Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Emma Kennedy, Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics, Villanova University

Along the 2024 presidential campaign trail, Donald Trump pledged to make in vitro fertilization, or IVF, free – part of his party’s wider push for a new American “baby boom.”

But in October 2025, when the administration revealed its IVF proposal, many health care experts pointed out that it falls short of mandating insurance companies to cover the procedure.

Since Trump returned to the White House, it has become clear just how fraught IVF is for his base. Some conservative Christians oppose IVF because it often involves destroying extra embryos not implanted in the woman’s uterus.

According to Politico, anti-abortion groups lobbied against a requirement for employers to cover IVF. Instead, some vouched for “restorative reproductive medicine” – a term that has been around for decades but has received much more attention, especially from conservatives, in the past few months.

Proponents of restorative reproductive medicine tend to present it as an alternative to IVF: a different way of treating infertility, focused on treating underlying causes. But the approach is controversial, and some practitioners closely link their treatments to Catholic teachings.

As a scholar of religion, I study U.S. Catholics’ varied perspectives on infertility, seeking to understand how religious beliefs and practices influence physicians’ and patients’ choices. Their perspectives help provide a more nuanced understanding of Christianity’s role in the U.S. reproductive and political landscape.

Defining restorative reproductive medicine

Clinics that advertise themselves as offering restorative reproductive medicine try to diagnose underlying issues that could make conception difficult, like endometriosis. Typically, a patient and provider will closely monitor the patient’s menstrual cycle to identify potential abnormalities. Interventions include hormone therapies, medications, supplements, surgeries and lifestyle changes.

Much of the approach resembles the initial testing used to evaluate patients in mainstream reproductive endocrinology and infertility clinics. However, restorative reproductive medicine clinics do not typically offer IVF or other assisted reproductive technologies.

Depending on who you ask, proponents are not necessarily opposed to IVF; they see their treatments as another option to explore. Some clinicians, however, closely link their treatment offerings to their religious commitments and opposition to abortion.

Restorative reproductive medicine has prompted criticism from professional medical organizations. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine issued a statement in May 2025 calling it a “rebranding” of standard infertility treatment, with “ideologically driven restrictions that could limit patient care.” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a brief warning that it is a “nonmedical approach” that threatens to impede access to IVF.

These critics are concerned that the focus on lifestyle changes and surgery may not address patients’ difficulties conceiving, while putting them through other unsuccessful treatments.

Church teachings

Today, restorative reproductive medicine is often described as gaining steam with conservative Christians and the “Make America Healthy Again,” or MAHA, movement. Its roots, though, are decades old, and largely Catholic.

Part of the Catholic Church’s objection to IVF stems from a concern that unused embryos are often discarded and destroyed. The church’s position is that all embryos ought to be treated with the same respect afforded a person – one of the key reasons its teachings oppose abortion.

Disapproval of IVF also stems from the church’s official teachings on marriage. According to this teaching, marriage has two chief ends, which it calls “procreation and union”: Typically, procreation is understood to mean having children, while union involves physical, emotional and spiritual intimacy. In this understanding, sexual intercourse should preserve what the church calls an “inseparable connection” between these two meanings.

The Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception because its goal is to block procreation. Instead, Catholics are encouraged to use “Natural Family Planning” – tracking a woman’s cycle so that couples can choose to abstain from sex during fertile periods. Similarly, it opposes artificial insemination and IVF because, by moving fertilization out of the body and into the lab, the process separates procreation from the act of sexual intercourse.

Survey data suggests most U.S. Catholics do not agree with these official stances, nor do they follow them.

Catholic doctors who do agree with official church teachings, however, have played a key role in developing infertility treatments that align with them. One of the most influential is Dr. Thomas W. Hilgers, who co-developed a “Natural Family Planning” method called the Creighton Model. In the early 1990s, he also developed NaProTechnology, an approach that seeks to identify fertility issues using cycle tracking, and then treat them with various medical and surgical interventions.

The NaProTechnology approach could be said to fall under the umbrella of restorative reproductive medicine, but it has mostly been used by Catholic reproductive health clinics and hospitals. Catholic physicians’ networks promote it, as do parishes and dioceses.

