SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Peer " 420 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Why Flutter Entertainment (FLUT) Stock Is Down Today
Flutter Entertainment (FLUT) is down 4.4% today. Here is some analysis on what might have caused this price movement.Analysis: The sell-off appears tied more to sector pressure than to any fresh company-specific setback. This could be because investors are still digesting legal and regulatory uncertainty around sports-event prediction markets, while recent balance-sheet concerns and a sharp drop in peer shares added to the pressure.Details:FLUT f
Data & Business Process Services Stocks Q2 Recap: Benchmarking Equifax (NYSE:EFX)
Wrapping up Q2 earnings, we look at the numbers and key takeaways for the data & business process services stocks, including Equifax (NYSE:EFX) and its peers.
Can researchers trust that AI models won’t leak their ideas?
Research funders are asking how they can stop confidential scientific ideas in grant proposals from leaking out through large language models (LLMs), for example if reviewers use AI to help them judge applications. Last week, a row erupted in mathematics after OpenAI announced it had solved a notoriously difficult problem, only for another mathematician to demand answers over whether the company had used ideas he had fed into its models. The spat, and the broader issue of idea leakage through AI models, was discussed by funders at an R&D policy conference held in Paris on September 14. At worst, it threatens to undermine the correct attribution of breakthroughs, one of the foundations of modern science. The mathematics dispute around OpenAI is “certainly something we're looking at” Jason Gallo, head of the newly established Office of Metascience at the US National Science Foundation (NSF), told the Blue Sky Forum, hosted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The controversy started on September 8, when OpenAI announced it had cracked a mathematical problem that had gone unsolved for 90 years. Using a swarm of AI agents, millions of dollars’ worth of computing power and a new internal model, the company said it had finally proved that a long-used formula for modelling fluid dynamics breaks down under certain conditions. However, Tristan Buckmaster, a New York University mathematician who had been independently working with collaborators on the same problem using OpenAI’s Codex tool, hit back with a statement questioning whether the company had snooped on his Codex sessions to gain an advantage. OpenAI has always denied it looked up the “specific user data” of Buckmaster and colleagues. However, the company initially admitted that “while unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models,” although its proofs “differ significantly” from Buckmaster’s. The firm later said that, following an investigation, it concluded that Buckmaster’s Codex prompts “could not have influenced the [OpenAI] system in any way, including through training.”Funder concernYet OpenAI’s initial admission that its model might have ingested Buckmaster’s ideas, then spat them out to its own mathematicians, has scientistsworriedthat their work could leak out if shared with AI. Some AI tools give users an opt-out option to stop their sessions from training the model. If such guarantees can be trusted, this gives scientists some confidence they can use an LLM to develop an idea without the risk of it leaking out.But there’s a bigger potential vulnerability. To win money to investigate ideas, scientists have to share them with funding bodies. These grant proposals are normally kept strictly confidential, to prevent other scientists from scooping them, or to protect commercially valuable intellectual property. To preserve this confidentiality, when the NSF uses AI models, “we have to be sure that it's not making server calls out to an external party, leaking that data,” said Gallo to delegates in Paris. Leaks through reviewersHowever, funders normally use external academic reviewers to assess proposals. And there are growing worries that these reviewers are feeding grant ideas into AI models to help them make a judgement. Research funders have noticed that peer review reports and funding recommendations have “suddenly become much longer, more detailed and complex,” said Diogo Machado, head of the data science unit at Technopolis, a science and technology-focused consultancy. “The sense is that reviewers are increasingly using generative AI in their review work, even where guidelines sometimes forbid it,” he told Science|Business. “This is very difficult for funders to control or prove.” Happening at scaleThis sharing of confidential proposals with AI models is “happening at scale already,” said James Wilson, executive director of the Research on Research Institute, based at University College London, during the debate in Paris. In response, Gallo said the NSF had “strict guidance” around the uploading of proposals to AI models. But he added the NSF was mulling new types of assessment to make sure applicants were truly the originators of their ideas, such as following a short-form proposal with an oral presentation, which would allow the foundation to “really interrogate the investigator on their intellectual contribution.” Related articlesHow can Europe cope with a flood of AI-assisted research grant proposals?The risks and benefits of AI in screening research grant proposals Viewpoint: AI could make scientific overload worse“For us as funders, a lot of the ways to ensure that the application remains the applicant's own intellectual contribution, those ways are quite regressive,” Peter Clifford, head of strategy at Research Ireland, told delegates. “They're maybe ten or 15 or 20 years old, and they don't scale particularly well.” Disputes over the origin of ideas are as old as modern science. Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz spent more than a decade arguing over who invented calculus, for example. And long before LLMs emerged, academics would agonise over how much of their early work to reveal at conferences, in case their colleagues scooped them, Jack Leahy, a senior metascience advisor to the UK government, told delegates. But AI was “accelerating” the “problems of the system,” he said.
How Is Live Nation Entertainment’s Stock Performance Compared to Other Entertainment Stocks
Live Nation Entertainment has considerably outperformed its sector peers recently, and analysts remain highly optimistic about the stock’s prospects.
10 Years, 10 Milestones: A Decade of Peer Recovery at RWJBarnabas Health
The RWJBarnabas Health Institute for Prevention and Recovery celebrates 10 years of its Peer Recovery Program with a lookback at the last decade of transforming substance use disorder care and services for patients across the RWJBarnabas Health system.
What Does the Science of Climate Change Really Look Like?
Editor’s Note: This is the second in a three-part series on how the Right should think about environmental and climate policy. Read Chris Barnard on Reclaiming Environmental Policy from the Left. More than a decade ago, the world’s governments negotiated and signed the Paris Climate Agreement, committing to hold global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius. In the following years, climate had immense cultural power. Greta Thunberg emerged. Fortune 500 companies established net-zero plans. The U.S. got the Inflation Reduction Act. Then the pendulum swung back. President Donald Trump returned to the Oval Office, speaking of green energy as a “scam” and carbon footprints as a “hoax” and on all matters of international policy emphasizing bilateral engagement and power over globalism and cooperation. The technology companies that had been at the forefront of net-zero pledges and green leadership discovered the importance of all-of-the-above power to their visions for artificial intelligence and began quietly postponing or removing their targets. On the left side of the political spectrum, rising concerns about inflation and cost pushed climate lower down in the stated priorities of voters and stump speeches of politicians. The moment is ripe for a reset on the politics of climate change and for conservatives especially to chart a course that acknowledges and addresses the real challenges in plausible ways. So what should we think about climate change as we enter a post-peak climate era? If it is neither an apocalypse nor a hoax, what will hold up as a durable view of climate change? And how does it project onto the concerns and priorities of the right-of-center’s emerging coalition? New to Commonplace_? Subscribe below to get the magazine in your inbox._ Subscribe A Solid Foundation As the politics and economics of climate careened over the past ten years, the physics carried on regardless. In 2015, the year the Paris Climate Agreement was adopted, the world emitted 41.2 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. By 2025, emissions had risen only 2.4%, to 42.2 gigatonnes, because falling emissions from land use offset increasing emissions from fossil fuels. But slow growth in annual emissions is not rapid decline, let alone net-zero, so carbon dioxide kept accumulating in the atmosphere, going from 399 to 426 parts per million. Global temperature kept rising too, from about 1.1 degrees Celsius above the 1850–1900 average in 2015, to 1.4 degrees above it in 2025. None of this should surprise anyone. Even most prominent skeptics, like the authors of the 2025 report commissioned by the Trump administration’s Department of Energy, accept the basic physics. Carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere at industrial volumes accumulates and traps heat that would otherwise escape to space. That heat warms the upper ocean and increases temperatures at the surface. Increased ocean heat and melting of land ice cause sea levels to rise. Changes in the climate become noticeable to us as subtle shifts in temperature and precipitation, seasons arriving early or late, changes in the surrounding ecosystem, and weather extremes. The much more meaningful debate is not about whether these things are happening, but about what it all means for human societies. (While it is a proxy measure of overall risk, no one experiences global surface temperature.) This debate invokes at least three interesting questions: how much today’s warming is showing up in regional climate trends, how much more warming we should anticipate, and how extreme weather events can be understood in the context of climate change. Recent scientific advances give us new insights into each of these, but there is still much to learn. This is the context in which the next generation of conservative leaders will be the first to deal with significant climate change as a fact, not a forecast. It will be with them for their entire careers. Our evolving scientific picture of climate change will come from weather and climate records stretching further into the past, new kinds of observations in the present, better modeling tools for the future, and simply more time to observe the emergence of climate signals and their tangible effects on ecosystems and communities in the United States and around the world. The policy landscape will be shaped by not only the impacts of changes in the climate, but also by the ways in which societies respond and by the emergence of new technologies for both altering the trajectory of emissions and adapting to new climate realities. Global climate records now show the fingerprints of warming in different phenomena around much of the world. The IPCC, in its most recent assessment report, documents warming trends over all land regions, even as natural variability adds substantial variance to local trends. And the highest temperature extremes have become more intense and frequent, almost everywhere, since the 1950s. Scientists are highly confident that these changes are attributable to human influence. But confidence in detecting trends and attributing them to human influence degrades across heavy precipitation events; drought trends are heterogeneous and not attributable to human activity with great confidence. For hurricanes, tornadoes, and other severe storms there is even less confidence in trends or their relationship to climate change. In general, a fair summary of the evidence is that for well-observed phenomena, like surface temperature or heavy rainfall, with a clear relationship to warming, our multidecadal observations are consistent with human influence overcoming natural variability over long time periods and extremes increasing. For regions that are sampled more sparsely, or phenomena with a higher noise-to-signal ratio, we will need to observe them longer to understand the magnitude of the climate signal or improve dynamical understanding using models and observations together. But for Climate For those who can’t wait, we also have new techniques that attempt to understand the role climate change has in influencing particular extreme events. When the climate is changing and disaster strikes, it is natural to ask whether that disaster was somehow “caused” by climate change. For scientists and policymakers acting in good faith, answering that question helps develop a more accurate picture of the problem, how it may be getting worse, and what preparations we should be making to respond to it. It may, at some point, give some weight to how liability is assigned by courts or adaptation funding is distributed by society. But how we ask this question is extremely important. It is easy to get the analysis wrong by discounting the role that meteorology plays. As meteorologist Theodore Shepherd explained in a clear 2016 review of climate attribution methods, “if a weather or climate event is truly extreme in the present climate, then perforce it requires unusual meteorological conditions, which means that climate change is at most a contributing factor.” Share Scientists have two ways to probe climate as a contributing factor, both of which have entered media coverage of extreme weather events. One asks a probabilistic question: How much more likely is a particular event (e.g., a temperature record over a particular area) amid global warming? The answer involves using historical records and computer simulations to estimate the likelihood of such an event in both a changed and a preindustrial climate. The findings are less about the specific event, and more about events of that nature. The other question is: How has the changed climate affected the specific event in question? Here, scientists try to understand what a similar event would have looked like in the preindustrial climate. This is sometimes called the storyline approach, where the story is the specific meteorological details of the event. These methods offer ways to test the intuition of scientists about real weather extremes. In late June and early July of 2021, a persistent high-pressure ridge, or heat dome, set up over the Pacific Northwest and an extraordinary heat wave affected the area from Oregon to British Columbia. For six days, it shattered temperature records across the region and hundreds died from heat-related causes, in an area where such high, and persistently high, temperatures were well outside of experience and many live without air conditioning. Scientists have studied its connection to climate change using multiple approaches. This specific event was created by a rare combination of meteorological factors, a strong high-pressure ridge created the conditions for extreme heat, which occurred on top of higher average temperatures in the region from global warming. Probabilistic analyses showed that climate change increased the likelihood of such an event by at least 8-fold to more than 100-fold. One standout example found that such an event had effectively zero probability of occurring in the preindustrial climate. The enormous range in these assessments reflects how hard it is to estimate probabilities of events at the tail of the historical record. Estimates of the effect on the temperature of the event are more clustered. A recent review paper documents how multiple methodologies have found a positive influence, roughly 1-2 degrees Celsius of an anomaly that exceeded 15 degrees, of climate change on the temperature magnitude of the event. Multiple studies have investigated and found some positive influence of climate change in other extreme events. Attribution studies found climate likely increased the heavy rainfall that accompanied Hurricane Helene in North Carolina and surrounding regions in 2024. The extensive fires that struck Los Angeles in 2025 illustrate how the causal chain can become messy, though. Studies do detect a positive influence of climate on the event’s likelihood, but while climate change likely contributed to underlying aridity, it would not have played a role in the heavy winds or land practices that preceded disaster. These event attribution studies will become more common for extreme, or damaging, weather events. They can be produced quickly, and often are reported before peer review. As the Pacific Northwest heatwave example shows, when multiple methods converge on a positive attribution, the finding should probably carry some weight even if you have to be careful about accepting the results from a single study. I expect that as climate change proceeds and the climate thus departs further from a preindustrial counterfactual, the influence will become more detectable across a variety of extreme events and more easily identified. This will be used to cast blame, but can also be used to inform how communities and society adapt to ongoing change. We May Still Be Surprised One positive development, insofar as less climate change is better, has been that our central estimates for future climate change should probably be revised downward. Mostly, that is because the high-end warmings that scientists regularly analyzed about ten to 20 years ago, driven by high emissions throughout the twenty-first century, now appear to be somewhere between unlikely and impossible. At one time, the upper end of mainstream climate projections extended well into 4 to 6 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of this century, which, models suggest, would have wrought enormous real-world damage. Current energy and policy trends now point toward 2.5 or 3 degrees. Damages and risks are commonly modeled as increasing steeply with more warming, so this is already a better-than-previously-expected outcome for the climate (which is independent of the physical response to emissions). But we should maintain a wide range for plausible outcomes and prepare for the possibility of being surprised. Emissions trajectories are subject to deep uncertainty, the physical climate response is still developing, and whatever change occurs in the climate will then be mediated through unpredictable economic, social, and political institutions. Over the past decade, the pace of warming surprised some keen observers and appeared to accelerate, though not yet outside the range of expectation provided by climate models. The reasons for that apparent acceleration are being actively studied (as was the apparent pause in warming from 1998 to 2012), but no single driver has emerged. Some blame it on the El Niño, variability which would have no bearing on climate. Some think it is a result of factories in East Asia and global shipping fleets cutting aerosol emissions, which in the strongest version of the argument would indicate higher climate sensitivity to carbon-dioxide emissions. Others are more measured, not yet ready to draw solid conclusions as to whether climate projections require revision. We will have to see. Long-Term Thinking Climate change asks us to think over long time scales. But the pace of human-driven warming is compressing a large global change into a century. Changing weather patterns and extreme events are already causing adjustment costs and damages and will do more. Adaptation will help, but it is not free. For some communities, these costs will erode livelihoods and well-being, and may force migration. Are we prepared for large-scale managed retreats in the United States? Thankfully, American wealth, geographical diversity, and moderate climates may leave us better prepared than many around the world. But wealthy countries can still suffer serious disruption from narrowly concentrated costs, even if they appear entirely manageable in aggregate. Readers of Commonplace are familiar with the challenges of rapidly adapting to economic forces. The displacement that came from the China Shock is barely perceptible in aggregate GDP and employment data, but it affected millions of people and those people were far less mobile than economic models tended to assume. Deindustrialization rippled through the nation with enormous effects for not only our economic vitality, but also our national security. The forces surrounding climate change may not be so different; the world gets richer and must accept some diffuse costs. Those may be modest overall, but cause all manner of unpredictable effects with which policymakers must cope. In the case of the China Shock, our faith in a growing pie served us poorly. We’ll need to do better on climate. Leave a comment
LifeStance Health Group (NASDAQ:LFST): Strongest Q2 Results from the Outpatient & Specialty Care Group
Earnings results often indicate what direction a company will take in the months ahead. With Q2 behind us, let’s have a look at LifeStance Health Group (NASDAQ:LFST) and its peers.
