a tackle during the “Monday Night Football” game between the Bills and the Cincinnati Bengals, it quickly became apparent that this was no broken arm or torn ACL. This was a matter of life and death. Paramedics worked to keep him alive on the field before he was transported to a hospital, where he remains in critical condition.

As the tragic scene played out, ESPN’s broadcasters and studio hosts were left to explain what was happening in real time, with virtually no information.

I am a professor of sports journalism and spend much of my time teaching students how to cover games. As a sportswriter, I have covered many contests as if they were battles, with the language of war interwoven with feats of extraordinary human accomplishment.

When crisis strikes sports, however, it is left to the media to report in, around, about and through the moment. Some do it well and some fail miserably.

In its coverage of Hamlin’s injury, ESPN was, I believe, a sound and responsible broadcaster during one of football’s darkest on-field moments.

ESPN’s measured, restrained response

ESPN’s broadcasting duo of Troy Aikman and Joe Buck, along with sideline reporter Lisa Salters, relayed the scene as it unfolded. But instead of filling the live airtime with rambling commentary and sensationalism, they responded with compassion and care. They avoided speculating about Hamlin’s condition and ultimately appealed to the NFL to suspend the game, with Aikman asking, “How do you, as a member of the Buffalo Bills or the Cincinnati Bengals, continue on to play football?”

As The Washington Post noted, “The broadcast was measured, informative and emotional.”

From the studio, former NFL players Booger McFarland and Ryan Clark offered their perspectives on what it might feel like to be a player on the field, in that moment – whether as a member of the Bills or the Bengals. They reminded the audience that players are first and foremost people. McFarland acknowledged the inherent violence of the game, adding, “I think we reached a point where nobody is concerned about football anymore tonight.”

Clark, who himself was hospitalized for a splenic infarction in 2007 shortly after playing a game for the Pittsburgh Steelers, acknowledged that part of living an NFL dream is “putting your life at risk.”

“Tonight we got to see a side of football that is extremely ugly, a side of football that no one ever wants to see or never wants to admit exists,” he said.

The gravity of the situation was reflected in ESPN curtailing all commercials for more than an hour to provide uninterrupted coverage. In doing so, the network stressed the importance of a player’s life over the game or profit motive.

When the media misfires

When disaster strikes on a live sports broadcast, it’s easy to say something wrong, especially in an age where words can be distributed widely, dissected and criticized on social media.

Just ask controversial ESPN commentator Skip Bayless, who wasn’t even on the air, but nonetheless went viral for all the wrong reasons after tweeting: “No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome … which suddenly seems so irrelevant.”

Bayless may have had a point – the NFL must now work out how to address the outcome of this game and the implications for the postseason – but his tone and timing led to much criticism.

Bayless is far from the only broadcaster to be accused of insensitively following the death or serious injury of sports stars.

The 2020 death of Kobe Bryant and his daughter Gianna was a model for what can go wrong, with TMZ breaking the news before their family was notified. ESPN relegated the news to ESPN2 so as not to interrupt Pro Bowl coverage. In their rush to break details from the story, some reporters trafficked in misinformation. ABC News ultimately suspended a reporter who said on air that all four of Bryant’s daughters were among the crash victims, while the BBC ran footage of LeBron James instead of Bryant.

Driver Kevin Ward, Jr. was killed during a 2014 sprint car race, but it was Tony Stewart, the man whose car struck him, who garnered most of the media coverage. The media was quick to lay the blame squarely on Stewart before an investigation absolved the driver and revealed Ward was under the influence of enough marijuana to impair him at the time of the crash.

Sports media was perhaps never more criticized for incident coverage than it was in 2020, when Danish soccer player Christian Eriksen suffered cardiac arrest on the field. BBC cameras showed not only medical professionals performing chest compressions as Eriksen struggled for life, but also his crying life partner and traumatized teammates. Cameras lingered for a full 15 minutes before cutting to the studio hosts.

Tony Stewart, front right, speaks to the media three weeks after his car hit and killed sprint car driver Kevin Ward, Jr. during a dirt track race. Jamie Squire/Getty Images

Prioritizing mourning over moneymaking

From the tragic deaths of basketball players Hank Gathers and Reggie Lewis, to the deaths of auto racers Dan Weldon and Dale Earnhardt and to Chuck Hughes who, in 1971, became the first and only NFL football player to die in a game, it is the media’s responsibility to navigate a tragedy on behalf of the public.

Research has shown that the media is often responsible for modeling appropriate public displays of emotion when traumatic or tragic events occur, be it respect for victims and their families or public mourning. It can be argued that the media – especially in the digital age – is a key conduit to community connection amid a tragedy, when people seek to show their support and share their grief.

There is a fine line when it comes to sports and catastrophe, for much of what people love about football is its warlike nature. Players are depicted like gladiators in a coliseum. Media quote athletes saying they will die for their teammates.

But when life and death become all too real, the athlete’s well-being takes precedence over wins and losses. At that point, the media, in my view, has one main job: help remind viewers of the player’s humanity.

As “SportsCenter” host Scott Van Pelt put it: “Sports is important. And suddenly it’s not.”

Nicole Kraft, Associate Professor of Clinical Communication, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

About one-third of the food Americans buy is wasted

Tue, 27 Dec 2022 10:13:50 -0500

Originally published in

By Brian E. Roe

Professor of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, The Ohio State University

Wasted food – and land, labor, chemicals, water and energy. ATU Images via Getty Images

You saw it at Thanksgiving, and you’ll likely see it at your next holiday feast: piles of unwanted food – unfinished second helpings, underwhelming kitchen experiments and the like – all dressed up with no place to go, except the back of the refrigerator. With luck, hungry relatives will discover some of it before the inevitable green mold renders it inedible.