Navigating infertility

For Catholics who share the church’s official perspective on IVF, NaProTechnology and the clinics offering it are often a welcome alternative. Several of the Catholic women I interviewed as part of my academic research had also been to mainstream fertility clinics, but they felt that those providers did not offer much apart from IVF.

By contrast, the clinics offering NaProTechnology were often cheaper, in part because they do not offer IVF. They were also easier to navigate, since clinicians shared these patients’ religious views. Many felt that the providers were able to spend more time with them, helped them learn about their bodies, and were committed to understanding underlying issues beyond infertility.

However, others found clinics offering NaProTechnology to be lacking, often because clinicians weren’t up front about its limitations, especially when it comes to male infertility. Some patients felt that clinicians weren’t willing to admit drawbacks, for fear it would encourage couples to try IVF.

Most Catholics dealing with infertility, however, find themselves in mainstream clinical settings that offer IVF. Women I interviewed who opted for IVF were frank in their critiques of church teachings and their skepticism of Catholic clinics. Many took issue with the underlying assumption that the people who ought to be procreating are heterosexual, married couples and that conception is usually possible without the help of IVF.

However, many of these women were also dissatisfied with the approach that mainstream clinics take. Some felt that those clinics were focused on profit – a concern shared by some scholars scrutinizing the fertility industry. Some women also felt pressured to genetically test their embryos for chromosomal abnormalities and to discard unused embryos, even after explaining to staff that destroying them would be out of step with their moral commitments.

Understanding patient experiences in either kind of clinic helps underscore the difficulties many people face navigating infertility – and the stakes of policy reform.

The Trump administration’s plan largely maintains the status quo for IVF access while making more room for alternative treatments. But it intensifies questions about how the government responds to religious beliefs about reproductive health care, especially disagreements about the moral status of embryos. For now, patients and providers will continue to navigate a fractured landscape.

Emma Kennedy is affiliated with the Center for Genetics and Society.

– ref. How a niche Catholic approach to infertility treatment became a new talking point for MAHA conservatives – https://theconversation.com/how-a-niche-catholic-approach-to-infertility-treatment-became-a-new-talking-point-for-maha-conservatives-265461

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Francisco J. Monaldi, Wallace S. Wilson Fellow in Latin American Energy Policy, Rice University

The U.S. seizure of an oil tanker off the Venezuelan coast looks designed to further squeeze the economy of President Nicolás Maduro’s country.

The Dec. 10, 2025, operation – in which American forces descended from helicopters onto the vessel – follows months of U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean and was immediately condemned by the Venezuelan government as “barefaced robbery and an act of international piracy.”

But what exactly is the Trump administraion’s aim in going after the tanker, and how could this impact the already beleaguered economy of Venezuela? The Conversation U.S. turned to Rice University’s Francisco J. Monaldi, an expert on Latin American energy policy, for answers.

What do we know about the tanker that was seized?

The seized tanker, which according to reports is a 20-year-old vessel called the Skipper, is a supertanker that can carry around 2 million barrels of oil.

According to the Trump administration, the vessel was heading to Cuba. But because of the size of the ship, I strongly suspect that the final destination was likely China – tankers the size of the seized one don’t tend to be used to take oil across the Caribbean to Cuba. The ones used for that task are far smaller.

This particular tanker was sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury in 2022 due to it carrying prohibited Iranian oil. At the time, it was claimed that the ship – then called Adisa – was controlled by Russian oil magnate Viktor Artemov and was engaged in an oil smuggling network.

Attorney General Pam Bondi released a video of the seizure on X.

So the latest U.S. seizure was, on the surface, unrelated to the sanctions placed on Venezuela by U.S. authorities in 2019 and expanded in 2020 to include secondary sanctions – that is, on countries that do business on the targeted nation or company.

As such, Venezuelan officials have said this is unprecedented. And they are largely right. While there have been a few occasions in which Iranian tankers have been seized due to sanctions busting, this is the first time that there has been a seizure of a vessel departing Venezuela and with a Venezuelan crew.

The Trump administration has signaled that it is not only seizing the cargo but the ship itself – which would represent a significant loss for the company owning the ship. The loss will be borne by the company, not Venezuela, as it was under a “Free on Board” contract, meaning that as soon as it left Venezuela the buyer takes responsibility for it.