Q2 Healthcare Technology for Providers Earnings: Evolent Health (NYSE:EVH) Impresses
Looking back on healthcare technology for providers stocks’ Q2 earnings, we examine this quarter’s best and worst performers, including Evolent Health (NYSE:EVH) and its peers.
Testing & Diagnostics Services Stocks Q2 Results: Benchmarking Guardant Health (NASDAQ:GH)
Earnings results often indicate what direction a company will take in the months ahead. With Q2 behind us, let’s have a look at Guardant Health (NASDAQ:GH) and its peers.
Massachusetts nonprofit offers peer mental health support via Hey Sam
During Suicide Prevention Awareness Month, the Massachusetts nonprofit Samaritans is highlighting its role in operating the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline and Hey Sam, a peer-to-peer mental hea…
Is DLocal Limited (DLO) Stock Outpacing Its Business Services Peers This Year?
Here is how DLocal (DLO) and Paymentus (PAY) have performed compared to their sector so far this year.
Cumberland County Schools Business Operations earns Meritorious Budget Award for third consecutive year
Cumberland County Schools continues to demonstrate strong fiscal leadership as the district’s Business Operations Department has earned the 2026–2027 Meritorious Budget Award from the Association of School Business Officials International for the third consecutive year.The national recognition honors excellence in budget preparation and presentation, highlighting the department’s commitment to transparency, accountability and sound financial practices. The award is presented following a rigorous peer review by experienced school finance professionals who evaluate district budgets against nationally recognized standards.“This recognition reflects the leadership of the Cumberland County Board of Education and Superintendent Dr. Eric C. Bracy, along with the hard work of our Business Operations team,” said Jay Toland, associate superintendent of Business Operations, in a press release. “We take pride in using public funds wisely and making our budget clear and accessible so our community can see how those resources support student success.”ASBO International’s award program promotes budget documents that are comprehensive, accessible and informative for families, staff and community members.“An effective school budget is more than just numbers—it’s a vital tool for building trust and engaging the community,” said Executive Director of ASBO International Jim Rowan in a press release. “The Meritorious Budget Award recognizes districts like Cumberland County Board of Education that prioritize financial clarity and accountability.”
Unpacking Q2 Earnings: Interface (NASDAQ:TILE) In The Context Of Other Business Services & Supplies Stocks
As the Q2 earnings season comes to a close, it’s time to take stock of this quarter’s best and worst performers in the business services & supplies industry, including Interface (NASDAQ:TILE) and its peers.
Here's the Oracle severance package offered to laid-off US employees
Oracle's severance package appears less generous than policies at its peer companies, recently viewed by BI.
The Craft of Peer Review
Peer Review Week provides an opportunity to recognize the volunteer reviewers whose time and expertise are essential to the scientific publishing process. To mark the occasion, AMS asked recipients of…
RFK Jr. says Americans have the ‘sickest children in history.’ History says otherwise
U.S. children fare worse than their peers in some wealthy countries, but centuries of health data contradict Kennedy’s sweeping claim
PENN Entertainment: Not Much To Get Excited About
PENN Entertainment remains a Hold with an $18 price target due to mixed earnings and limited valuation upside versus peers. Learn more about PENN stock here.
Peers to debate donations law changes after Reform's £72m windfall
The government is seeking to change the law on donations to UK political parties from British expats.
Select committee calls for bill to address AI threat to human rights
A cross-party group of MPs and peers identifies human rights risks that existing laws appear not to cover.
PENN Entertainment holds steady with $18 target amid mixed earnings and debt concerns.
PENN Entertainment maintains a Hold rating with an $18 price target due to mixed Q2 earnings and limited valuation upside compared to peers. The retail segment showed solid growth with a 5.6% increase in adjusted EBITDAR, especially strong in the Midwest and West regions. However, the Interactive segment's revenue growth has slowed sharply despite improving profitability, raising concerns about long-term competitiveness. The company remains highly leveraged with net debt around 5.2x–5.5x, making proactive debt reduction and consistent Interactive profitability key factors to watch going forward.
Kings’ Acuff Jr. Predicted To Make All-Rookie 1st Team
Sacramento’s top pick prepares to lead a rebuilding roster, aiming to shatter franchise scoring records and outshine his peers as a definitive centerpiece for the Kings' future.
CERN finds gluons behaving strangely deep inside atomic nuclei
Physicists at CERN have found a new way to peer deep inside atomic nuclei and distinguish between two competing explanations for how gluons behave. Using the ALICE experiment at the Large Hadron Collider, researchers measured particle production at unprecedented spatial resolution, revealing structures as small as about one-quarter the size of a proton. At the smallest scales, they saw a surprising drop in J/ψ production that conventional “nuclear shadowing” struggles to explain.
Wilmington health tech founder launches new venture
Several years after launching his health tech startup Artemis Immersive, founder Adam Isley is setting his sights on new horizons. Co-founded in 2023 by husband-and-wife Adam Isley and Kaylan Barbrey, along with Matthew Raffa and Bill Blakesley, Artemis Immersive began as a spatial medtech company that created digital renderings of medical scans for viewing in augmented reality (AR). Isley said the firm, which won an NC Tech award in the Biotech + HealthTech Innovation category last year, has raised $1.2 million in total in seed funding since launching. Isley has since created a new venture, Research and Me, building on the Artemis platform. Like Artemis Immersive’s core software, VoxScan, Research and Me combines health data with artificial intelligence in a 3D interactive environment to help patients better understand health outcomes and provide integrative wellness support. While the Artemis product is no longer Isley’s primary focus, he said the company’s technology and ambitions have evolved into different ventures, like Research and Me. "It's a different venture building on the Artemis platform, and there'll probably be more,” Isley said. He added, "I was very disappointed in the quality of the information available to general patients about their healthcare... I wanted to give patients more and a better plate of choices." Research and Me is still in its beta phase, Isley said, with usability testing ongoing in partnership with the firm’s partner, Medicap Pharmacy and Wellness Center, owned by Barbrey. "As someone who's kind of dedicated their life to working in healthcare, I've tried to bring this spirit and passion to it,” he said, “and a lot of the resources that we'll be providing are free — like a base level of free care for any patients, or medical education if they've got specific conditions." Isley describes Research and Me as a “patient-first” platform designed to securely store and pseudonymize health data and use AI and medical literature to generate insights. The insights are presented in an interactive 3D environment for patients and providers to explore conditions, treatments and wellness plans together. "It's almost like a democratization of understanding medical information," Isley said. "We take a whole bunch of clinical data, we take a whole bunch of peer‑reviewed, published studies on PubMed, and we try to turn them into chunks of information that normal humans can understand." Like VoxScan, the Research and Me platform lets users interact with 3D anatomical models for visualization. The platform provides a space for tracking, notes and insights. The platform also supports video conferencing, Isley said, allowing providers or coaches to examine models and data together. "We wanted to create a safe environment where you can start to learn and experiment with new features about your health, using agents to do that,” Isley said. While Research and Me is in beta-phase testing with Medicap Pharmacy, Isley said he envisions the platform serving a wellness-oriented community, working with sports performance clinics and hormone optimization. Isley, who is working towards a wellness-coach board certification, also plans to offer functional wellness consults through the platform. Long‑term, Isley says he wants the platform to embody an “integrative health practitioner” approach, “connecting experts of different fields and specializations in a way that they can make a greater impact in people's lives.” “For people in the state of North Carolina, it's already a win,” Isley said of the Medicap rollout, noting that partner clinics get “immediate resources for learning about their health and wellness conditions… out of the box.” Isley plans to launch Research and Me’s provider portal in 2028 and begin pursuing integrations with larger systems, he said.
Cash App Pilots No-Fee Business Tools for Sole Proprietors
Cash App is piloting a new experience that helps eligible sole proprietors accept peer-to-peer payments and manage their earnings in their personal Cash
Healthcare Technology for Providers Stocks Q2 Teardown: Privia Health (NASDAQ:PRVA) Vs The Rest
Looking back on healthcare technology for providers stocks’ Q2 earnings, we examine this quarter’s best and worst performers, including Privia Health (NASDAQ:PRVA) and its peers.
Is Kforce (KFRC) Stock Outpacing Its Business Services Peers This Year?
Here is how Kforce (KFRC) and Coherent (COHR) have performed compared to their sector so far this year.
Pi515 recruiting students for AI Navigators program
Pi515 is seeking students to participate in its AI Navigator Program, which pairs them with industry experts to become knowledge leaders and help their teachers and peers better understand and responsibly use AI. As an AI Navigator, students will build AI skills, assist with workshops and increase AI literacy across Central Iowa. Interested students can…
Students in Asia extend lead over a flagging US as AI reshapes education
High-school students across Asia are pulling ahead of their Western peers, an annual global assessment indicates, as artificial intelligence spurs a worldwide race for talent and reshapes how young people learn.
Is Concrete Pumping Holdings (BBCP) Stock Outpacing Its Business Services Peers This Year?
Here is how Concrete Pumping (BBCP) and Cricut, Inc. (CRCT) have performed compared to their sector so far this year.
Politics Threaten Medical Innovation at NIH
Santa Monica rheumatologist warns that political interference in NIH funding threatens scientific breakthroughs and patient care. Taxpayer dollars should support rigorous peer review, not politics.
Students avoiding AI for schoolwork outscore peers in science, bar one use: OECD
Fifteen-year-olds reporting they never or almost never used artificial intelligence (AI) for schoolwork outscored their AI-using peers in science on nearly every type of task, except for utilizing AI as a general study aid, according to the PISA result conducted by the OECD.
England’s teenagers outperform peers in most countries in maths, reading and science
OECD test sees results dip in almost all member nations and warns of ‘digital distractions’ eroding academic skills
When Scientists Become Commercial Influencers
Peer review in reputable journals gives scientific claims an authority that commercial speech rarely enjoys. But what happens when scientists carry that halo of authority out of the laboratory and into the marketplace, publicly attacking products while enjoying protections their manufacturers do not?
Is Healthcare Services Group (HCSG) Stock Outpacing Its Business Services Peers This Year?
Here is how Healthcare Services (HCSG) and Marsh (MRSH) have performed compared to their sector so far this year.