U.S. consumers waste a lot of food year-round – about one-third of all purchased food. That’s equivalent to 1,250 calories per person per day, or US$1,500 worth of groceries for a four-person household each year, an estimate that doesn’t include recent food price inflation. And when food goes bad, the land, labor, water, chemicals and energy that went into producing, processing, transporting, storing and preparing it are wasted too.

Where does all that unwanted food go? Mainly underground. Food waste occupies almost 25% of landfill space nationwide. Once buried, it breaks down, generating methane, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Recognizing those impacts, the U.S. government has set a goal of cutting food waste in half by 2030.

Reducing wasted food could protect natural resources, save consumers money, reduce hunger and slow climate change. But as an agricultural economist and director of the Ohio State Food Waste Collaborative, I know all too well that there’s no ready elegant solution. Developing meaningful interventions requires burrowing into the systems that make reducing food waste such a challenge for consumers, and understanding how both physical and human factors drive this problem.

Consumers and the squander sequence

To avoid being wasted, food must avert a gauntlet of possible missteps as it moves from soil to stomach. Baruch College marketing expert Lauren Block and her colleagues call this pathway the squander sequence.

It’s an example of what economists call an O-ring technology, harking back to the rubber seals whose catastrophic failure caused the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster in 1986. As in that event, failure of even a small component in the multistage sequence of transforming raw materials into human nutrition leads to failure of the entire task.

MIT economist Michael Kremer has shown that when corporations of many types are confronted with such sequential tasks, they put their highest-skilled staff at the final stages of production. Otherwise the companies risk losing all the value they have added to their raw materials through the production sequence.

Who performs the final stages of production in today’s modern food system? That would be us: frenzied, multitasking, money- and time-constrained consumers. At the end of a typical day, we’re often juggling myriad demands as we try to produce a nutritious, delicious meal for our households.

Unfortunately, sprawling modern food systems are not managed like a single integrated firm that’s focused on maximizing profits. And consumers are not the highly skilled heavy hitters that Kremer envisioned to manage the final stage of the complex food system. It’s not surprising that failure – here, wasting food – often is the result.

Indeed, out of everyone employed across the fragmented U.S. food system, consumers may have the least professional training in handling and preparing food. Adding to the mayhem, firms may not always want to help consumers get the most out of food purchases. That could reduce their sales – and if food that’s been stored longer degrades and becomes less appetizing or safe, producers’ reputations could suffer.

Three paths to squash the squandering

What options exist for reducing food waste in the kitchen? Here are several approaches.

Build consumer skills.

This could start with students, perhaps through reinvesting in family and consumer science courses – the modern, expanded realm of old-school home economics classes. Or schools could insert food-related modules into existing classes. Biology students could learn why mold forms, and math students could calculate how to expand or reduce recipes.

Outside of school, there are expanding self-education opportunities available online or via clever gamified experiences like Hellman’s Fridge Night Mission, an app that challenges and coaches users to get one more meal a week out of their fridges, freezers and pantries. Yes, it may involve adding some mayo.

Recent studies have found that when people had the opportunity to brush up on their kitchen management skills early in the COVID-19 pandemic, food waste declined. However, as consumers returned to busy pre-COVID schedules and routines such as eating out, wastage rebounded.

Make home meal preparation easier.

Enter the meal kit, which provides the exact quantity of ingredients needed. One recent study showed that compared to traditional home-cooked meals, wasted food declined by 38% for meals prepared from kits.

Meal kits generate increased packaging waste, but this additional impact may be offset by reduced food waste. Net environmental benefits may be case specific, and warrant more study.

Heighten the consequences for wasting food.

South Korea has begun implementing taxes on food wasted in homes by requiring people to dispose of it in special costly bags or, for apartment dwellers, through pay-as-you-go kiosks.

A recent analysis suggests that a small tax of 6 cents per kilogram – which, translated for a typical U.S. household, would total about $12 yearly – yielded a nearly 20% reduction in waste among the affected households. The tax also spurred households to spend 5% more time, or about an hour more per week, preparing meals, but the changes that people made reduced their yearly grocery bills by about $170.

No silver bullets

Each of these paths is promising, but there is no single solution to this problem. Not all consumers will seek out or encounter opportunities to improve their food-handling skills. Meal kits introduce logistical issues of their own and could be too expensive for some households. And few U.S. cities may be willing or able to develop systems for tracking and taxing wasted food.

As the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine concluded in a 2020 report, there’s a need for many solutions to address food waste’s large contribution to global climate change and worldwide nutritional shortfalls. Both the United Nations and the U.S. National Science Foundation are funding efforts to track and measure food waste. I expect that this work will help us understand waste patterns more clearly and find effective ways to squelch the squander sequence.

Brian E. Roe, Professor of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Respect for Marriage Act has a few key limitations

Thu, 22 Dec 2022 08:38:00 -0500

Originally published in

By Dorian Rhea Debussy

Lecturer of Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, The Ohio State University

The Respect for Marriage Act will reverse the 1996 law that defines marriage as one between heterosexual couples. Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images

President Joe Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act on Dec. 13, 2022, protecting the federal right to same-gender marriage, which is often referred to as same-sex marriage.