Nonetheless, this is a significant escalation of the pressure campaign on Venezuela, which looks set to continue. Reuters has reported that around 30 other tankers near Venezuela have some kind of sanction against them. They form part of a large shadow fleet that try to skirt sanctions through hiding their identity while transporting oil from Russia, Venezuela and Iran.

The signal from U.S. officials is that they are prepared to go after more vessels and further squeeze Venezuela’s oil revenues through fresh sanctions.

How often they will seize vessels is not known, but the clear threat from the White House is that the U.S. will continue with this seizure campaign.

How important are oil exports to Venezuela?

Venezuela’s economy is tremendously dependent on oil production.

We do not have exact figures, as the Venezuela government has not published them in seven years, but most analysts believe oil constitutes north of 80% of all of the country’s exports – some even put this figure above 90%.

Most of that oil goes to the black market, and a majority ends up with independent refiners in China. State-owned enterprises in China tend not to buy this oil because they do not want to fall foul of the sanctions regime. But Beijing tends to turn a blind eye to tankers heading to non-state entities, especially if those tankers have hidden their true identity so it doesn’t look like they are coming from Venezuela.

Around 80% of Venezuelan oil goes to China in this way; around 17% goes to the U.S. through a license awarded by the U.S. Treasury to oil giant Chevron. And 3% goes to Cuba, which tends to be subsidized by the Venezuelan government.

Venezuela’s economy itself is also very dependent on oil, with the sector making up about 20% of total GDP, more than any other industry. And when it comes to government income, the oil sector makes up north of 50%.

How have US actions affected Venezuelan oil production?

It is important to know that even before U.S. sanctions began in 2019, Venezuela’s oil production was in severe decline.

In 1998, before Hugo Chávez, the leftist military officer who became a populist president, came to power, oil production peaked at around 3.4 million barrels a day. By the time Chávez died and Maduro succeeded him in 2013, it had fallen to 2.7 million barrels a day.

When U.S. sanctions targeting the state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, were enacted in 2019, production was down to 1.3 million barrels a day – but that had already been affected by the other financial sanctions that came in two years earlier.

The oil sanctions of 2019 closed the U.S. market, taking away half a million barrels a day that at the time headed from Venezuela to the U.S. As a result, Venezuela had to increase oil sales to India and China.

But then the 2020 secondary sanctions, which apply to countries doing business with Venezuela, came in. As a result, Europe and India stopped buying Venezuelan oil, meaning that its only markets were Cuba and China. Of course, that year also saw the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in a massive cooling of the oil market globally.

Venezuelan oil production collapsed to 400,000 barrels a day that year. Today it has recovered to around 1 million barrels a day. This has been helped by the U.S. allowing Chevron – which, after Petróleos de Venezuela, is the second-largest oil company operating in the country – to continue production.

How does Venezuela get around oil sanctions?

Venezuela relies on a shadow fleet to help it skirt U.S. sanctions. These vessels hide their identity by using false flags and false names.

Companies often take a tanker that is going to be retired and change the identity, put on a new coat of paint and make sure transponders – devices that transmit radio signals to give a map reading – are doctored so that it looks like the ship is in a different place altogether.

These ships arrive in Venezuela, pick up oil and then set sail. Sometimes they then transfer the cargo to another ship – which carries huge environmental risks. And then it arrives typically in Malaysia, where it takes on a Malaysian identity and on it goes to China.

What impact has this latest seizure had on the price of oil?

The seizure had little impact on global oil prices, because of exiting oversupply and due to the fact that Venezuela makes up only around 1% of the overall market. That could change, depending on how aggressive the U.S. gets. But the Trump administration will be mindful that it doesn’t want to see domestic prices rise as a result.

As to the price of Venezuelan oil, that could be more drastic. Venezuelan oil is already sold at a discount on the black market because of the existing risk relating to the sanctions. This latest action is likely to widen these discounts even further.

In addition, Venezuela has until now required companies to pay some of the payment for oil cargo upfront – and a lot will be unwilling to do so now, due to high costs involved in a U.S. seizure. For example, a tanker of 2 million barrels, even with the current discount, will be worth around US$100 millon – no one wants to risk that much money. So very few buyers will be willing to prepay. Instead they will expect Venezuela to share the risk.