3 Steps to Support Mental Health for Rural Youth
(Feature Impact) Young people face a growing number of pressures, including academic expectations, social responsibilities, complex family situations and uncertainty about their own futures. Mental health support is important for all – but in many rural areas, those pressures are even greater.According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the suicide rate for rural youth ages 15-19 is 74% higher than their urban counterparts. Barriers like limited insurance coverage, unreliable internet for telehealth, scarce providers, long drive times and lack of public transportation make it harder to get mental healthcare when it’s needed. Plus, asking for help can feel like opening oneself up to judgment and stigmatization.That’s why Rural Minds, the only nonprofit focused on mental health for rural communities, created the Rural Youth Mental Wellness pilot program supported by Boehringer Ingelheim. It was developed by an advisory committee made up of rural youth to provide their peers with practical, free, accessible mental health resources. Incorporating feedback on the pilot, the updated program sponsored by the Sompo Foundation is now launching its national rollout.“A young person’s ZIP code should never determine whether they can access meaningful mental health support where and when they need it,” said Jessica L. Schleider, Ph.D., director, Lab for Scalable Mental Health, Northwestern University. “Our lab is thrilled to partner with Rural Minds as they champion evidence-based, anonymous, freely available support tools designed to overcome barriers to help-seeking faced by rural youth across the country.”If the rural mental health crisis affects you or a loved one, consider these ways to help.Break the Stigma Surrounding Mental HealthIn communities where self-reliance is valued, asking for help can sometimes be viewed as a sign of weakness. Young people who feel unheard and unsupported often struggle with being vulnerable, so they continue carrying their increasingly heavy burdens alone.Parents, educators, healthcare providers, community leaders and peers can work to change that culture by normalizing mental health conversations. This includes helping teenagers feel seen and accepted by educating them on mental health issues and coping strategies, listening to their experiences without judgment, sharing your own stories and reminding them it’s courageous to seek support.Consider Single-Session InterventionsThe first step is always the hardest when it comes to seeking mental health support, and not every struggling young person is ready or able to see a therapist. With access to free, confidential, self-guided materials to begin building mental wellness skills, the first step may be less scary.Single-Session Interventions (SSIs) are brief, structured online courses designed to teach youth practical skills for handling stress, low mood, self-image and more. The Rural Youth Mental Wellness Program offers SSIs in partnership with Project YES (Youth Empowerment and Support), a free digital resource developed with Northwestern University’s Lab for Scalable Mental Health at the Feinberg School of Medicine.Anonymous access to SSIs through the partnership provides strategies for:Improving moodRethinking body imageReframing negative thoughtsKnowing your power to changeTaking steps toward goalsProtecting LGBTQ+ prideHandling self-harm urgesStaying safe amid dark thoughtsEach SSI typically takes 5-10 minutes. Although SSIs are not a replacement for therapy, they provide a research-backed source of support for young people experiencing bouts of stress or low-to-moderate distress.Know When to Seek Professional HelpSelf-guided resources and supportive conversations are a valuable starting point, but sometimes young people need qualified professional help. Look for symptoms like worsening mood or behavior, substance use, self-harm or difficulty managing everyday tasks, and take teens seriously when they express dark feelings.Doctors and counselors can provide personalized support for youth in crisis, and the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline offers free, confidential 24/7 support for mental health by dialing 9-8-8.“I grew up in a small town where mental health was almost taboo,” said committee member Asheton Medlin. “Being part of the committee that built this program let me help make sure rural youth today have the support I didn’t. I’m excited to help bring these resources to them because this generation deserves the chance to grow up and change the world.”Find more information at RuralMinds.org.Photos courtesy of Shutterstock googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('yup-rectangle-one'); });
3 Steps to Support Mental Health for Rural Youth
(Feature Impact) Young people face a growing number of pressures, including academic expectations, social responsibilities, complex family situations and uncertainty about their own futures. Mental health support is important for all – but in many rural areas, those pressures are even greater.According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the suicide rate for rural youth ages 15-19 is 74% higher than their urban counterparts. Barriers like limited insurance coverage, unreliable internet for telehealth, scarce providers, long drive times and lack of public transportation make it harder to get mental healthcare when it’s needed. Plus, asking for help can feel like opening oneself up to judgment and stigmatization.That’s why Rural Minds, the only nonprofit focused on mental health for rural communities, created the Rural Youth Mental Wellness pilot program supported by Boehringer Ingelheim. It was developed by an advisory committee made up of rural youth to provide their peers with practical, free, accessible mental health resources. Incorporating feedback on the pilot, the updated program sponsored by the Sompo Foundation is now launching its national rollout.“A young person’s ZIP code should never determine whether they can access meaningful mental health support where and when they need it,” said Jessica L. Schleider, Ph.D., director, Lab for Scalable Mental Health, Northwestern University. “Our lab is thrilled to partner with Rural Minds as they champion evidence-based, anonymous, freely available support tools designed to overcome barriers to help-seeking faced by rural youth across the country.”If the rural mental health crisis affects you or a loved one, consider these ways to help.Break the Stigma Surrounding Mental HealthIn communities where self-reliance is valued, asking for help can sometimes be viewed as a sign of weakness. Young people who feel unheard and unsupported often struggle with being vulnerable, so they continue carrying their increasingly heavy burdens alone.Parents, educators, healthcare providers, community leaders and peers can work to change that culture by normalizing mental health conversations. This includes helping teenagers feel seen and accepted by educating them on mental health issues and coping strategies, listening to their experiences without judgment, sharing your own stories and reminding them it’s courageous to seek support.Consider Single-Session InterventionsThe first step is always the hardest when it comes to seeking mental health support, and not every struggling young person is ready or able to see a therapist. With access to free, confidential, self-guided materials to begin building mental wellness skills, the first step may be less scary.#placement_1042740_0_i{width:100%;max-width:550px;margin:0 auto;}var rnd = window.rnd || Math.floor(Math.random()*10e6);var pid1042740 = window.pid1042740 || rnd;var plc1042740 = window.plc1042740 || 0;var abkw = window.abkw || '';var absrc = 'https://ads.empowerlocal.co/adserve/;ID=181918;size=0x0;setID=1042740;type=js;sw='+screen.width+';sh='+screen.height+';spr='+window.devicePixelRatio+';kw='+abkw+';pid='+pid1042740+';place='+(plc1042740++)+';rnd='+rnd+';click=CLICK_MACRO_PLACEHOLDER';var _absrc = absrc.split("type=js"); absrc = _absrc[0] + 'type=js;referrer=' + encodeURIComponent(document.location.href) + _absrc[1];document.write('');Single-Session Interventions (SSIs) are brief, structured online courses designed to teach youth practical skills for handling stress, low mood, self-image and more. The Rural Youth Mental Wellness Program offers SSIs in partnership with Project YES (Youth Empowerment and Support), a free digital resource developed with Northwestern University’s Lab for Scalable Mental Health at the Feinberg School of Medicine.Anonymous access to SSIs through the partnership provides strategies for:Improving moodRethinking body imageReframing negative thoughtsKnowing your power to changeTaking steps toward goalsProtecting LGBTQ+ prideHandling self-harm urgesStaying safe amid dark thoughtsEach SSI typically takes 5-10 minutes. Although SSIs are not a replacement for therapy, they provide a research-backed source of support for young people experiencing bouts of stress or low-to-moderate distress.Know When to Seek Professional HelpSelf-guided resources and supportive conversations are a valuable starting point, but sometimes young people need qualified professional help. Look for symptoms like worsening mood or behavior, substance use, self-harm or difficulty managing everyday tasks, and take teens seriously when they express dark feelings.Doctors and counselors can provide personalized support for youth in crisis, and the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline offers free, confidential 24/7 support for mental health by dialing 9-8-8.“I grew up in a small town where mental health was almost taboo,” said committee member Asheton Medlin. “Being part of the committee that built this program let me help make sure rural youth today have the support I didn’t. I’m excited to help bring these resources to them because this generation deserves the chance to grow up and change the world.”Find more information at RuralMinds.org.Photos courtesy of Shutterstock
3 Steps to Support Mental Health for Rural Youth
(Feature Impact) Young people face a growing number of pressures, including academic expectations, social responsibilities, complex family situations and uncertainty about their own futures. Mental health support is important for all – but in many rural areas, those pressures are even greater.According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the suicide rate for rural youth ages 15-19 is 74% higher than their urban counterparts. Barriers like limited insurance coverage, unreliable internet for telehealth, scarce providers, long drive times and lack of public transportation make it harder to get mental healthcare when it’s needed. Plus, asking for help can feel like opening oneself up to judgment and stigmatization.That’s why Rural Minds, the only nonprofit focused on mental health for rural communities, created the Rural Youth Mental Wellness pilot program supported by Boehringer Ingelheim. It was developed by an advisory committee made up of rural youth to provide their peers with practical, free, accessible mental health resources. Incorporating feedback on the pilot, the updated program sponsored by the Sompo Foundation is now launching its national rollout.“A young person’s ZIP code should never determine whether they can access meaningful mental health support where and when they need it,” said Jessica L. Schleider, Ph.D., director, Lab for Scalable Mental Health, Northwestern University. “Our lab is thrilled to partner with Rural Minds as they champion evidence-based, anonymous, freely available support tools designed to overcome barriers to help-seeking faced by rural youth across the country.”If the rural mental health crisis affects you or a loved one, consider these ways to help.Break the Stigma Surrounding Mental HealthIn communities where self-reliance is valued, asking for help can sometimes be viewed as a sign of weakness. Young people who feel unheard and unsupported often struggle with being vulnerable, so they continue carrying their increasingly heavy burdens alone.Parents, educators, healthcare providers, community leaders and peers can work to change that culture by normalizing mental health conversations. This includes helping teenagers feel seen and accepted by educating them on mental health issues and coping strategies, listening to their experiences without judgment, sharing your own stories and reminding them it’s courageous to seek support.Consider Single-Session InterventionsThe first step is always the hardest when it comes to seeking mental health support, and not every struggling young person is ready or able to see a therapist. With access to free, confidential, self-guided materials to begin building mental wellness skills, the first step may be less scary.Single-Session Interventions (SSIs) are brief, structured online courses designed to teach youth practical skills for handling stress, low mood, self-image and more. The Rural Youth Mental Wellness Program offers SSIs in partnership with Project YES (Youth Empowerment and Support), a free digital resource developed with Northwestern University’s Lab for Scalable Mental Health at the Feinberg School of Medicine.Anonymous access to SSIs through the partnership provides strategies for:Improving moodRethinking body imageReframing negative thoughtsKnowing your power to changeTaking steps toward goalsProtecting LGBTQ+ prideHandling self-harm urgesStaying safe amid dark thoughtsEach SSI typically takes 5-10 minutes. Although SSIs are not a replacement for therapy, they provide a research-backed source of support for young people experiencing bouts of stress or low-to-moderate distress.Know When to Seek Professional HelpSelf-guided resources and supportive conversations are a valuable starting point, but sometimes young people need qualified professional help. Look for symptoms like worsening mood or behavior, substance use, self-harm or difficulty managing everyday tasks, and take teens seriously when they express dark feelings.Doctors and counselors can provide personalized support for youth in crisis, and the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline offers free, confidential 24/7 support for mental health by dialing 9-8-8.“I grew up in a small town where mental health was almost taboo,” said committee member Asheton Medlin. “Being part of the committee that built this program let me help make sure rural youth today have the support I didn’t. I’m excited to help bring these resources to them because this generation deserves the chance to grow up and change the world.”Find more information at RuralMinds.org.Photos courtesy of Shutterstock
3 Steps to Support Mental Health for Rural Youth