The U.S. House of Representatives first approved the the Respect for Marriage Act – a law that codifies both interracial and same-gender marriage – on Dec. 8, 2022. This followed the Senate passing the Respect for Marriage Act on Nov. 29, 2022.

Many leaders of major LGBTQ+ rights organizations have praised the Respect for Marriage Act. For example, Kelley Robinson, president of the LGBTQ+ advocacy group the Human Rights Campaign, said in November 2022 that the act will allow “the 568,000 same-sex married couples in this country … (to) breathe a sigh of relief that their marriages will be protected from future attacks.”

However, the Respect for Marriage Act also has various limitations that have not received a lot of public attention. As a public policy scholar with a focus on LGBTQ+ issues, I’ve noticed at least three major shortcomings related to this imminent law. And as such, I don’t necessarily expect it to lead to legal protection and equality for all.

One key issue is that anti-LGBTQ+ laws in conservative states could undercut the Respect for Marriage Act. The act also provides an exemption for religious nonprofits. And finally, it does not fix a long-lasting problem that penalizes the marriages of people with disabilities – regardless of their sexuality.

Several lawmakers celebrate after the Senate voted to approve the Respect for Marriage Act on Nov. 29, 2022. Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

First, a bit of background

The Respect for Marriage Act will repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996. The Defense of Marriage Act set the federal definition of marriage as “one man, one woman” and allowed states to refuse to honor same-gender marriage licenses issued by other states.

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that part of this law was unconstitutional in the case, U.S. v. Windsor. In 2015, the court also issued another ruling, Obergefell v. Hodges, which required all states to license and recognize same-gender marriages.

But concern about the court’s precedent on same-gender marriage was ignited after the Supreme Court made its June 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the federal right to an abortion.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a concurrent opinion alongside the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling. In it, he wrote that since abortion rights are not protected under the 14th Amendment – which provides people with “equal protection under the laws” – the court should also review several past cases, such as ones that affirmed the rights to contraception and same-gender marriages.

Because of this, Democratic and Republican legislators fast-tracked the Respect for Marriage Act through Congress in the fall of 2022.

It doesn’t stop states from passing discriminatory laws

While the Defense of Marriage Act is not currently enforced, it remains on the books. The Respect for Marriage Act fully repeals the Defense of Marriage Act – but it won’t stop states from passing their own new discriminatory marriage restrictions or enforcing preexisting measures.

Among other things, the Respect for Marriage Act requires all states to recognize marriage licenses from other states.

Some legal experts have noted that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court could overturn its previous rulings on marriage equality. In that case, states could try to deny marriage licenses to interracial and same-gender couples by passing new state laws.

If that happens, these states would have to recognize same-gender marriage licenses from other states where it remains legal. But states could still pass and enforce a racist or anti-LGBTQ+ measure that restricts access to marriage licenses there.

In that instance, the only way some couples could have their marriage recognized at home would be by traveling to another LGBTQ+ friendly state to get a marriage license – similar to how some people now travel out of state to get an abortion. This scenario would almost immediately result in a flurry of lawsuits at the state level.

It gives exemptions to religious nonprofits

When the Senate passed the Respect for Marriage Act, the bill had a new religious liberty amendment added to it. While this concession was a draw for some Republican legislators, it creates some notable exemptions.

This language codifies the rights of religious nonprofits – including faith-based institutions, mission organizations, religious educational institutions and others – to not celebrate or, in some instances, recognize a marriage that conflicts with their faith.

In doing so, such organizations are allowed to deny “services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the solemnization or celebration of a marriage.”

In short, religious institutions could still refuse to host or officiate wedding ceremonies or to provide services, on the basis of religious liberty.

This exemption follows the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In that case, the court unanimously decided that a Christian adoption agency in the city could refuse to work with a same-gender couple.

Currently, the impact that this clause of the Respect for Marriage Act could have on LGBTQ+ rights remains to be seen. Even so, this builds upon a longer history of religious liberty arguments that have been used to deny rights to same-gender couples, transgender people, women and others.

People celebrate the fifth annual Disability Pride March in New York in 2019. Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images

It doesn’t ensure marriage equality for people with disabilities

Finally, the Respect for Marriage Act does not explicitly protect people with disabilities, who still do not have access to marriage equality.

There are several legal obstacles that people with disabilities – whether identifying as LGBTQ+ or not – face when it comes to marriage. There is a so-called “marriage penalty,” which can cause people with disabilities to lose benefits after marrying a nondisabled person.

While the Americans with Disabilities Act provides access to public accommodations, it does not prohibit this marriage penalty. This means that people with disabilities generally lose their Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits if they marry a nondisabled person.

While the Respect for Marriage Act repeals the Defense of Marriage Act, it will not repeal these marriage penalties from federal law.

Advocates are calling for proposed legislation, such as the Marriage Equality for Disabled Adults Act. This would remove this marriage penalty from federal law. Although disability rights activists continue to push for legislation to undo this penalty, the bill has been sitting with the House of Representatives subcommittee on health since January 2022.

The Respect for Marriage Act is an important win for interracial and same-gender couples, as it will codify the right to marriage into federal law. However, it is important to remember what this bill does not do.

The limitations of the Respect for Marriage Act – including no restrictions on discriminatory state laws, the presence of religious exemptions and the unacknowledged needs of people with disabilities – remain important to consider.