The bottom line for Maduro is that the only way to get someone to buy Venezuelan oil amid the heightened risk of this moment is to offer higher discounts with fewer prepayments. Besides discounts, export volumes could also be affected and that in turn would lead to production cuts, which are costly to reverse.

And all this will further choke off the already limited revenue that Maduro is relying on to keep Venezuela’s government functioning.

Francisco J. Monaldi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Black-market oil buyers will push Venezuela for bigger discounts following US seizure – starving Maduro of much-needed revenue – https://theconversation.com/black-market-oil-buyers-will-push-venezuela-for-bigger-discounts-following-us-seizure-starving-maduro-of-much-needed-revenue-271896

Source: The Conversation – USA – By John E. Jones III, President, Dickinson College

The public has been hearing from a lot of federal judges over the past year, much more than normal. That’s because many of them are concerned about the Trump administration’s commitment to the rule of law.

Dickinson College President John E. Jones III was appointed as a federal judge by President George W. Bush and spent 20 years on the bench after being confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 2002. Jones spoke with The Conversation U.S. senior politics editor, Naomi Schalit, about America’s legal landscape after almost a year of Donald Trump’s presidency.

What does the case just argued at the Supreme Court about the president’s ability to fire leaders at independent agencies tell you about Donald Trump’s presidency?

We’ve seen a progression over time, with both Republican and Democratic presidents, where there’s been a stronger and stronger chief executive. But there’s been nothing like this administration, where the president has fired members of heretofore independent agencies. Having listened to oral arguments, which at times can be misleading, there’s very little question that the Supreme Court is going to overturn the “Humphreys Executor” precedent.

---

Read more:
Supreme Court ignores precedent instead of overruling it in allowing president to fire officials whom Congress tried to make independent

---

What it means is that this president will have the opportunity to
utterly remake all of these independent agencies now. He’s going to take people out, root and branch, and put folks in who are either with the program or they’re not going to get appointed.

So this case is emblematic of Trump’s approach to presidential power?

He does not recognize and does not want among his appointees – certainly we see this in the Cabinet – any modicum of independence. You’re either with him 100% or you’re against him. Now that will extend to these independent agencies, and that means that the measured sort of regulations that have existed for a long time are going to be disrupted and maybe even eliminated.

This year has seen unusual amounts of activity in the Supreme Court’s shadow docket. What is the significance of that?

This is the court’s emergency docket. If the court takes these cases, they order a very abbreviated briefing and they decide the matter very quickly. Typically, this is a problem for lower court judges, as the cases are decided with very little explanation.

Sometimes months and months intervene before the court gets back to that case and renders a full and complete determination. One example would be the birthright citizenship case that came up to the court on the shadow docket. The court rendered an interim decision about whether U.S. District Court judges could issue orders stopping nationwide enforcement of Trump policies. They didn’t rule on the merits of the birthright citizenship case.

Since then, there have been conflicting decisions across the country. You have circuits that have ruled on the question and other circuits that haven’t ruled on it at all. So depending on where you live in the United States, you may or may not be subject to what heretofore has been the accepted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

This administration’s clear strategy – to flood the zone by simply challenging every adverse decision against it in the lower courts – means there are an unprecedented number of cases coming up to the Supreme Court. It just means that there’s utter confusion in the lower courts, and it’s been the subject of a lot of dissatisfaction among lower court judges. It really puts the federal court system into a state of uncertainty and chaos, and obviously it’s not good for the public.

U.S. attorneys are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Congress limits how long interim U.S. attorneys can serve in these positions. But the Trump administration has circumvented those limits, keeping a number of interim U.S. attorneys on the job past the 120-day limit. These cases have been challenged in court. Why is this conflict notable?

What the president has attempted to do flies in the face of legislation that says that these interim appointments are limited to 120 days. Every court has found that the president’s appointment or attempted appointment beyond the first 120 days is unlawful and unconstitutional. It is a limitation on the president’s power.

If the president’s version were correct, you could just have endless interim appointments without any involvement by the Senate. This is a place where the courts have, in effect, upheld the integrity of the advice-and-consent system and the constitutional role of the Senate.

Trump ordered the Department of Justice to prosecute James Comey and Letitia James, among others. He has also granted massive numbers of pardons and commutations. What are your thoughts on these?