(Feature Impact) Young people face a growing number of pressures, including academic expectations, social responsibilities, complex family situations and uncertainty about their own futures. Mental health support is important for all – but in many rural areas, those pressures are even greater.According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the suicide rate for rural youth ages 15-19 is 74% higher than their urban counterparts. Barriers like limited insurance coverage, unreliable internet for telehealth, scarce providers, long drive times and lack of public transportation make it harder to get mental healthcare when it’s needed. Plus, asking for help can feel like opening oneself up to judgment and stigmatization.That’s why Rural Minds, the only nonprofit focused on mental health for rural communities, created the Rural Youth Mental Wellness pilot program supported by Boehringer Ingelheim. It was developed by an advisory committee made up of rural youth to provide their peers with practical, free, accessible mental health resources. Incorporating feedback on the pilot, the updated program sponsored by the Sompo Foundation is now launching its national rollout.“A young person’s ZIP code should never determine whether they can access meaningful mental health support where and when they need it,” said Jessica L. Schleider, Ph.D., director, Lab for Scalable Mental Health, Northwestern University. “Our lab is thrilled to partner with Rural Minds as they champion evidence-based, anonymous, freely available support tools designed to overcome barriers to help-seeking faced by rural youth across the country.”If the rural mental health crisis affects you or a loved one, consider these ways to help.Break the Stigma Surrounding Mental HealthIn communities where self-reliance is valued, asking for help can sometimes be viewed as a sign of weakness. Young people who feel unheard and unsupported often struggle with being vulnerable, so they continue carrying their increasingly heavy burdens alone.Parents, educators, healthcare providers, community leaders and peers can work to change that culture by normalizing mental health conversations. This includes helping teenagers feel seen and accepted by educating them on mental health issues and coping strategies, listening to their experiences without judgment, sharing your own stories and reminding them it’s courageous to seek support.Consider Single-Session InterventionsThe first step is always the hardest when it comes to seeking mental health support, and not every struggling young person is ready or able to see a therapist. With access to free, confidential, self-guided materials to begin building mental wellness skills, the first step may be less scary.Single-Session Interventions (SSIs) are brief, structured online courses designed to teach youth practical skills for handling stress, low mood, self-image and more. The Rural Youth Mental Wellness Program offers SSIs in partnership with Project YES (Youth Empowerment and Support), a free digital resource developed with Northwestern University’s Lab for Scalable Mental Health at the Feinberg School of Medicine.Anonymous access to SSIs through the partnership provides strategies for:Improving moodRethinking body imageReframing negative thoughtsKnowing your power to changeTaking steps toward goalsProtecting LGBTQ+ prideHandling self-harm urgesStaying safe amid dark thoughtsEach SSI typically takes 5-10 minutes. Although SSIs are not a replacement for therapy, they provide a research-backed source of support for young people experiencing bouts of stress or low-to-moderate distress.Know When to Seek Professional HelpSelf-guided resources and supportive conversations are a valuable starting point, but sometimes young people need qualified professional help. Look for symptoms like worsening mood or behavior, substance use, self-harm or difficulty managing everyday tasks, and take teens seriously when they express dark feelings.Doctors and counselors can provide personalized support for youth in crisis, and the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline offers free, confidential 24/7 support for mental health by dialing 9-8-8.“I grew up in a small town where mental health was almost taboo,” said committee member Asheton Medlin. “Being part of the committee that built this program let me help make sure rural youth today have the support I didn’t. I’m excited to help bring these resources to them because this generation deserves the chance to grow up and change the world.”Find more information at RuralMinds.org.Photos courtesy of Shutterstock
3 Steps to Support Mental Health for Rural Youth
(Feature Impact) Young people face a growing number of pressures, including academic expectations, social responsibilities, complex family situations and uncertainty about their own futures. Mental health support is important for all – but in many rural areas, those pressures are even greater. TNCMS.AdManager.render({region: 'fixed-big-ad-top-asset', slot: 1, fold: "above"}); According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the suicide rate for rural youth ages 15-19 is 74% higher than their urban counterparts. Barriers like limited insurance coverage, unreliable internet for telehealth, scarce providers, long drive times and lack of public transportation make it harder to get mental healthcare when it’s needed. Plus, asking for help can feel like opening oneself up to judgment and stigmatization.That’s why Rural Minds, the only nonprofit focused on mental health for rural communities, created the Rural Youth Mental Wellness pilot program supported by Boehringer Ingelheim. It was developed by an advisory committee made up of rural youth to provide their peers with practical, free, accessible mental health resources. Incorporating feedback on the pilot, the updated program sponsored by the Sompo Foundation is now launching its national rollout.“A young person’s ZIP code should never determine whether they can access meaningful mental health support where and when they need it,” said Jessica L. Schleider, Ph.D., director, Lab for Scalable Mental Health, Northwestern University. “Our lab is thrilled to partner with Rural Minds as they champion evidence-based, anonymous, freely available support tools designed to overcome barriers to help-seeking faced by rural youth across the country.”If the rural mental health crisis affects you or a loved one, consider these ways to help.Break the Stigma Surrounding Mental HealthIn communities where self-reliance is valued, asking for help can sometimes be viewed as a sign of weakness. Young people who feel unheard and unsupported often struggle with being vulnerable, so they continue carrying their increasingly heavy burdens alone.Parents, educators, healthcare providers, community leaders and peers can work to change that culture by normalizing mental health conversations. This includes helping teenagers feel seen and accepted by educating them on mental health issues and coping strategies, listening to their experiences without judgment, sharing your own stories and reminding them it’s courageous to seek support.Consider Single-Session InterventionsThe first step is always the hardest when it comes to seeking mental health support, and not every struggling young person is ready or able to see a therapist. With access to free, confidential, self-guided materials to begin building mental wellness skills, the first step may be less scary. TNCMS.AdManager.render({region: 'fixed-big-ad-middle-asset', slot: 1, fold: "span"}); Single-Session Interventions (SSIs) are brief, structured online courses designed to teach youth practical skills for handling stress, low mood, self-image and more. The Rural Youth Mental Wellness Program offers SSIs in partnership with Project YES (Youth Empowerment and Support), a free digital resource developed with Northwestern University’s Lab for Scalable Mental Health at the Feinberg School of Medicine.Anonymous access to SSIs through the partnership provides strategies for:Improving moodRethinking body imageReframing negative thoughtsKnowing your power to changeTaking steps toward goalsProtecting LGBTQ+ prideHandling self-harm urgesStaying safe amid dark thoughtsEach SSI typically takes 5-10 minutes. Although SSIs are not a replacement for therapy, they provide a research-backed source of support for young people experiencing bouts of stress or low-to-moderate distress.Know When to Seek Professional HelpSelf-guided resources and supportive conversations are a valuable starting point, but sometimes young people need qualified professional help. Look for symptoms like worsening mood or behavior, substance use, self-harm or difficulty managing everyday tasks, and take teens seriously when they express dark feelings.Doctors and counselors can provide personalized support for youth in crisis, and the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline offers free, confidential 24/7 support for mental health by dialing 9-8-8.“I grew up in a small town where mental health was almost taboo,” said committee member Asheton Medlin. “Being part of the committee that built this program let me help make sure rural youth today have the support I didn’t. I’m excited to help bring these resources to them because this generation deserves the chance to grow up and change the world.”Find more information at RuralMinds.org.Photos courtesy of Shutterstock TNCMS.AdManager.render({region: 'fixed-big-ad-bottom-asset', slot: 1, fold: "below"});
3 Steps to Support Mental Health for Rural Youth
(Feature Impact) Young people face a growing number of pressures, including academic expectations, social responsibilities, complex family situations and uncertainty about their own futures. Mental health support is important for all – but in many rural areas, those pressures are even greater.#placement_1126603_0_i{width:100%;max-width:550px;margin:0 auto;}var rnd = window.rnd || Math.floor(Math.random()*10e6);var pid1126603 = window.pid1126603 || rnd;var plc1126603 = window.plc1126603 || 0;var abkw = window.abkw || '';var absrc = 'https://ads.empowerlocal.co/adserve/;ID=181918;size=0x0;setID=1126603;type=js;sw='+screen.width+';sh='+screen.height+';spr='+window.devicePixelRatio+';kw='+abkw+';pid='+pid1126603+';place='+(plc1126603++)+';rnd='+rnd+';click=CLICK_MACRO_PLACEHOLDER';var _absrc = absrc.split("type=js"); absrc = _absrc[0] + 'type=js;referrer=' + encodeURIComponent(document.location.href) + _absrc[1];document.write('');According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the suicide rate for rural youth ages 15-19 is 74% higher than their urban counterparts. Barriers like limited insurance coverage, unreliable internet for telehealth, scarce providers, long drive times and lack of public transportation make it harder to get mental healthcare when it’s needed. Plus, asking for help can feel like opening oneself up to judgment and stigmatization.That’s why Rural Minds, the only nonprofit focused on mental health for rural communities, created the Rural Youth Mental Wellness pilot program supported by Boehringer Ingelheim. It was developed by an advisory committee made up of rural youth to provide their peers with practical, free, accessible mental health resources. Incorporating feedback on the pilot, the updated program sponsored by the Sompo Foundation is now launching its national rollout.“A young person’s ZIP code should never determine whether they can access meaningful mental health support where and when they need it,” said Jessica L. Schleider, Ph.D., director, Lab for Scalable Mental Health, Northwestern University. “Our lab is thrilled to partner with Rural Minds as they champion evidence-based, anonymous, freely available support tools designed to overcome barriers to help-seeking faced by rural youth across the country.”If the rural mental health crisis affects you or a loved one, consider these ways to help.Break the Stigma Surrounding Mental HealthIn communities where self-reliance is valued, asking for help can sometimes be viewed as a sign of weakness. Young people who feel unheard and unsupported often struggle with being vulnerable, so they continue carrying their increasingly heavy burdens alone.Parents, educators, healthcare providers, community leaders and peers can work to change that culture by normalizing mental health conversations. This includes helping teenagers feel seen and accepted by educating them on mental health issues and coping strategies, listening to their experiences without judgment, sharing your own stories and reminding them it’s courageous to seek support.Consider Single-Session InterventionsThe first step is always the hardest when it comes to seeking mental health support, and not every struggling young person is ready or able to see a therapist. With access to free, confidential, self-guided materials to begin building mental wellness skills, the first step may be less scary. Single-Session Interventions (SSIs) are brief, structured online courses designed to teach youth practical skills for handling stress, low mood, self-image and more. The Rural Youth Mental Wellness Program offers SSIs in partnership with Project YES (Youth Empowerment and Support), a free digital resource developed with Northwestern University’s Lab for Scalable Mental Health at the Feinberg School of Medicine.Anonymous access to SSIs through the partnership provides strategies for:Improving moodRethinking body imageReframing negative thoughtsKnowing your power to changeTaking steps toward goalsProtecting LGBTQ+ prideHandling self-harm urgesStaying safe amid dark thoughtsEach SSI typically takes 5-10 minutes. Although SSIs are not a replacement for therapy, they provide a research-backed source of support for young people experiencing bouts of stress or low-to-moderate distress.Know When to Seek Professional HelpSelf-guided resources and supportive conversations are a valuable starting point, but sometimes young people need qualified professional help. Look for symptoms like worsening mood or behavior, substance use, self-harm or difficulty managing everyday tasks, and take teens seriously when they express dark feelings.Doctors and counselors can provide personalized support for youth in crisis, and the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline offers free, confidential 24/7 support for mental health by dialing 9-8-8.“I grew up in a small town where mental health was almost taboo,” said committee member Asheton Medlin. “Being part of the committee that built this program let me help make sure rural youth today have the support I didn’t. I’m excited to help bring these resources to them because this generation deserves the chance to grow up and change the world.”Find more information at RuralMinds.org.Photos courtesy of Shutterstock
Lapeer nurses file federal labor charge against McLaren Health
The Michigan Nurses Association filed the unfair labor practice charge in late-August amid stalled contract talks.
Protolabs Named to Business Insider’s America’s Most Innovative Businesses 2027 List
MINNEAPOLIS, September 04, 2026--Protolabs (NYSE: PRLB), the world’s leading provider of digital manufacturing services, today announced it has been recognized as one of America’s Most Innovative Businesses by Business Insider. The digital manufacturer was recognized for its extensive library of patents for manufacturing technology, ongoing investment in research and development, and strong peer sentiment as a cutting-edge leader within the industry.
Is HireQuest (HQI) Stock Outpacing Its Business Services Peers This Year?
Here is how HireQuest, Inc. (HQI) and Repay Holdings (RPAY) have performed compared to their sector so far this year.
Only 19% Make It: The Hidden Barriers Women Face in Science Today - Futura-Sciences
From Lecture Hall Storms to Today’s Invisible Barriers Let’s rewind to 1867, when women first arrived at university lecture halls. Instead of applause, they were greeted by a storm—literally. Baked apples thrown, misogynistic heckling echoing in the corridors, and courses deliberately sabotaged by peers. Every dirty trick was used to...
How to watch Goodrich vs Lapeer high school football
You can watch Goodrich football all season long with NFHS Network, including this week’s game against Lapeer.
New Startup Sioux Falls program creates CEO peer group for sustaining-level companies
A new CEO roundtable from Startup Sioux Falls is bringing together established leaders with a common purpose.
Scottie Scheffler polishes off Tour Championship in clinical fashion
Scottie Scheffler put a bow on his 2026 season in a way he does best, outlasting his peers and raising the trophy at the Tour Championship.