Dorian Rhea Debussy, Lecturer of Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Crypto exchange bankruptcy is bad news for some charities

Fri, 25 Nov 2022 10:43:29 -0500

Originally published in

By Brian Mittendorf

Fisher Designated Professor of Accounting, The Ohio State University

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried has lost the fortune he aimed to give away. Craig Barritt/Getty Images for CARE For Special Children

FTX, an exchange for trading cryptocurrencies, quickly became bankrupt and defunct in November 2022. Its founder, Sam Bankman-Fried, is broke, and the 30-year-old former billionaire could be in serious legal trouble for his alleged financial improprieties. The Conversation asked Brian Mittendorf, an accounting scholar at The Ohio State University, to explain the significance of FTX’s implosion for philanthropy and the nonprofits Bankman-Fried supported.

What was the connection between FTX and philanthropy?

Though FTX was a cryptocurrency exchange, Bankman-Fried viewed it as something more: a vehicle to change the world through giving. Bankman-Fried often noted that his goal for his business was to make money in order to donate it to support a variety of social causes like global health and investigative journalism. Bankman-Fried was also a major donor to politicians in the Democratic Party, while FTX co-founder Ryan Salame gave millions to Republicans.

Bankman-Fried was an acolyte of Scottish philosopher William MacAskill and the effective altruism movement, which emphasizes causes that its supporters believe can do the most good. Many effective altruists “earn to give,” trying to make as much money as they can in order to maximize their charitable impact. In recent years, a growing number of effective altruists have also championed “longtermism” – the view that giving to causes that donors believe will greatly benefit future generations is a higher priority than meeting current needs.

The lines between FTX, the FTX Foundation – Bankman-Fried’s philanthropic collective – and a longtermist offshoot of that foundation called the FTX Future Fund were blurry. The promises for big giving, however, were clear, with Bankman-Fried pledging to donate the bulk of his fortune to assorted causes.

What’s the most immediate fallout of FTX’s demise for charities?

Soon after FTX collapsed, the FTX Future Fund’s entire staff resigned.

The team cited concerns about the legitimacy and integrity of FTX’s operations. By quitting as a group, the staffers signaled that the fund had halted disbursements, while also attempting to distance the broader effective altruism movement from its most famous adherent.

Though Bankman-Fried and his FTX-affiliated philanthropic endeavors were only getting started toward meeting their lofty ambitions, many charities and other organizations had already received funding, and many had obtained further promises for future funding. Those commitments now seem unlikely to ever be disbursed. Many recipients, including ProPublica – a nonprofit investigative media outlet – are no longer counting on receiving those funds.

All signs point to much of that promised giving being unlikely to materialize.

FTX logo and mobile app ads seen November 10, 2022, one day before the cryptocurrency exchange initiated Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. Leon Neal/Getty Images

Can charities be forced to relinquish any donations tied to FTX that they have received?

What might happen to the money that had already been disbursed is less clear.

The possibility of it being “clawed back” from the causes that received funds from FTX affiliates or Bankman-Fried himself is real but less likely. Funds given in the 90 days prior to bankruptcy are the most likely to be vulnerable to claims in bankruptcy, but other gifts could be at risk too, if the activities of Bankman-Fried or FTX are found to be fraudulent. Even in that case, however, charitable gifts are given extra protection, limiting the likelihood of such a “claw back.”

What will the FTX fallout mean for cryptocurrency donations?

Charities have become more adept at receiving cryptocurrency donations over the years, primarily due to a multiyear boom in crypto markets and tax considerations that can make it advantageous for crypto investors to give away some of their large, untaxed gains.

In 2022, that boom gave way to a crypto bust, which has only gotten worse in the aftermath of FTX’s collapse. I believe it will reduce the flow of crypto to charities to a trickle – at least for now.

The FTX collapse also highlights the inherent risks charities face when they hold onto crypto assets and engage with these largely unregulated markets. The Silicon Valley Community Foundation, a charity which pools resources for the benefit of northern California, has seen fluctuations in values of its crypto holdings to the tune of billions of dollars. Other charities have shown themselves eager to join the craze as well. The FTX fiasco may prompt charities to think twice before seeking crypto gifts or holding onto cryptocurrencies instead of liquidating them as soon as possible.

What does this whole episode say about philanthropy?

Though the failures at FTX may not indicate similar failures are imminent, either in crypto markets or in effective altruism efforts, they do highlight some of the risks.

FTX operated in a lightly regulated environment, and Bankman-Fried’s brand of effective altruism was praised for being both visionary and disruptive. Together, these features highlighted an ethos of philanthropic giving that, by favoring big bets and bold goals, adopted the big-tech mantra of moving fast and breaking things.

In my view, FTX’s epic failure highlights the value of being transparent and accountable, both in business endeavors and giving. Minding the nitty-gritty details, heeding regulatory obligations and giving to established organizations may seem humdrum, but it’s worth the trouble and is surely more “effective” than the alternative in the long run.

As details about FTX’s demise came to light, a very different new and highly visible megadonor briefly made one of her intermittent appearances in the news. MacKenzie Scott, a novelist and the ex-wife of Jeff Bezos, announced on Nov. 14, 2022, that she had given nearly US$2 billion in the previous seven months to charities that work directly on acute community needs, like many local chapters of Big Brothers Big Sisters of America and the National Urban League.

Although Scott isn’t operating a traditional foundation and she has bucked many philanthropic conventions with her emphasis on social justice, her approach and record stand in stark contrast to Bankman-Fried’s.

Brian Mittendorf, Fisher Designated Professor of Accounting, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What’s a cold war? A historian explains how rivals US and Soviet Union competed

Sat, 05 Nov 2022 08:28:51 -0400

Originally published in

By Robert J. McMahon

Professor of History, The Ohio State University

Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev, left, met with U.S. President John F. Kennedy in Vienna in 1961. Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.