My takeaway as an American citizen and as a former judge is that at bottom, President Trump simply lacks respect for our system of justice.

I don’t think you can find otherwise when on your first day in office you issue over 1,000 pardons for people who were justifiably convicted or pled guilty to what was, by any account, an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. He has pardoned countless people since then, including a former president of Honduras who his own administration prosecuted and for which there was abundant evidence that he was a drug trafficker. He’s blowing up boats in the Caribbean without, in my view, any rationale that’s grounded in law. The president believes the law is whatever he says it is at any given moment.

As to the Department of Justice, I think that’s one of the most worrisome things about this administration. There is a seamless interface between the White House and the Department of Justice that is problematic, and it is quite clear that the Department of Justice will do anything that the president wants.

I think we’re in a very, very difficult and dark place when the president by fiat can simply order his attorney general to prosecute a person. And I think every American should worry about a world where that takes place without any buffer.

The administration has a documented pattern of disobeying or sidestepping court orders. Your thoughts?

The way our system is supposed to work is that people can disagree with lower court decisions, but they have to obey them, unless they’re stayed by application to a higher court. The administration seems to have decided that they’re going to write U.S. district judges out of the picture and simply disregard their orders.

When I served as a U.S. District Court judge, I always understood that I had pretty awesome power to do things. That power was to be used sparingly and carefully, but when I ordered something, I expected that that order would be followed.

That is the nature of the rule of law and our system of justice that now has been turned on its head by this administration.

The second point is that I would wish that our Supreme Court
would take a stronger stand against this kind of gamesmanship in the lower courts. Those who serve in the third branch – the nation’s courts – are all in this together. There has to be more attention given to an administration that has really gone rogue in terms of how they treat the orders of U.S. District Court judges.

I don’t think the public has ever heard more from judges or former judges or retired judges than they are hearing right now. That includes you, president of a university, former federal judge, saying things that I think the public isn’t accustomed to hearing from either current or former judges. What’s going on?

What’s happening is that judges who come from all stripes, philosophically and party affiliations, are deeply concerned and offended about the tenor of the times, and they feel the need, as I do, to become active and to rally to the support of our system of justice. Imperfect though it may be, I’ve always regarded it as the fairest and best system in the world.

John E. Jones III is affiliated with Keep Our Republic’s Article Three Coalition.

– ref. As a former federal judge, I’m concerned by a year of challenges to the US justice system – https://theconversation.com/as-a-former-federal-judge-im-concerned-by-a-year-of-challenges-to-the-us-justice-system-271571

Source: The Conversation – USA – By David Toews, Associate Professor of Biology, Penn State

People typically think about evolution as a linear process where, within a species, the classic adage of “survival of the fittest” is constantly at play. New DNA mutations arise and get passed from parents to offspring. If any genetic changes prove to be beneficial, they might give those young a survival edge.

Over the great span of time – through the slow closing of a land bridge here or the rise of a mountain range there – species eventually split. They go on evolving slowly along their own trajectories with their own unique mutations. That’s the process that over the past 3.5 billion years has created the millions of branches on the evolutionary tree of life.

However, new genome sequencing data reveals an unexpected twist to this long evolutionary story. It turns out that the boundaries between species on their own branches of this tree are a little more permeable than previously thought. Rather than waiting around for new mutations to solve a particular problem, interbreeding between different species can introduce ready-made genetic advantages.

Unraveling the story of life, one genome at a time

As an evolutionary biologist, I’ve been studying the stories written in the genomes of animals for over two decades. I focus mostly on colorful songbirds called wood warblers that hail from North, Central and South America. There are approximately 115 species in total, and they come in a dazzling array of bright colors.

Some of these birds might be familiar to you, such as the brilliant Blackburnian warbler (Setophaga fusca), which lights up the tops of the pine trees in the eastern forests of the U.S. and Canada during spring and summer. Other warbler species might be less familiar, like the pink-headed warbler (Cardellina versicolor), which lives only in the highlands of Guatemala and southern Mexico.

The story of these New World warblers was written within the past 10 million years or so – relatively recently in evolutionary terms. They’re all, in effect, “evolutionary neighbors,” sitting next to each other at the tips of the crown of the tree of life. In my team’s most recent work, led by evolutionary biologist Kevin Bennett, we gathered a massive amount of data from warbler genomes – over 2 trillion base pairs, from nearly every species of warbler – to learn more about their evolutionary history.