The Literacy Crisis Reaches Dog-Bear Science
“New analysis of more than 300 bear encounters suggests our canine companions often increase odds of conflict and rarely serve as early warning systems many recreationists assume,” reads a subhead in Mountain Journal. The thing is, that study reaches no such conclusion. But you have to read beyond the abstract to understand that. Mountain Journal is not alone. Let’s look at a brief list of takeaways published elsewhere just to establish that none of them seem to know how to read science. Wes Siler’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe Here’s CBC: “A new peer-reviewed study, The Canine Conundrum: Is a Dog a Help or Hindrance in Bear Country?, dug into conflicts similar to what the video depicts, by analyzing 326 reported human-bear conflicts from 1901 to 2023 involving dogs.” “The study found 54 per cent of conflicts were started by dogs. In the encounters researchers included in the study, five people and 56 dogs were killed, and 170 people were injured.” “Lana Ciarniello, an independent researcher who co-authored the study, said researchers found when a person goes hiking with at least one other person, the odds of a negative bear encounter decrease by 50 per cent.” “However, when a dog is involved, the chances of a negative bear encounter increase because ‘a dog really adds a chaotic factor into the mix of recreation,’ said Ciarniello.” Again, the study finds no data supporting that conclusion. “Hiking with your pet dog may make you feel safer in bear country—but a hiker’s recent encounter and a new study prove that the numbers don’t add up,” writes Backpacker, which is now part of Outside. The numbers don’t add up to support this take. There’s plenty more examples, but all are equally dumb, so I’ll stop there. How did so many people get this so wrong? Three reasons: 1) the study is published behind a paywall, with only the abstract freely available. 2) the methodology sets out to create work relevant to a hyper-specific audience, not the public. And 3) the dataset studied is almost absurdly limited and doesn’t bear (get it?!) comparison to wider information. Let’s work through all three. The Problem is Money I understand the irony, since I’m writing about this on a subscription-model newsletter, but information wants to be free. The study is published by The Wildlife Society and costs $16 to access. Reprinting it is specifically prohibited by the terms of use, so I can only share snippets and my conclusions with you here. Having worked as a journalist for 24 years, I can report with some authority that journalists are both lazy and cheap. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that much of the material you’re seeing written about this study is drawn from the freely-available abstract (above) only, and not a deep dive into its methodology or data. And that’s a problem, because abstracts are where researchers are able to break from their numbers and editorialize their opinions about conclusions. So what’s getting reported isn’t based on numbers, it’s based on an opinion designed for a specific audience, not the general public. Hell yeah ladies, kick that bear’s ass. The Methodology is Designed to Support a Predetermined Conclusion One of the biggest issues with the science that everyone likes to cite about bear spray’s efficacy is that no one understands that study was designed for a specific audience, looking for a specific answer. And since that audience is not the public, and our safety was not the question being asked, its conclusion is rendered irrelevant to our needs. Yes, I’m talking about Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska, which was created by Tom Smith and Stephen Herrero, two of the same scientists who put together this dog-bear conflict analysis. In the spray study, the purpose was to present relevant agencies with the information they needed to issue their field workers with bear spray. As such, incidents where people were unable to access the spray or similarly failed to get it deployed in time were excluded from the results, and only incidents they deemed successful were included. Could a ranger roll down their vehicle’s window and scare a bear away from a dumpster by spraying it? Turns out the answer was yes, and that was good enough for the purposes of that study. The sample size of actual bear attacks—the thing you and I would want bear spray to provide a solution to, was too small to draw conclusions from, and didn’t indicate success in that role. Is a Dog a Help or Hindrance in Bear Country? has similar limitations. “Insights provided here are intended to help wildlife managers create effective guidelines regarding the presence of domestic dogs in bear habitat,” is explained clearly by the study’s text. To conduct the study, Smith and Herrero went looking for publicly available reports of dog-bear conflicts: “All incidents included in our analysis involved at least one bear, one dog, and one person who was at immediate risk of injury (e.g., not in a protective structure such as a cabin or vehicle), injured, or killed,” explains the report’s methodology. Why is that a problem? “We recognize that data used in this study are biased in that people generally only report adverse interactions with bears, not benign ones. Consequently, we assume that for the most part, people and their dogs pass through bear country without incident.” As was the problem with the bear spray study, people are drawing conclusions here from a study that was never intended to be relevant to the general public. The Smith-Herrero database famously excludes Alaska’s Defense of Life and Property records, which are elsewhere considered the largest and most authoritative source on human-bear conflict. The Dataset is Absurdly Limited A 2009 study conducted by the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife estimates that each year there are at least 43,000 documented complaints of human-bear conflict across North America. Is a Dog a Help or Hindrance in Bear Country? Examined those reports for years ranging from 1901 to 2023, and only managed to find 326 such incidents that met the criteria explained above. Let’s do some quick math, poorly. 43,000 incidents x 122 years = 5,246,000 total incidents of documented human-bear conflict. Smith and Herrero were only able to find 326 incidents that met their criteria for dog+human+bear+risk or occurrence of injury. That means there’s a 0.006 percent chance that the study’s conclusion—that dogs make bear encounters more dangerous—even gets a chance of occurring. And remember, that’s only in documented conflicts. There’s no way to know how many people across North America run into a bear in any given year without any conflict, but it’s probably safe to assume that the total number is well in excess of 43,000. And, dig deeper into the study and you can find further restrictions that skew its conclusions even more. “While the people involved in these incidents did not report the level of training their dogs had received, it is our assumption that most were untrained companion dogs as opposed to well-trained bear dogs, such as Karelians and livestock guardian breeds that have proven to be significant aids in bear country,” the study’s methodology explains. And that’s a problem, because an ongoing study here in Montana is finding that the simple presence of a Kangal like our youngest dog Teddy can reduce visits to private property from grizzly bears by 87.8 percent. In addition to being a badass, Teddy is also a companion animal. And in my admittedly limited sample size of the three dogs currently present in our living room, she’s no more effective than her mutt brothers. Plenty of people own a dog capable of deterring bears, even if they didn’t set out to own a bear dog. The real purpose of this study appears to be a recommendation that leashes are mandated and recreationists pursue training in their deterrent of choice. But that doesn’t make for sensational headlines. Are There Any Real Takeaways Here? Let’s throw some numbers around, just to try and get our hands around what the larger picture might look like for bears and dogs here. The American Veterinary Medical Association estimates that 42.6 percent of American households own a dog. The Canadian Animal Health Institute says roughly 35 percent of households in Canuckistan own a dog. In an attempt to create the worst possible result for dogs, let’s run with that 35 percent number. And given that outdoorsy and rural people are more likely to both own a dog, and have bear encounters, let’s just make a giant assumption and apply that number to those 43,000 conflicts documented annually. If 35 percent of 43,000 human-bear encounters involve a dog, then we can assume that at least 15,050 dog-bear conflicts are occurring annually in North America. 15,050 x 122 = 1,836,100. Smith and Herrero were only able to find 326 incidents that met their human, dog, chance or occurrence of injury criteria across 122 years. And only 170 documented human injuries. So, with all the obvious caveats about these numbers in no way describing reality beyond narrow study parameters, what they actually found is that your risk of injury if your dog tangles with a bear is only 0.009 percent. I’ll take those odds next time I’m hiking my dogs in bear country. Top photo: “Superintendent Horace Albright, eating pancakes with bears, at Lake Lodge, Yellowstone National Park.” NPS. A journalist with more than two decades of experience working around the world, Wes Siler is here to cut through the outrage and disinformation to bring you the factual, insightful, actionable reporting you need to understand what’s going on. Upgrading to a paid subscription supports this reporting, and buys personal access to Wes, who will help you save money on gear, plan outdoor adventures, and prepare for real life, and who promises he’s less salty in real life than he sometimes comes across as on the Internet. Wes Siler’s Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
COCC opens applications for 2026-27 Small Business Management Program
Bend, ORE. (KTVZ) --- Central Oregon Community College's Small Business Development Center is accepting applications for its 2026-27 Small Business Management Program. The nine-month program is designed for established business owners looking to address challenges and develop strategies for growth. The program combines business coaching, peer learning and real-world case studies with individual advising from
Four Spencer Fane Attorneys Earn 2026 Top Rankings by Nevada Business Magazine
Spencer Fane is pleased to announce that four attorneys were recently recognized by Nevada Business Magazine as 2026 Top Rank Attorneys, a peer-reviewed
Google pushed a mysterious app to the Play Store; here’s what it actually does
A mostly blank listing brings questions
Bipartisan bill would fund firefighter, EMS mental health programs
The proposal would provide $7.5 million annually for suicide prevention, peer support, counseling and other mental health resources
Bipartisan bill would fund firefighter, EMS mental health programs
The proposal would provide $7.5 million annually for suicide prevention, peer support, counseling and other mental health resources
Why “Conservative Research” Is Confirmation Bias Disguised as Science
◆ Emerald Pages ◆ Science & Politics Why “Conservative Research” Is Confirmation Bias Disguised as Science Emerald Book Publication August 22, 2026 8 min read The White House's new initiative to fund "conservative research" bypasses peer review and works backward from political conclusions, violating the fundamental principles of the scientific method. Photo: Anna Moneymaker |
Child stars have been speaking their truth for some time. Why isn’t Hollywood listening?
Some of Hayden Panettiere’s peers are speaking out after her death, reminding us, like others have before, that finding fame young is only half the battle.
Q2 Earnings Highlights: agilon health (NYSE:AGL) Vs The Rest Of The Outpatient & Specialty Care Stocks
Quarterly earnings results are a good time to check in on a company’s progress, especially compared to its peers in the same sector. Today we are looking at agilon health (NYSE:AGL) and the best and worst performers in the outpatient & specialty care industry.
ENTERTAINMENT: Library bookstore opens; cat show set for Maumelle center
Library Square Books, the Central Arkansas Library System’s new used bookstore, opens at 405 President Clinton Ave. in Little Rock’s River Market District, with a ribbon cutting at 2 p.m. Thursday that features refreshments and giveaways and a limited number of commemorative items.
HHS announces addition of behavioral health programs eligible for federal reimbursement
The Department of Health and Human Services Aug. 18 announced that its Administration for Children and Families has added two new peer support programs to the Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse, allowing all states to claim federal reimbursement. One addition is the Family-Based Recovery program, which focuses on in-home clinical treatment for parents combatting addiction who have children ages 0-5.
Polite debate has privilege. The marginalised need zealotry
Early feminists like Mary Astell and Catharine Macaulay refused their male peers’ advice to remain polite in debate. Why?
Business Process Outsourcing & Consulting Stocks Q2 In Review: Concentrix (NASDAQ:CNXC) Vs Peers
As the Q2 earnings season wraps, let’s dig into this quarter’s best and worst performers in the business process outsourcing & consulting industry, including Concentrix (NASDAQ:CNXC) and its peers.
Doctors Worry Grant Changes Will Derail Biomedical Science
Proposed OMB grant review changes could shift science funding from peer-reviewed to subject to political whims, impacting drug development and patient care.
Q2 Earnings Outperformers: Cigna (NYSE:CI) And The Rest Of The Health Insurance Providers Stocks
Let’s dig into the relative performance of Cigna (NYSE:CI) and its peers as we unravel the now-completed Q2 health insurance providers earnings season. Upfro...
The Scientists Who Want to Steer Hurricanes
Over the weekend, Hawaii was lashed by Hurricane Lala, which has washed away homes, left more than 125,000 people without power, shut down two of the state’s busiest airports, threatened dangerous flash flooding and, at time of writing, has killed one person. What if we could’ve steered the storm away from Hawaii, into the vast expanse of the empty Pacific Ocean that lies all around the islands—where no one could get hurt? This scenario might sound like the stuff of science fiction. But earlier this year, a peer-reviewed study published by the Public Library of Science found that it might be possible, and sooner than we think. The study was titled: “Weather Jiu-Jitsu: Prospects for atmospheric nudging to defuse the impact of catastrophic weather extremes.” According to the paper, the controversial practice of cloud seeding could enable human beings to make hurricanes change direction. The potential results could be astounding: The authors suggested that Hurricane Sandy, which in New York City alone killed 44 people and caused $19 billion of damage in 2012, could’ve been diverted by 200 miles, missing the metropolis entirely. Cloud seeding, which first succeeded in the U.S. in 1946, is a practice whereby small particles—for example, dry ice, silver iodide, or salt—are dropped into clouds, causing moisture to condense into precipitation. In the 1960s, the U.S. government launched Project Stormfury, an experiment that saw Navy pilots flying into the heart of a hurricane, dodging winds over a hundred miles per hour, to cloud-seed inside it, in the hope of reducing the storm’s power. “The seeding,” the theory went, “would stimulate the formation of a new eyewall that would surround the existing eyewall. The new eyewall would contract, strangling the old eyewall and reducing the intensity of the hurricane.”
New study finds HGST, WD hard drives fail less often than Seagate and Toshiba
The peer-reviewed IEEE study was written by Christoph Siemroth of the University of Essex and Yeomyung Park of Sungkyunkwan University. It reviewed data on 443,156 drives used...
Huron (NASDAQ:HURN) Q2 Earnings: Leading The Business Process Outsourcing & Consulting Pack
Wrapping up Q2 earnings, we look at the numbers and key takeaways for the business process outsourcing & consulting stocks, including Huron (NASDAQ:HURN) and its peers.
Congress must stop the politicization of peer review and American science
American scientific leadership was built by allowing evidence to prevail over ideology.
Congress must stop the politicization of peer review and American science
American scientific leadership was built by allowing evidence to prevail over ideology.