In the Cold War, was there any actual war going on? Like, with armies? Or was it mostly about space? – Leia K., age 10, Redmond, Washington

“I am getting confused about all these wars we are studying,” one of my college students confessed to me years ago. After we discussed the various nations who fought in World Wars I and II, she asked: “Now, who fought in the Cold War?”

I told her the Cold War was not an actual war. Unlike the two world wars, there were no physical battles between the major adversaries. It was, instead, an extended competition between the United States and the Soviet Union, along with their respective allies. In 1991, the Soviet Union split up into 15 countries, the largest of which is Russia.

But back then, both of these two so-called superpowers wanted to be the most powerful nation in the world, building themselves up while simultaneously trying to reduce the power and influence of the other. Washington and Moscow competed in numerous ways: over money and natural resources like oil, over allies, over weapons technology, over influence and prestige, over space exploration, over ideas.

The Cold War relationship between the two rival nations was often tense. Once, it led to the threat of nuclear war breaking out because Russia wanted to place nuclear missiles in Cuba, very close to the U.S. That brought the world to the brink of what would have been a catastrophic conflict.

But through skill, prudence or luck – or all three – American and Soviet leaders managed to avoid direct combat with each other from 1945 to 1989, the basic period of the Cold War.

A war without fighting?

My student could be forgiven for her confusion. The very term “Cold War” is contradictory and confusing. It was first used in 1947. By using the word “war,” it captured the seemingly life-or-death struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union and between capitalism and communism. But by describing this war as “cold,” it indicates the struggle did not involve weapons and did not result in rival armies seeking to destroy each other.

How could a war be cold? Essentially, by being fought not in the traditional manner of clashing armies, but by all other means short of actual combat.

The Cold War stayed cold for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, the advent of nuclear weapons meant that any conflict between the superpowers risked a nuclear exchange that could have claimed tens of millions of lives and left a swath of destruction in both the Soviet and American homelands.

To avoid such a cataclysmic outcome, policymakers in Moscow and Washington were highly sensitive to the risks of any conflict. They worked hard to find peaceful resolutions to the multiple confrontations and crises they faced between the end of World War II in 1945 and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

Each superpower also believed that it was engaged in a long-term struggle. Each was convinced that the superiority of its social, political and economic systems would ultimately bring victory in the competition, through peaceful means.

Think about it: Why resort to war, with all the death, devastation and uncertainty it would bring, if you sincerely believe that time – and history – is on your side?

Not a time of peace

Yet the Cold War era was hardly peaceful.

U.S. and Soviet troops never fought each other directly during those years. But numerous Cold War-related conflicts raged across the globe from the 1940s to the 1980s.

The vast bulk of those conflicts occurred in the developing countries of Asia, Africa and the Middle East – the so-called Third World or Global South. In fact, as many as 20 million people died in wars fought between 1945 and 1989. Only 1% of those lost their lives in Europe, the original area of Cold War confrontation. The other 99% died on battlefields of developing nations.

Those conflicts took many forms, including rebellions against colonial powers, civil wars, invasions and revolutions. They also had many different causes. Yet nearly all were affected by the wider Soviet-American struggle for power and influence. And nearly all were intensified and made bloodier and more costly by it.

The era’s most deadly conflicts were the Korean War, from 1950 to 1953, and the Vietnam War, from 1961 to 1975, each of which claimed millions of lives. The United States deployed troops to both of those conflicts, largely because it was determined to contain the expansion of communism.

For its part, the Soviet Union did not participate directly in either war. But it provided aid and support to its communist allies in North Korea and North Vietnam. The Soviet Union’s major ally during the first half of the Cold War, the communist-led People’s Republic of China, contributed massive numbers of troops to the conflict in Korea and provided hundreds of thousands of support troops to the conflict in Vietnam.

In sum, “Cold War” remains a somewhat contradictory term for, and description of, the period from 1945 to 1989. It correctly reflects the crucial fact that the struggle for global supremacy between the United States and the Soviet Union never involved direct combat between the two nation’s military forces. But it minimizes the extensive and bloody litany of conflicts that raged throughout those years, nearly all of which were caused by or affected by their rivalry.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Evangelical college students often feel misunderstood

Wed, 02 Nov 2022 16:40:55 -0400

Originally published in

By

Matthew J. Mayhew
Professor of Higher Education, The Ohio State University

Christa Winkler
Assistant Professor of Higher Education Leadership, Mississippi State University

Musbah Shaheen
PhD student in Higher Education and Student Affairs, The Ohio State University

Do students’ views of people with different beliefs really change on campus? AP Photo/Darron Cummings

Our research team has studied college students’ attitudes toward evangelicals, a topic that tends to prompt strong reactions.

Some liberals don’t see the topic as worthy of discussion – why study whether Americans appreciate a privileged group with strong influence on society? Meanwhile, many conservatives are adamant that evangelical perspectives are not tolerated, let alone welcome, on U.S. university campuses.

Yet our findings about students’ attitudes underscore important lessons about fostering tolerance and appreciation on campus for any group. Views of evangelicals are particularly interesting, since they highlight the complexities of social privilege: how individuals can feel discriminated against, even when their community as a whole is influential.