We found that some species have unexpectedly leaped over evolutionary hurdles by sharing solutions to evolutionary problems. We are now learning from this kind of data that species aren’t just vertical, evolutionary silos, as we once thought. Instead, there is much more horizontal “cross talk” among the branches of the evolutionary tree.

These warblers now join Amazonian butterflies, cichlid fish in Africa, as well as our own hominid lineage, as exemplars of this process of evolutionary sharing.

How does evolutionary sharing actually occur?

Genetic sharing among evolutionary neighbors all happens through hybrids: the offspring produced when individuals from two species mate. Famous hybrids include offspring between polar and grizzly bears – affectionately called “pizzly” bears – as well as mules, the offspring of horses and donkeys.

But unlike mules, which are sterile and cannot reproduce, in instances of natural warbler hybrids, we think these rare offspring can sometimes “backcross”: They breed with one of the parental species, ultimately moving genes across species boundaries. These hybrids are the genetic conduit by which genes are shared across the branches in the evolutionary tree.

But aren’t we all taught in biology class that species can’t interbreed with other species? Isn’t that what helps define a species?

In reality, biology always has its exceptions and fuzzy edges. And this is one: Species result from the very gradual process of speciation, which typically takes millions of years. The taxonomic boxes we humans like to put around “species” don’t typically capture the blurry borders around lineages early in this long process, when otherwise distinct plants and animals can still interbreed.

Indeed, my lab has described many interspecies and intergenus hybrids in warblers, including at least one arising from both. We’ve also identified “hybrid zones” between very closely related species, where hybridization is rampant.

And if the genes within these hybrids are beneficial in the recipient species, they’ll spread – just like a new, beneficial mutation passed to an offspring. In this case, it’s not just a single mutation but can be a whole new complement of mutations in multiple genes.

Shared genes solve ‘evolutionary problems’

Our most recent work in wood warblers shows that the evolutionary solutions they’re sharing are related to their coloration.

In this family of birds, we previously identified genes related to their carotenoid-based coloration. Carotenoid pigments give birds their brilliant orange, yellow and red plumes – colors that are exemplified by the aptly named yellow warbler. But birds, like all vertebrates, can’t synthesize carotenoid pigments on their own. They need to obtain carotenoids from their diet and then chemically process them.

But processing carotenoids appears to be an evolutionary hurdle that not all birds have jumped and a rather difficult problem to solve. Our genome sequencing shows that these warblers have more shared carotenoid genes than other shared genes in their genome, and it’s likely that different versions of carotenoid-processing genes improve the recipients fitness.

One carotenoid-processing gene, called beta-carotene oxygenase 2, or BCO2, has been shared several times within this single family of birds. Moreover, BCO2 appears to be so popular that it shows second-order sharing: passing from one species to another, and then on to a third.

A sign of quality on the mating circuit

My colleagues and I think these genes are so popular because male warblers use these carotenoid colors to attract females that have a discerning eye. Male birds obtain carotenoids from the insects they eat. The idea is that the more colorful a male is, the higher the quality of its diet.

From across the forest, the males’ rich carotenoid colors are signaling that they’d be good dads with good genes. Biologists call this kind of display an “honest signal.” And if males obtain a new gene that allows them to process carotenoids more efficiently, it’s likely to spread faster and farther into the species, as the brighter males will potentially have greater mating success.

Our research with warblers demonstrates how evolution can shuffle genes across the thin lines between species. These close evolutionary neighbors sometimes share DNA, including potentially beneficial mutations, by mating across the species lines defined by humans’ classification systems.

We suspect that the more we look, the more we’ll find this kind of borrowing among evolutionary neighbors. As we unravel the stories told in the genomes of nature’s problem-solvers, it’s likely we’ll find that their threads are deeply intertwined.

David Toews works for Pennsylvania State University. He receives funding from The National Science Foundation.

– ref. Songbirds swap colorful plumage genes across species lines among their evolutionary neighbors – https://theconversation.com/songbirds-swap-colorful-plumage-genes-across-species-lines-among-their-evolutionary-neighbors-268846