AI needs science’s search history
“Actually, that’s where the gold is,” said Alasdair Russell, my graduate school friend who leads a pre-clinical genome editing group at Cambridge. He was talking about the winding road of science that is omitted from published papers. “When you’re discussing how to do the experiment, and why this way is better than another way, and what does the data really mean? I know what it shows, but what does it mean?” At RAAIS 2026, he described how his group has begun logging the twisting path of discovery as it happens, recording the verbal and written exchanges that normally disappear. Ideas become nodes in a living graph: they branch when a meeting produces two plausible experiments, merge when separate lines of evidence converge, and go dark when someone quietly stops pursuing them. In his implementation, one agent scores novelty, while another tries to learn “how scientists think and how they navigate through a complex world of data,” so that high-potential nodes can trigger deeper investigation. As frontier AI labs deploy agents toward scientific discovery, giving AI authentic scientific taste remains a trillion-dollar dilemma. The bottleneck is that the record we have kept for centuries of science might be insufficient to get us there. The experiments that never make the paper Peter Medawar, 1960 Nobel laureate and “father of transplantation,” asked in 1963 whether the scientific paper was a fraud, and answered yes: the form of the paper misrepresents the thinking that produced it. Sixty years on, the diagnosis is unchanged. A paper presents a clean progression from hypothesis to result to conclusion. Lost along the way are the unconventional theories, the abandoned or unaffordable methods, and the underwhelming and inconclusive data. It reads like a browser history with every dead end deleted: the ten open tabs, the four rephrased queries, the wrong turn down a subforum. All scrubbed, leaving one clean path from question to answer as the canonical path. What has changed since then is that the discarded material is now worth something. No high-impact journal wants these artifacts, but raw trial and error is the most likely source of the training data required to develop scientific intuition, or what researchers call taste. Earlier attempts to capture the discards were motivated by scientific integrity. The Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine launched in 2002 to publish rigorous studies that disputed established models or exposed ineffective treatments. Its archive preserved negative conclusions after they had become papers, rather than the live alternatives and arguments that produced them. BioMed Central closed it in 2017, saying the mission had been served now that other journals publish null results. A less generous reading is that in fifteen years it published around 200 papers because almost nobody wants to read a negative result, let alone write one up when it will not count toward academic tenure. AI models are different. Even an uninteresting negative result can be useful, provided it is labeled. Earlier this year, Anthropic put a version of this to the test. The company pulled 129 decision points from real Claude Code sessions between January and March 2026, showed models the work up to a human detour, and asked what should happen next. Claude Mythos Preview beat the human choice 64% of the time, while Opus 4.5 managed 51%. The comparison was tilted toward the models because Anthropic deliberately chose moments where the human decision had room for improvement. On 127 further scenarios where the human action was already strong, the models improved on it only about 20% of the time. The study was possible because Anthropic’s researchers work inside a tool that logs by default. The reasoning, detours and outcome are produced in the same working environment. Biology has no equivalent. Its reasoning happens in hallways, at benches, in Slack threads and on whiteboards, while the outcome arrives weeks later somewhere else. The record has to emerge from the work itself. Ask scientists to reconstruct it afterwards and we’ll create another polished account. Subscribe A log is not a label Before any of this becomes training data, a negative result has to say what failed. The first paper published in the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine examined 234 negative studies across five leading medical journals. Only 30% discussed statistical power, and half clearly defined a primary outcome. Tell a model an experiment failed, without telling it whether the assay was underpowered, a reagent had degraded, or the hypothesis was simply wrong, and it will learn noise with confidence. Decision histories have a second missing label too. When a lab considers five experiments and runs one, only the chosen branch returns an outcome. The other four are experimental counterfactuals. Researchers call this the selective labels problem: the data reveal results only for the actions someone chose to take. Such a record can teach a model to imitate a lab’s taste, but it cannot establish that the taste was good. It also smuggles local constraints into general lessons. A lab that never ran cryo-EM because it did not own a microscope teaches a model that cryo-EM is rarely the right call. Alasdair’s nodes preserve the candidate set, which is the necessary first step. To be useful, each decision record needs six fields: The evidence available at that moment, and nothing that arrived later. The candidates considered, including the ones dismissed in a sentence. For each candidate: the expected result, the confidence attached to it, and the cost in time and money. The route chosen, and the reason. What happened next. How the evidence changed the scientist’s view. These must be timestamped before the outcome, because hindsight turns uncertainty into inevitability. Disagreement also has to survive. Averaging three scientists into one clean rationale reproduces exactly the information loss we are trying to fix. But there is an obvious failure mode here. Once decisions are logged and scored, people log for the record post-facto. Anyone who has watched an electronic lab notebook fill up with retrospective tidying knows how quickly a research tool becomes a compliance exercise. A record that costs a scientist ten minutes of honest reflection per decision is worth far more than one that costs an hour of performance. A publication initiative called Registered Reports offers a useful starting point. Here, researchers submit their rationale, methods and analysis plan for peer review before the data exist, and the journal commits in principle to publish if they follow the approved plan. Nature has now expanded the format across every field it covers. This approach to paper writing timestamps intent before the outcome, but it freezes one plan. A useful search history must also preserve how the plan changed, which alternatives were rejected, when, and on what evidence. Subscribe Run the runner-up Autonomous labs show what happens when decisions and outcomes are connected in a loop. Liverpool’s mobile robotic chemist ran 688 experiments over eight days in a ten-variable formulation space. A batched Bayesian search used each result to choose the next experiments and found photocatalyst mixtures six times more active than the starting formulations. Every completed experiment changed what the system did next. The robot optimized within a goal and search space that humans had already chosen. It did not decide which scientific question mattered. So what this work demonstrates is narrower, but still useful: a search history pays off when the options return standardized outcomes quickly. Open-ended biology is harder because branches can take weeks and the discarded alternatives may never be run. Some exploration therefore has to be bought. Where two branches are plausible and the stakes justify the cost, a lab should sometimes run the runner-up. Otherwise the record captures what today’s scientists usually chose and stays silent on what they systematically overlooked. A funder could ring-fence a small fraction of a grant for the branch not taken, provided that the decision record and the outcome are both deposited. That costs money, but so does having every lab rediscover the same abandoned path. Test whether taste transfers When it comes time to evaluate if our new AI system exhibits taste, the comparison should run across laboratories and fields. At selected decision points in a live research campaign, we should freeze the six fields: the evidence, the candidates, expected results, confidence, costs and the choice made. Experts then rank the options before the outcomes are known, and those outcomes are checked independently later. We could give models one of two diets - papers alone, or papers plus decision histories - and ask them to rank the next experiment on unfamiliar projects. Then, we score information gained per dollar and week, calibration, and how quickly weak branches are abandoned. If histories improve choices only inside the lab that produced them, they amount to useful organizational memory. If they improve choices on unfamiliar problems elsewhere, Alasdair’s group will have captured something science has never managed to write down: a transferable record of taste. Until that happens, a scientific search history is a promising record, not yet a training set.
Maine shifts focus to mental health as PFAS crisis deepens
State policymakers will use emotional aid and peer mentoring to address the stress of impacted farmers.
Student-led SPARK program promotes health and wellness at Wright State
A team of students are making conversations about wellness more approachable by providing peer support and campus resources to fellow students. Continue reading →
America Already Built the World's Largest Science-Vetting Machine | The Foundation for American Innovation
Every year, federal agencies assess over a hundred thousand proposals that they never fund. Treating those peer review as public infrastructure could help unlock much more philanthropic capital for American research.
THE WEEK OF AUG 10, 2026
- Scientists decry Fauci prosecution threat - National Academies orders probe of peer-review process - DOE secretary referred to DOJ
Peer review is overwhelmed—can it survive in the AI era?
As research and AI-assisted papers surge, volunteer reviewers struggle to keep up.
Congress must stop the politicization of peer review and American science
American scientific leadership was built by allowing evidence to prevail over ideology.
Connect with Public Health’s peer breastfeeding program
Did you know the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends exclusive breast/chestfeeding until your baby is six months old?
Microsoft retires peer-feedback tool in review system revamp
The tech giant is retiring a peer-feedback tool once lauded as a sign of a "kinder, gentler Microsoft."
Microsoft retires peer-feedback tool in review system revamp
The tech giant is retiring a peer-feedback tool once lauded as a sign of a "kinder, gentler Microsoft."
Colorado’s youth mental health corps improves student attendance and behavior
"Near-peer" mental health navigators work in Colorado schools as part of a program designed to improve the professional pipeline, too
DC youth take on mental health in new podcast
A group of D.C. students has been hard at work on a podcast about mental health and the many pressures that young people face. This new podcast is called “Behind the Smile: Teens and Mental Health in America.” The students who worked on it told News4 it’s really been a labor of love to help their peers who may be…
Local golf tournament raises funds for mental health challenges
Webster golfers teed off in the 4th Hermano Cup in Rochester, raising funds for Compeer Rochester and promoting mental health and suicide prevention in honor of mentor Jason Drago.
Laboratory exposure and poor diet linked to health symptoms in young scientists
A research team has found that frequent exposure to laboratory chemicals and low consumption of antioxidant-rich foods are jointly associated with a greater likelihood of self-reported health symptoms among young scientists. Survey participants who frequently handled chemicals and consumed few antioxidant-rich foods had nearly three times the odds of reporting fatigue, headaches, pallor, or easy bruising compared with their less-exposed, better-nourished peers. The study also showed that stronge
Science Inquiry Comes Alive for Jacket Middle Schoolers
Snails, sidewalks and Double Stuff Oreos... At Partnership Middle School, instructors are finding innovative ways to help students connect the classroom to what they see in the real world every day. By integrating hands-on experiences and scientific investigations into weekly lessons, 6th and 7th grade science teachers push their classes to explore the curriculum standards through the lens of critical thinking, communication with their peers, experimentation, and scientific inquiry. Last week, two different approaches for two different grade levels saw Jacket teachers ignite the same spark for learning. On Tuesday, 6th graders in Lydia Jones' science class took their lessons outside as they explored the school grounds to identify living and non-living things. Despite the warm temperatures, they engaged in discovering unexpected objects on the campus and connecting that to what they learned in class about the criteria for what qualifies a thing as "living". Ms. Jones tasked students with walking the grounds and listing as many living and non-living things they could find in just a few minutes. Students spotted a fire hydrant, construction vehicles, grass, trees, soccer equipment, rocks, sidewalks, and even a snail hidden in the plants. After they finished the exploration, students returned to the regular classroom to discuss their results and whether their objects were classified correctly. On Thursday, 7th graders in Omini Parks' science class participated in their first lab of the semester as they explored and identified the physical properties of a favorite snack -- Oreos. Ms. Parks identified the class objective before the lab activity began by writing the academic standard on the dry erase board in a declarative statement: "I can collect and evaluate qualitative data to describe substances using physical properties." Students watched a video about how Oreo sandwich cookies are made, and then engaged in a question and answer discussion to give observations on the manufacturing process, review various types of physical properties and their scientific terminology, and talk generally about how the lab inquiry would work. The Q&A ended with a predictable question from students... "Will we be able to eat the Oreos?" The hands-on lab exercise required the 7th grade scientists to observe and record the differences between regular Oreos and the Double Stuff variety based on their physical properties. They followed the instructions in their lab brief to chart a comparison between the two types of cookies by observing properties with their magnifying lenses, measuring the height and diameter of both, and weighing the cookies with and without their filling. The activity let students put their lessons about physical properties into practice with real objects while also practicing vocabulary and writing skills to record their observations and using math skills from the last school year like taking measurements and calculating averages. Of course, they ended the lab by charting the taste of the cookies as well! These types of activities allow students to see the science standards they are learning come to life in the real world and engage with the content in new ways. Beyond that, they serve as a foundation for encouraging and growing scientific inquiry. Later in the school year, students will use the scientific method they are learning to complete science projects that require real research and the ability to explain and answer questions about their process and results. At the school-level competitive Science Fair last year, 41 Partnership students earned a place in the 2026 regional Science Fair held at MSU. From there, 14 advanced to the State Science Fair conducted at Northeast Mississippi Community College in April.
Day in the Life with Andre Jordan and Jose Capo
In our newest installment of Day in the Life, this photo essay features Andre Jordan, Peer Counselor and Jose Capo, Addiction Counselor who deliver services from our S.H.O.W. mobile unit...