Surveying students

The Interfaith Diversity Experiences and Attitudes Longitudinal Survey, or IDEALS, surveyed 9,470 college students from 122 institutions across the country at three times: the beginning of their first year, the end of their first year, and the end of their senior year, which wrapped up in spring 2019. As part of this project, conducted by a team of researchers from Ohio State University, North Carolina University and the nonprofit Interfaith America, we asked students about their attitudes toward religious, spiritual and secular groups, including but not limited to atheists, Jews, Muslims and evangelicals.

We asked students to indicate their responses to four statements on a scale of 1, or “disagree strongly,” to 5, or “agree strongly”:

1) In general, people in this group make positive contributions to society.

2) In general, individuals in this group are ethical people.

3) I have things in common with people in this group.

4) In general, I have a positive attitude toward people in this group.

Our analysis controlled for other variables – such as the institution’s type, selectivity and size, and students’ race, gender, sexual orientation, major and political affiliation – to home in on the specific ways the campus learning environment was related to students’ views about different religious groups.

Compared with their attitudes toward other religious groups on campus, students’ appreciation for evangelicals grew at a slower pace, but still grew. On average, students’ responses showed an increase of over 40% in appreciation toward evangelicals by the end of their first year. By the time students graduated, they demonstrated another 30% increase between the end of their first year and fourth year of college.

Campus climate

After seeing that students’ views of evangelicals improved, on average, we wanted to better understand why.

First, we looked at the experiences students said were related to their gains, such as whether they took a religious studies course. Then, we conducted 18 case studies at institutions of various sizes and affiliations to learn about campus culture and hear from hundreds of students in focus groups. In these groups, we showed students data on the gains reported by their peers on campus and asked them why they thought these gains were made.

We found that appreciation increased for students on campuses they consider committed to inclusion for people of faiths, and people of no faith – regardless of whether the institutions were public or private, large or small, selective or not.

Some students talked about the impact of simply living and studying alongside people from different backgrounds. Many named the influence of interfaith and multifaith centers, spaces dedicated to bringing people from different religions together.

For example, a student at a Protestant-affiliated institution who identified as agnostic noted that she had “experienc[ed] a lot of toxic Christianity” growing up. She credited her interactions with a “progressive Christian” chaplain at her campus’s interfaith center with helping her understand that Christian beliefs and identities are diverse, and not limited to the type of faith she was introduced to as a child.

Members of a Christian group at California State University Long Beach worship in a lecture hall in 2014. Scott Varley/Digital First Media/Torrance Daily Breeze via Getty Images

Survey data also suggested that, on average, students whose views of evangelicals improved reported having at least two curricular experiences related to religion. This included many type of activities: for example, enrolling in a course specifically designed to enhance knowledge of different religious traditions; reflecting on one’s own religion in relationship to other perspectives as part of a class; and discussing other students’ religious or nonreligious backgrounds in class.

Personal relationships

How students related to one another was another important theme that often came up in discussions about views of evangelicals.

Evangelicals have to negotiate a seeming paradox: As Protestant Christians, who have long held influence in U.S. culture and politics, they belong to a privileged group. Yet many evangelical students say they feel unwelcome and misunderstood because of their beliefs.

Many non-Christian students who themselves feel marginalized because of their identities wrestle with how to make their evangelical peers aware of their relative privilege, and of how their beliefs and actions might affect other students.

For example, one student who identifies as atheist at a small, secular college recalled a Christmas tree put on their door by another student. “The person has literally no idea that that could possibly be upsetting,” they said, but added it was “a very sweet thing to do.” In other words, they believed that the other student was likely ignorant of why the Christmas tree could bother other students, but acting out of good intentions, tempering their anger about the unwelcome decoration.

Many students discussed developing empathy and humility. A Catholic student attending a Catholic college summarized, “Myself being a more liberal Christian, I’m not as accepting of the close-minded evangelical Christian … but that’s kind of being close-minded myself. … So I have to examine myself and be like, ‘I’m okay with them being them, even if I don’t agree with them.’ They’re saying, ‘All of these people are saying let’s accept everybody, but you’re not accepting me.’ And I said, ‘That’s absolutely right.’ … Even in political realms, too, I don’t agree with you, but I need to be okay with you.”

Finally, student gains in appreciation also seemed to stem from recognition that evangelicals are diverse, not one homogeneous group – as with the student who appreciated her conversations with the Christian chaplain at her campus’s interfaith center.

As a research team, we found this project’s findings left us considering ways to address deep divisions in the U.S. today. Some principles apply to fostering respect in many other situations beyond religion, and beyond college, from our offices at work to the halls of Congress: intentionally but empathetically engaging with one another’s differences.

Matthew J. Mayhew, Professor of Higher Education, The Ohio State University; Christa Winkler, Assistant Professor of Higher Education Leadership, Mississippi State University, and Musbah Shaheen, PhD student in Higher Education and Student Affairs, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What the Jan. 6 committee could learn from the failures of other truth commissions

Fri, 14 Oct 2022 17:10:49 -0400

Originally published in

By Rachel E. Bowen

Associate Professor of Political Science, The Ohio State University

The U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol resumes on Sept. 28, 2022. Win McNamee/Getty Images

The U.S. congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attacks resumed its hearings on Oct. 13, 2022, and is expected to produce a report before the November midterm elections about rioters’ attempted coup and efforts to prevent President Joe Biden from assuming office.

The bipartisan committee is not authorized to indict or arrest anyone. Still, the committee hearings have prompted speculation about whether former President Donald Trump or his top advisers might face charges. The group does have the power to recommend legal actions for the Justice Department to take action against Trump and others.

But even without legal teeth, the committee can serve other purposes, like influencing public opinion, for example, or recommending policy reforms. There’s a long precedent of other countries setting up truth commissions, like the Jan. 6 committee, which work to unveil the truth about alleged crimes or major controversies.

As a political science scholar and expert on truth commissions, I think that looking at other kinds of truth commissions in different countries provides insight into what the Jan. 6 committee’s legacy might be – chiefly, it can help develop a narrative of what American democracy means.

How truth commissions work

Truth commissions are independent or government groups that investigate political crimes and human rights violations. They have provided a common way of transitioning out of political crises around the world, by hearing testimony of people involved in political violence and producing a comprehensive report with recommendations to the government.

Truth commissions are typically formed in the first year or two after the end of an authoritarian period, when a newly democratic government is faced with responding to human rights abuses and acts of political violence by the previous government. Some countries have also established truth commissions as a part of peace processes, like the 2016-2022 Colombian commission that released its final report in June 2022 following six decades of civil war. That report, based on testimony of over 24,000 Colombians affected by the conflict, emphasized the right of the victims to know the truth.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission that formed in South Africa in 1995, following the end of the racial segregation policy known as apartheid, is probably the best known example of a truth commission.

But at least 40 other countries have used truth commissions around the world. Governments, the United Nations, human rights organizations and religious organizations have all carried out truth commissions. Like the Jan. 6 commission, other truth commission hearings can be emotional. Some have been broadcast and most have produced public reports.

Truth commissions have multiple goals. Most want to establish a historical record.

In many countries, testimony during truth commission hearings has helped locate mass graves or otherwise helped families learn what happened to murdered or missing loved ones.

Truth commissions sometimes recommend criminal prosecution – though many commissions offer amnesty to anyone who testifies, as happened in South Africa in 1995.

Desmond Tutu, right, served as the chairperson for South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as shown in 1996. Anna Zieminski/AFP via Getty Images

Limits to truth commissions

The U.S. House voted to set up the Jan. 6 committee in June 2021 “to investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes” of the Capitol attack.

Alongside the hearings, 919 individuals have been charged in connection with the insurrection.

But the Capitol attacks also left many unanswered questions – like the timeline of events, Trump’s exact association with the rioters, what role individual members of Congress may have played and why the National Guard was not directed to the Capitol for several hours.

Fully answering those questions may have positive benefits. For one, it may help Americans better understand political polarization and extremism in the country.

But that doesn’t mean it will resolve those issues.

Truth commissions are often part of a larger project of transitional justice, meaning a collection of strategies to strengthen a new democracy or a fragile peace.

Other examples of transitional justice may include putting accused leaders on trial and reforming state agencies like the police.

Countries adopt different transitional justice approaches based on what is needed in their circumstances. Because truth commissions and trials may be politically risky, some scholars instead highlight the value of amnesty for promoting human rights and democracy.

It hasn’t always worked in Latin America

For two decades, I have researched human rights and the rule of law in Central America. Different truth commissions’ pitfalls are evident there.

Guatemala, for example, had two truth commissions after its 36-year-long civil war ended in 1996. One commission was officially part of the peace process and the other was carried out by a national human rights organization.

These two commissions largely agreed on the basic facts – at least 200,000 Guatemalans were killed or disappeared during the civil war, and the government was responsible for more than 90% of human rights violations committed against civilians.

But establishing and publicizing that historical record did not lead to political stability in Guatemala.

It has also been difficult to prosecute former leaders. Guatemalan military dictator Gen. Efraín Ríos Montt, for example, was convicted of genocide in 2013 to great international fanfare. Ríos Montt was the first former head of state ever convicted of genocide in his own country’s courts. Still, another court annulled the verdict 10 days later, in a move seen by many as politically motivated.

Guatemalans came to observe the peace-signing between the government and rebels in 1996, ending 36 years of civil war. Rodrigo Arangua/AFP via Getty Images

Making a historical record

The Jan. 6 committee is not investigating a military dictatorship, as has happened in Latin America. But it is creating a historical record that will shape how Americans think about their own democracy for years to come.

August 2022 polling suggests that the hearings have not shifted public opinion on Trump or his involvement in the attack on the Capitol, with Democrats and Republicans remaining polarized.

Meanwhile, public trust in the U.S. government remains below 30%, linked to perceptions of government unresponsiveness and corruption.

It’s not yet clear what the Jan. 6 committee’s legacy in American politics will be. The flashy production values and more than 20 million viewers, at one point, still may not be able to create a shared national narrative.

With only 7% percent of those polled in June 2022 reporting high confidence in Congress, it seems unlikely that the committee’s report will reduce political friction.

Rachel E. Bowen, Associate Professor of Political Science, The Ohio State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Computer science benefits students with learning disabilities

Sat, 08 Oct 2022 07:45:16 -0400

Originally published in

By

Jay Stratte Plasman, Assistant Professor in Workforce Development and Education, The Ohio State University

Shaun M. Dougherty, Associate Professor of Public Policy & Education, Vanderbilt University

Schools can help students see themselves working in computer science. Hill Street Studios/Getty Images

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

The big idea

When computer science courses are delivered through career and technical education in high school, the courses can help students with learning disabilities feel better about their ability to succeed in STEM. The classes also help the students see the usefulness of computer science.

This is what we found in a recent study with our co-authors – education scholars Michael Gottfried, Jennifer Freeman.