The new "science golden age" looks suspiciously like a grift
This edition of PN is made possible by paid subscribers. Become one ⬇️ 🚀 Subscribe to PN 🚀 The Trump regime is trying to usher in a “Golden Age in Science” where scientific research is run like a Trump family business, artificial intelligence is all that matters, profit is everything, and expertise is for chumps. Or at least that’s the vision emerging from a new 123-page “Report to the President” from Michael Kratsios, the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In a normal administration, you could probably skip over learning about a science policy document — but this is no normal administration, and this is no normal science policy document. Instead, it’s Trump’s attempt to end the actual golden age of science that was kicked off in 1945 with the publication of '“The Endless Frontier” by Vannevar Bush. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) [ Harmeet Dhillon demonstrates danger of posting through it ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) Liz Dye · Jul 29 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/harmeet-dhillon-portland) Bush, at President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s request, laid out a vision of federal support for science that centered on funding universities to do basic research, saying that as long as those institutions were “vigorous and healthy and their scientists are free to pursue the truth wherever it may lead, there will be a flow of new scientific knowledge to those who can apply it to practical problems in Government, in industry, or elsewhere.” Kratsios’s report is supposed to be the successor to Bush’s, and even apes the format, but this isn’t really a document about science policy. It’s one about ending science research as we know it in favor of shoveling cash at big tech companies. While it might be temping to wave this away as an aspirational policy document, Trump has already begun to shift billions in research funds to AI projects and has taken a hatchet to science funding across the board. He’s teed up the shift Kratsios proposes here, and since neither Congress nor the Supreme Court seem inclined to stop him from doing whatever he wants with taxpayer money, it isn’t doomering or hyperbole to say we are staring down the barrel of a world where the only “science” the government intends to support is for-profit tech and defense advancements. Science for dummies Part of how you can tell this isn’t a document about science is that you are immediately faced with an absolute wall of business-speak of the worst sort. Did you know we must “tightly couple our science and technology enterprises to ensure that groundbreaking ideas invented in the United States are rapidly prototyped, tested, manufactured, and scaled domestically”? You do now! That tone isn’t surprising, because Kratsios has no background in science or research. He has a bachelor’s in political science and spent most of his career working for Peter Thiel at Thiel Capital. After a stint in the first Trump administration as Chief Technology Officer, where he also did not do any science, Kratsios was tasked in 2020 with overseeing the Pentagon’s research budget for a brief time, a position that, as the Wall Street Journal put it, “carries a great deal of power in terms of dictating investment allocations.” He spent the Biden years at Scale AI as “head of strategy,” which you will also note is neither a science nor a research job. But Scale AI has contracts with the Department of Defense and, as the Washington Post wrote in 2023, “has been aggressively pitching itself as the company that will help the US military in its existential battle with China.” And now you have the necessary background for our new golden age, which is going to be a golden age of taking money away from scientists and universities and giving it to companies like Scale AI. A note from Aaron: Working with brilliant contributors like Lisa takes resources. If you aren’t already a paid subscriber, please become one to support our work. 👇 Subscribe In a genuinely galling move, Katsios spends a lot of time slamming universities because of “administrative burdens on researchers” and the “well-documented inefficiencies” in academia, the message being that those damn universities waste the time of amazing researchers with paperwork. Except it’s the administration that is attempting to impose inefficient, unnecessary burdens on those researchers with a proposed Office of Management and Budget rule that would require senior political appointees to approve every science grant and ensure it aligns with Trump’s personal priorities. Researchers would also have to seek prior government approval to attend conferences or publicize their research. And political appointees could terminate any grant at any time if they feel like it. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) [ The murder of expertise ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) Lisa Needham · Jun 11 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/omb-rule-science-funding) But when it comes to AI, we’re going to “restore permissionless innovation.” The report proposes to give lucky ducky innovators a pile of cash up front for grants lasting five years or longer, saying “awards should be fully-funded in year one, with all resources earmarked upfront, to minimize administrative burdens and reduce pressure for researchers to generate intermediate results to secure continued funding.” Yeah, wouldn’t want to have to make the Very Special Tech Bros show results or get money parceled out year by year like the plebes at universities. The report also proposes that we should have “fast grants” with “simplified applications requiring just a few pages of writing” because that is definitely how science works, just writing a bit off the dome and getting some cash. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) [ Tech elites are turning AI into ChatGPTrump ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) Paul Waldman · July 29, 2025 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-ai-action-plan-altman-llms) Oh, and we should have prizes and challenges, where multiple teams compete. The proposed prizes include incentives like “advance procurement commitments,” which means the federal government agrees to buy whatever is being developed. There’s also “regulatory fast-tracking,” making sure all those great AI thingies don’t have to wait too long to be unleashed on a market. These aren’t incentives to do science. These are incentives to develop things with tax dollars that you can then sell to the government for more tax dollars. In the suggestion that might be the most unhinged, the most very opposite of how both government and research work, our new age will include “golden tickets.” That’s where an individual reviewer in an agency — yes, just one person — can “recommend unconventional proposals that may not pass consensus-driven review panels” because somehow this will “surface valuable ideas too divisive for committees and attract higher quality reviewers by empowering them to exercise independent scientific judgment.” Yes, that’s saying that a random person in an agency should be able to shovel money at some idea even if it can’t pass a review panel, and that the opportunity to do so will attract better employees because apparently all the best minds in science are chomping at the bit to be allowed to unilaterally fund AI research based on their personal vibes. But that isn’t at all how actual science works, and actual scientists aren’t unhappy about review panels. They work collaboratively, not siloed in some secret race to create the next AI chatbot. A 2020 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research examined whether peer review panels succeed in helping agencies predict which research ideas will best advance science. Peer review was better at finding “diamond in the rough” applicants than a single government program official. How about that. Trump always wants a taste It’s painfully clear that what Katsios is trying to do here is turn the whole of government science research and funding into the sort of “move fast and break things” paradigm that is the hallmark of big tech. That method works to line the pockets of tech executives, but it isn’t science. There’s a reason the government funds different kinds of research than private tech companies do. What Katsios either fails to understand or deliberately ignores is that the federal government is the main funder of basic research precisely because it can take a long time for it to bear fruit and is not intended to be profitable as such. “Basic” here does not mean rudimentary or simple, but rather research that is designed to advance scientific knowledge instead of achieving a specific outcome or product. Big tech companies don’t widely fund that sort of research, because it doesn’t make them money. Industry dollars account for only about 20 percent of basic research funding, while the government contributes around 60 percent. Big tech companies and startups do, however, rely on and benefit from that basic research. A 2019 study found that 35 percent of all patents obtained by venture-backed startups from 1976 to 2016 cited federally supported research. Basic research funded by the NIH contributed to every single drug the FDA approved from 2010 to 2016. [ ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) [ The Saudi nuclear farce and governance by whim and meme ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) Noah Berlatsky · Jul 27 [ Read full story ](https://www.publicnotice.co/p/trump-saudi-nuclear-deal) Unlike inventing the next ChatGPT, actual science is slow and iterative. Government funding of research that, on its face, would not appear to lead to any big new invention is actually what underpins those big new inventions. If the government hadn’t funded research into desert lizard venom, we wouldn’t know about semaglutide, and we wouldn’t have Ozempic. If research scientists hadn’t studied how bees optimize nectar foraging within a colony, we wouldn’t have the algorithm that assigns internet traffic across computer servers. The report assiduously ignores that a symbiotic, profitable relationship between the federal government, universities, and private companies already exists. Each federal research dollar generates about $1.50 to $3.00 in long-term economic benefits. The $36 billion the government awarded in NIH research funding in fiscal year 2025 generated $94 billion in new economic activity. Trump’s proposed new golden age is intended to strip those billions from universities, resulting in the dismantling of departments and the shuttering of labs. But Katsios has a plan for that: Universities should just become trade schools to churn out no-show STEM degrees! “Require universities and community colleges to embed practical technical training and externships into STEM curricula. Let hands-on experience and industry credentials count toward degrees.” It’s quite the feat to, on the one hand, strip schools of funding for scientific research while simultaneously demanding to control what is taught and, oh, also, colleges need to give degrees to employees at big tech companies just for being employees at big tech companies. The new golden age would also exacerbate the brain drain Trump’s policies have already caused. Nature found that in the first quarter of 2025, US scientists submitted 32 percent more job applications abroad than in 2024. A March 2025 poll by Nature of roughly 1,600 scientists found that over 1,200 said they were considering leaving the country. Europe is investing $565 million to make it a “magnet for researchers” and provide funding for scientists who relocate. The new golden age is also about embedding Trump’s xenophobia into the fabric of American science. The report complains of an “over-reliance on foreign students” that “creates a security challenge our institutions are ill-equipped to address” and that a “reliance on foreign talent sidelines American students.” This is, to put it mildly, nonsense. International students pay far higher tuition and often receive no financial aid. Their tuition dollars are what make it possible for American students to get financial aid. In the 2023-2024 school year alone, international students contributed $43.8 billion to the US economy and supported over 378,000 jobs. Those 1.1 million international students accounted for only six percent of the total number of students in higher education that year, but were such an economic engine that for every three international students, one job was created or supported. It’s impossible not to wonder whether part of Trump’s loathing for universities and their leading role in scientific research is that there is no way for him to corrupt the process and make money off it in the same way he can by giving millions and billions to Silicon Valley types who, in turn, give him millions in cash. There’s no way for his children to invest in universities that the government then gives no-bid contracts to, fattening the family’s bottom line, which is pretty much the Trump sons’ current venture capital practice. Trump and Katsios’s view of science is narrow, cramped, and wrong. We’re not in a crisis, we’re not a failed state. We’ve been a science superpower for decades, and the only thing that threatens that is Donald Trump. Tech bros are already living high off the hog in this administration. They don’t need any more of our tax dollars. Hopefully this new golden age never comes to pass. Thanks for reading Public Notice. This post is public so feel free to share it. Share We’ll be back with more tomorrow. If you appreciate today’s PN, please do your part to keep us free by signing up for a paid subscription. 🚀 Subscribe to PN 🚀 Thanks for reading, and for your support.
After Hobbes vs Rousseau: Politics must move beyond human nature
Since the great debate between Hobbes and Rousseau, our political theory has been organised around a single question: is human nature essentially good or essentially corrupt? Graham Harman, the philosopher behind object-oriented ontology, argues that this is simply the wrong question to be asking. The real forces governing our collective fate - climate change, artificial intelligence, geography, and pandemics - are non-human; therefore, questions about human nature are not the central ones. Instead, Harman proposes a politics reorganised around our relationship to non-human objects and environments, in which quasi-government institutions incentivise and deter actions with the aim of extending the survival of the human race. “It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” This has become one of the most popular phrases among twenty-first-century intellectuals. Often misattributed to Fredric Jameson, it has been warmly embraced by such influential authors as Slavoj Žižek and the tragically departed Mark Fisher, and has fueled the notion that the major problem with the political Left is that it simply needs to become more speculative and creative. Naturally, this is never a bad idea in any human pursuit. But what if the political distinction between Left, Right, and Center itself results from a failure of imagination? SUGGESTED READING Hobbes vs Rousseau: are we inherently evil? By Robin Douglass This particular division has been with us only since the summer of 1789. During the simmering prelude to the French Revolution, it referred originally to the physical position in the National Assembly of radical figures on one side and loyal monarchists on the other. These positions are linked with two entirely different camps of modern political theory. On the Left we find a series of authors ranging from the moderate (Locke) to the supercharged (Rousseau) to the truly radical (Marx), all of them contending that exploitation of the many by the few justifies revolutionary overthrow of the existing order. On the Right they are countered by the likes of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Schmitt, a group of thinkers convinced that corrupt human nature can be tamed only by force. In the words of the Nazi supporter Schmitt: “One could test all theories of nature and state and political ideas according to their anthropology and classify these as to whether they consciously or unconsciously presuppose [humans] to be by nature evil or by nature good.” This is the division we continue to face today, even in the daily retail politics of Western democracies.___Our species has regularly proven itself capable of both the noblest gestures and the most scathing cruelties, making it hard to define us as essentially either emancipatory or brutal in our aims.___The most refreshing feature of David Graeber and David Wengrow’s 2021 book The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity was their awareness that the forced choice between Rousseau and Hobbes (as they put it) is no longer sufficient. Our species has regularly proven itself capable of both the noblest gestures and the most scathing cruelties, making it hard to define us as essentially either emancipatory or brutal in our aims. Far from being stationed “beyond good and evil,” we seem to be fully entangled with both. We are not naturally good or evil, Graeber and Wengrow contend, but naturally experimental and imaginative. They rest their case on the archaeological record, which seems to bear witness to numerous episodes of seasonally shifting governments and festivals, which vacillate in the same society (even in the same year) between the egalitarian and the dictatorial. Such praise of political experiment makes a good fit with the generally anarchist position defended by these authors. Yet it is also what I find most disappointing in their position. Although they are right that the forced choice between Hobbes and Rousseau falls short of what our new situation requires, the authors simply replace it with praise for the human being as a political tinkerer and performer. In other words, they give us just another theory of human nature, one that would not have been out of place in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. What other options might we have?___The time is ripe for a retheorization of politics on the basis of something other than human nature… We are not just alienated and limited by objects, but also empowered and unleashed by them___One fresh approach would be to treat politics within a broader framework than human nature, given that the polis does not exist in a vacuum filled exclusively with people. When Bruno Latour went to observe the baboons of Kenya with the San Diego anthropologist Shirley Strum, they jointly concluded that these primates were more socially interdependent than our own species. Each baboon is so reliant on the dynamics of the group that they find themselves locked into constant surveillance of their potentially dangerous peers. The group structure turns out to be inherently volatile. Humans, by contrast, are able to stabilize their societies to a large degree through the mediation of inanimate objects. Although one’s position in society may seem to fluctuate over time, considerable stability is produced through such items as apartment keys, wedding rings, and identification cards, all of them serving to secure us a place distinct from that of our fellows. The Italian philosopher Maurizio Ferraris has written at length about the crucial role of documents in establishing social relations, making him a hero among notaries in his country. Proper names and license plates cement our position amidst other humans, as do symbolic achievements such as graduation from a top university or distinguished wartime service with its various medals and ribbons. None of this is found among baboons, despite their closeness to us on the evolutionary tree: after all, we did share a common ancestor just 25 to 30 million years ago. SUGGESTED VIEWING The goodness paradox With Richard Wrangham The time is ripe for a retheorization of politics on the basis of something other than human nature, whether understood in the manner of the Left or of the Right. We are not just alienated and limited by objects, but also empowered and unleashed by them. But initially, it is true, we face non-human things primarily in the form of constraints. It would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to form a human civilization underwater, deep underground, atop Mount Everest, or in outer space. Human dependence on the non-social background takes on subtler form in discussions of political geography, especially unloved on the more idealistic Left. Consider the luckless position of Poland during World War II, sandwiched between Hitler on one side and Stalin on the other. By contrast, note the good fortune of the United States in not having a military peer positioned on any land border. Anglo-American geopolitics, since the writings of the American naval commander Alfred Thayer Mahan and the British geographer Sir Halford Mackinder, has been wedded to the notion that one or more liberal offshore naval powers should prevent any authoritarian “heartland” regime from gaining effective control of Eurasia. That remains the case whether the opponent is the impatient Napoleon, the swashbuckling German Kaiser, the villainous Hitler, the murderous Stalin, or the industrial juggernaut Chinese. In their current Foreign Affairs article “Heartland vs. Rimland,” Michael Beckley and Hal Brands analyze the current and coming state of the world on the basis of these same rather durable principles. In recent years a similar outlook has been embraced, in inverted form, by the Putin-loving Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, an icon of the Rightist intellectual underworld. For Dugin, the Anglo-Saxons are an evil force bent on destroying the spiritually superior people of the land: much like Athens in its failed war with Sparta, or Carthage in its eventual collapse against Rome. But the shared notion on both sides is that any strategy that fails to take geography into account is likely to end up as a defeated form of excessive optimism.___When dealing with environmental degradation, then, we are doing business with forces that promise dire effects on our species as a whole.___More striking for us today than geography is the non-human object called climate, which threatens rimland and heartland equally. Even if we contend that humans are one hundred percent responsible for triggering the climate crisis, it remains non-human in the sense of being an independent force beyond our effective control. In a major work published just before his death in 2002, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, the American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould noted the tendency of evolutionary theorists to focus too closely on the fate of individuals in view of their successful or failed adaptation to circumstances. With climate change, however, we confront a force that goes well beyond the scope of any individual life. Whereas Richard Dawkins extended evolutionary questions downward from individuals to the sub-individual gene, Gould pushed it upward, speaking of entire species or clades as impacted by environmental change. The asteroid that struck the Yucatán 66 million years ago is only the most famous example of this sort. In the wake of that catastrophe, large animals needing abundant supplies of food were at a fatal disadvantage by contrast with the smaller birds and mammals of the planet. When dealing with environmental degradation, then, we are doing business with forces that promise dire effects on our species as a whole. The effect is to shift our attention away from individual beings towards the survival of the group.In the United States in particular, the COVID-19 pandemic sparked considerable backlash among those who asserted a nearly absolute degree of individual freedom. In California I encountered those who demanded that their businesses be allowed to reopen, that it was enough to cover their mouths but not their noses, or that they should have the right to enter any public area despite refusing vaccination. Yet public health is probably the clearest argument against libertarianism, which often merely asserts the autonomy of individuals against any claims of the commons. In normal times the individual is worth defending; under conditions that threaten the survival of part or all of our species, compulsion may be our only resort, as with perfectly reasonable blackouts and rations in wartime. To rebuild human society under the constraints of climate change will be one of the great challenges of the century to come, as will our improvised grappling with artificial intelligence. Such phenomena pose existential risks for humanity, and leave far less room for tolerance of individual brattiness. Cases are mounting of devastating wildfires caused by arson. Recently it was reported that there is even a website where one can bet on the location of coming wildfires, raising the specter of deliberate blazes set to collect on wagers. The death penalty has steadily lost support in a world where many stress the infinite value of human life. But if we focus instead on entire ecosystems, those who purposely burn the forests may begin to look worse than serial murderers.___The politics of the future may be splintered by disagreement over such topics as how to manage our environing background and how to permit or restrict the entry of new objects into the political sphere.___So far I have spoken of force, authority, and punishment: measures sure to have greater appeal to those who identify with what we know as the Right. But other implications of the post-anthropocentric world are likely to have different backers. If non-human objects are seen as structuring political space, it stands to reason that they can no longer be introduced solely by the pace of technical breakthrough. Fields ranging from cybernetics to energy will demand increased politicization once they are reconceived not just as products of individual human investment, but as renovations of collective political geography. This need not involve world government, with its inherent risk of tyranny, but may involve quasi-governmental enforcers of prestige along the lines of a less corrupt FIFA or International Olympic Committee, punishing deviant states not with violence but with less tangible incentives.Politics will never lose its historic links with conflict and faction. But rather than factions aligned by differing theories of human nature, the politics of the future may be splintered by disagreement over such topics as how to manage our environing background and how to permit or restrict the entry of new objects into the political sphere. This will prove just as incommensurable with the modern Left/Right spectrum as a globe is with a two-dimensional map.
Employment or autonomy? Comparing pathways and tradeoffs for PCPs
Primary care physicians who are on the payrolls of hospitals and health systems enjoy well-supported practice infrastructure and robust peer engagement. But they’re sometimes vexed by red tape and style-cramping oversight. Meanwhile independent PCPs …
Daily multivitamin may help older adults stay independent
Taking a daily multivitamin may help older adults preserve the strength and stamina needed for everyday activities. After three years, users reported better functional health than those taking a placebo, although the preliminary findings still require peer review.
The Science Behind the AI Panic Is Shakier Than You Think
A column by Sascha Lobo Is AI making us dumb? So asked DER SPIEGEL on its cover a while ago. After a few weeks of recovery and a therapeutic intervention with the help of my AI, I feel able to respond. That’s a bit unfair, of course; the article itself is more nuanced than the loud cover, the image of a schoolkid with dull prompt questions, or the subtitle: “AI is conquering the schools, and educators fear a disaster.” The short answer to “Is AI making us dumb?” is: no. The long answer is more interesting, and even carries a preliminary glimmer of the spectacular. Unfortunately, it requires a detour into the sphere of artificial intelligence, into the mogul-field terrain of technology assessment, the attention economy, and the destructive virus of cultural pessimism. Along with narrowing the scope to AI’s effects on education and work rather than on intelligence. Because the honest version of the question would be: Does AI help us learn and work, or not? Generative AI, which set off the still-ongoing hype with ChatGPT, has only existed in relevant distribution since late 2022, early 2023. For a technology-driven transformation of people and society, that is extremely short. For that reason alone, research is still in its infancy. And technology assessment is not a fast discipline anyway. Prominent voices from Elizabeth Eisenstein to RAND to Tom Wheeler say we still cannot conclusively judge the consequences of the printing press. Its invention is a mere 580 years back, and some scholars would rather not circulate assessments that might have to be retracted in two or three hundred years. We’re Going Through Growing Pains A phenomenon that already caused upheaval in social media research makes serious assessment of AI’s consequences even harder: the “moving target” problem of LLM-ology, as the linguist Sean Trott called it in 2025. AI develops so quickly and so unpredictably that researchers often end up studying snapshots of the past. There are concepts, from morphological analysis to anticipatory governance, for keeping research, planning, and regulation halfway meaningful anyway. But even with those, universally valid statements are rare. DER SPIEGEL - The German View is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe We should therefore treat findings about the interplay between humans and AI as far more procedural and situational. Unfortunately, this challenge comes at the worst possible time. We are going through growing pains: AI’s everyday impact has grown very large very fast, and with it the longing for guidance. Annoyingly, the body of solid knowledge has not exploded along with it. Experts cannot be moved to broad consensus on even banal statements about AI. Sascha Lobo, born in 1975, is an author and strategy consultant focusing on the internet and digital technologies. Together with Jule Lobo, he explores the debates of the day in the podcast “Feel the News – Was Deutschland bewegt” (”What Moves Germany”). Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says software developers are dying out. Bill Gates considers coders one of only three professions that will survive the AI tsunami. Top tech economists find virtually irrefutable arguments both for and against an AI bubble. The same naturally applies to the structurally youth-hostile debate over whether AI is good or bad for young people. The gap between the demand for insight and the supply of solid knowledge creates an orientation vacuum. This vacuum of AI cluelessness is filled, as the attention economy described by Georg Franck in 1998 would have it, with half-knowledge (funnily enough, often AI-generated), marketing, and self-marketing. After all, infinite money is at stake, along with academia’s best current shot at global fame. But this iridescent froth of interpretation operates more by the algorithmic principles of the digital public sphere than by seriously earned insight. That is why dramatized, fear-feeding claims about AI are so promising. It tempts parts of academia into distorted drivel, and parts of the media then sensationalize the published drivel once more. Was the Research Aimed at a Desired Result? How badly this can influence academia and public perception is demonstrated by one of the most-discussed studies on AI’s effects: “Your Brain on ChatGPT.” The MIT study by Nataliya Kosmyna also gets plenty of space in the SPIEGEL cover story. What was measured and interpreted: lower brain activity in people who write with AI assistance, compared to people who only google or write without any tools. As is common with preprints, the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, and it contains substantial weaknesses that experts have sharply criticized. The first round had 54 participants in three groups, the second only 18, who reportedly also came from MIT’s own orbit. There was no preregistration (committing in advance to what you want to find out with which data). In their analysis, Stanković et al. even discovered an opposite effect that the study does not further explain. Some measurement data has not (yet) been published. And the EEG analysis method used is considered too imprecise to support such far-reaching conclusions. The biggest criticism, though, is the suspicion of an activism-driven study. In an interview with Time, lead author Kosmyna said she published the study immediately, rather than after full peer review, because she feared politicians might otherwise decide to put ChatGPT in kindergartens. She considers that absolutely harmful. It is legitimate to hold such a view. It just seems unscientific to approach a study with it, and then to design the setup so that the chance of a fitting desired result remains as high as possible. Ideologies Collide It is not easy to separate genuine AI insights from studies that trivialize and weaken well-founded AI criticism. The same goes for the opposing, AI-enthusiastic narratives, because the pro-AI side works against it with billions in resources. Ideologies collide, fed by egos, PR strategies, moral posturing, and once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. Doomsday marketing makes the search even harder: AI companies can profit from warnings about the dangers of AI, whether through the notoriety of apocalypse narratives or because, in some target groups, danger translates into power. Some seemingly negative findings are therefore quite welcome in the AI industry. If you try to get at the findings presumably less influenced by interest groups, the picture in education seems relatively clear: AI can improve educational outcomes when the right AI is used the right way, namely pedagogically. Simply dumping an AI chatbot into a classroom, by contrast, accomplishes little. Huge surprise. But something else is also obvious: whether they are allowed to or not, kids use AI for school, which is why the controlled integration of AI tools into education is, in the medium term, entirely without alternative. In the world of work, the landscape of findings is more complex and requires more differentiation. A series of serious studies points to an AI effect that suits neither the alarmists, regulation fetishists, and AI opponents, nor the trillion-dollar corporations with their armada of paid scientists, PR professionals, and ecosystems: working with AI helps the inexperienced (at least for now) considerably more than it helps the pros, in certain fields of work, and provided they know how to use it correctly. Missing Domain Knowledge Among the experienced, the professionals, and the high flyers, by contrast, despite frequent time savings, partially negative effects and new problems are emerging. Take the jagged frontier problem: AI solves task A brilliantly and fails completely at task B, even though both look similar even to professionals. Or the verification-cost problem, in which AI’s greater productivity gets eaten up by the enormous effort of checking its output. Or the illusion of competence, because AI makes new domains seem easily penetrable, until you painfully discover that deep domain knowledge is missing. Taken as a whole, the effects of working with AI do lean positive. But the promise that AI works as a turbocharger for everyone and boosts practically everything simply refuses to materialize. The AI magic the world has been feeling since ChatGPT arrived in late 2022 has so far barely shown up in most companies’ numbers. The consulting firm McKinsey has coined a term for this, the “gen AI paradox,” and believes that work processes and corporate structures would have to be rebuilt quite fundamentally to realize AI’s benefits at scale. Reuters just reported that only 3.3 percent of Microsoft’s customers have subscribed to the AI package Copilot. That may be down to the product; in other areas we continue to see soaring successes and new AI triumphs. But after the first quarter of 2026, disillusionment is the word for all too many AI projects at traditional companies: because the promised revolution of AI agents has so far failed to arrive or been postponed, and because of the leveling effect that many of the studies cited here suggest. Against Inequality The societal effects, on the other hand, appear rather encouraging. Many previous technologies operated on the Matthew principle, named for the Gospel verse about giving to those who already have: they tended to reward the more competent and more privileged. AI, however, seems more often to have an equalizing effect once a threshold of access and education is crossed. Some anecdotal insights point in this direction, for example, how an unemployed man in Leipzig successfully defended himself in court in 2025 against fraud accusations from Germany’s federal employment agency — without a lawyer, armed only with ChatGPT. The AI made mistakes and cited invented court rulings, but in the end the man walked away unpunished. And a key capability of artificial intelligence is its capacity to learn: set up correctly and fed with data, it can keep getting better. It is a question of time, or more precisely of AI innovations and training data, until even free AI chatbots write better legal briefs than law graduates with perfect exam scores. Whether that will make anyone dumb is something the world’s press will surely inform us of in due time. Subscribe Leave a comment
A Cockroach 'Collective Memory' Emerges From Their Social Networks, Study Suggests
Even cockroaches have peer pressure.
How Sutter Health aligns leaders on physician well-being
Monthly leadership meetings and in-person retreats help to turn well-being data into action, build trust across teams and strengthen peer support.
For one Minnesota man, peer connection was the key to mental health recovery
Fairview is expanding outpatient group programs across Minnesota, giving teens and adults more intensive support while helping them stay connected to work, school and home.
COMMENTARY: Science, Not Politics, Must Guide Lifesaving Medical Research
AFRO-AMERICAN – WASHINGTON — A recent announcement regarding a new treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer, daraxonrasib, has shown it doubled survival rates for patients and reduced the risk of death by 60 percent. This breakthrough stemmed from sustained, peer-reviewed scientific investment.
Warren Spector’s Thick As Thieves Ends Support After Two Months
After significant layoffs at the studio, the leaner Thief successor is hoping to continue with peer-to-peer servers
Neurodivergent kids face special mental health risks. New initiative seeks ways to protect them
Jake Collective and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention are launching a $5 million, five-year initiative
Denver approves new pedestrian bridge connecting downtown entertainment district
Denver has approved a no-cost intergovernmental agreement with two metropolitan districts for a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Speer Boulevard. The Denver City Council resolution, approved Monday, now opens the doors for Kroenke Sports and Entertainment Metropolitan Districts No. 2 and No. 3 to finance and build the Wynkoop Crossing, a new pedestrian and […]
Trump officials plan to shift more research funding to individual scientists
In a wide-ranging memo, they also directed federal agencies to experiment with models other than peer-review for assessing research proposals.
2026 Health Policy Leadership Forum
The National Governors Association Center for Best Practicesconvened state and territory governors’ health policy advisors in Charlotte, North Carolina, July 8-10 for the 2026 Health Policy Leadership Forum. Through a discussion-based format, the forum provided governors’ advisors, NGA Partners and invited guests with an opportunity to exchange perspectives, share implementation strategies, and discuss emerging policy challenges shaping state and territorial health systems. Discussions focused on advancing governors’ health priorities in a rapidly evolving policy and fiscal environment while highlighting innovative approaches and peer-informed solutions from across the country.
Florida-Based Science and Technology Company Crescel Announces Landmark Peer-Reviewed Medical Publication
Crescel LLC, a Florida-based innovative science and technology company, today announced publication of its landmark PubMed-indexed, peer-reviewed clinical study showing that its biobotanical technology produced statistically significant improvements over the leading prescription standard of care for rosacea in a randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial. Published in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, the study represents a major scientific milestone for the company's pioneering prop
White House wants to shift billions of dollars of research funding away from ‘slow consensus peer review’ and into individual scientists and AI
Moving funding to individual scientists and AI could undermine US scientific credibility at home and abroad.
Is Accel Entertainment (ACEL) Stock Outpacing Its Consumer Discretionary Peers This Year?
Here is how Accel Entertainment (ACEL) and Colruyt SA Unsponsored ADR (CUYTY) have performed compared to their sector so far this year.