We used national survey data from more than 20,000 students across the country to dig into this connection between computer science and science, technology, engineering or mathematics, a group of subjects generally known as STEM.

In our work, we found that – compared with other students with learning disabilities – those who took computer science courses in a career and technical education program were more likely to believe they could succeed in STEM. They were also more likely to believe STEM was useful for future employment or college options.

We also found that – within career and technical education programs – students with learning disabilities were just as likely to take computer science courses as students without learning disabilities. All our findings were still evident even after we took into account key student characteristics, such as family income, first language, gender and racial or ethnic identity.

Students with learning disabilities in our study are those who have a disability that affects their learning to write, read, spell or perform mathematical calculations.

Why it matters

Computer science is one of the fastest-growing fields in the current economy. Employment experts predict a 13% increase – about 667,000 new jobs – in these computer occupations from 2020 to 2030. That’s more than three times the rate of anticipated overall job growth.

However, there have not been enough computer science graduates in recent years to fill these jobs.

Based on our work, computer science courses appear to help students with learning disabilities develop positive attitudes toward STEM. These attitudes are linked to persistence in both computer science and STEM more generally. This makes it important for educators to encourage students to study, and stick with, computer science and STEM and make sure these students have access to these courses.

At the moment, students with learning disabilities are underrepresented in computer science fields in college and the labor market. Specifically, fewer than 8% of students in undergraduate computer science programs have any disability. This is compared with about 19% of all undergraduates.

What still isn’t known

A big question that remains is why students with learning disabilities don’t persist in computer science fields in college and, ultimately, pursue careers in the field. Even though computer science courses in high school help develop confidence and a sense of purpose, that may not be enough to encourage them to stick with it longer term.

One possible explanation might be that students with learning disabilities don’t see themselves as part of the STEM community. In our research, we looked to see if there was a link between computer science coursework and a feeling of STEM community membership. We found this connection for general education students but not for students with learning disabilities.

Another possible explanation may be that students with learning disabilities start high school with lower levels of STEM confidence and less of a sense that computer science will be useful to them in the future. Just participating in computer science courses may not be enough to make up the difference in this regard.

What’s next

One important next step will be to look at the factors that help students with learning disabilities keep studying computer science and STEM. For example, does a positive attitude toward STEM actually lead students with learning disabilities to study computer science or pursue careers in the field? We plan to explore such a question in future work.

Jay Stratte Plasman, Assistant Professor in Workforce Development and Education at The Ohio State University, The Ohio State University and Shaun M. Dougherty, Associate Professor of Public Policy & Education, Vanderbilt University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Ohio State News

Western troops have been expelled from Africa’s Sahel – so why are Italy’s Carabinieri still there?

Originally published in

By Kaitlyn RabeLecturer in Geopolitics, The Ohio State University

The context of anti-Western sentiment

A surge of violence

Carabinieri as a model

From Hormuz to the cockpit: Warfare, criminal activity undermine GPS

Originally published in

When GPS is silent – or lies

Deadly consequences

Strait of Hormuz: Navigation danger zone

Beyond GPS

China surpasses US in research spending

Originally published in

By Caroline WagnerProfessor of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University

China’s systematic and unrelenting rise

More science is good – the problem lies elsewhere

Disinvestment cuts deeper than it appears

A decision point, not a trend line

How deregulation made electricity more expensive, not cheaper

Originally published in

How deregulation brought middlemen instead of competition

Option A: The open market

Option B: Do nothing – default service

Problems in the open market

Is default service really competitive?

Putting it all together

Academia touts value of scholarship crossing disciplines, but doesn’t back it up

Originally published in

Infrastructure and interdisciplinary work

Career challenges

Consequences for research

Far fewer Americans support political violence than recent polls suggest

Originally published in

By Ryan Kennedy

Timashev Chair of Data Analytics and Professor of Political Science, The Ohio State University

A failure to communicate

What did you mean by that?

Nuance matters

When is political violence justified?

A call for understanding

Approaching the age of commercial space stations

Originally published in

By John M. Horack,

Vice President for Research and Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,The Ohio State University

Keeping a presence in orbit

Dawn of commercial space stations

In the meantime, enjoy the view

Universities aim to help solve air traffic controller shortage

Originally published in

By Melanie Dickman

Lecturer in Aviation Studies, The Ohio State Universityand Brian Strzempkowski

Assistant Director, Center for Aviation Studies, The Ohio State University

Air traffic controller school

Intense training

Increasing the employment pipeline

How and where is nuclear waste stored in the US?

Originally published in

By Gerald Frankel

Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, The Ohio State University

Waste from weapons manufacturing

Waste from electricity generation

The threat of water

A long way off

Spending, regulations and DOGE: OMB director has vital role

Originally published in

By Bridget C.E. Dooling

Assistant Professor of Law, The Ohio State University

Martha Coven, Princeton University

What does the Office of Management and Budget do?

What’s the role of its director?

How important is OMB to an administration’s plans?

What are OMB’s biggest challenges right now?

High rises made out of wood?

Originally published in

By Brent Sohngen

Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics, The Ohio State University

The work forests do

Economics of forest management

By Kaitlyn Rabe
Lecturer in Geopolitics, The Ohio State University

By Caroline Wagner
Professor of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University

Timashev Chair of Data Analytics and Professor of Political Science,
The Ohio State University

Vice President for Research and Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
The Ohio State University

Lecturer in Aviation Studies, The Ohio State University
and Brian Strzempkowski

By Don Leonard
Assistant Professor of Practice in City and Regional Planning, The Ohio State University