Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Carlo Rindi Nuzzolo, Postdoctoral Fellow in Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles

Today the world of Egyptology faces a silent crisis – not of looting, although that plays a part, but of disconnection. Walk into any major museum, from Copenhagen to California, and you see glass cases filled with what could be called orphaned artifacts: remarkable objects, often acquired in the 19th and early 20th century, that have been completely stripped of their histories. You can see what they are – a mummy’s painted foot case, a golden mask – but we have no idea where they came from. They are beautiful, but historically they are mute.

Many objects entered museum collections at times when excavation and collecting practices were very different from today. In the past, excavated objects were often divided between institutions around the world, and display was prioritized over documentation. Over time, connections between pieces were lost. As a result, museums around the world hold remarkable artifacts whose backstories are thin, fragmentary or missing altogether.

Archaeologists like me working in the field today regularly uncover fragments: broken pieces of objects that once formed part of something larger. In some cases, those fragments may share the same underlying geometry with objects already held in museums. For example, a mummy’s foot case and a newly found shard may have been produced using the same mold, so they share a consistent three-dimensional form even if they are now separated by time, distance and absence of documentation.

Traditionally, evaluating whether a fragment matches up with a specific museum object has relied on visual judgment and incomplete records, rather than a quantitative comparison of shape.

This gap between excavation archaeology and museum collections is one of the most persistent challenges in the field. My research asks a simple question: Can we use digital tools to test whether fragments and museum objects might be related and, in doing so, recover parts of their histories that were previously inaccessible?

A long-standing problem in archaeology

Archaeology is, by nature, fragmentary. Objects break, decay or are disturbed over centuries. Traditionally, archaeologists have relied on visual inspection, stylistic comparison and written records to propose connections between fragments and objects. These approaches are still essential, but they also have limits. Visual judgments can be subjective, and archival documentation is often incomplete or inconsistent.

As a result, many potential links between excavated material and museum artifacts have remained speculative or have never been proposed at all. An object in a museum may appear complete yet still have a fragmented history. Without a way to test relationships systematically, fragments often remain sidelined as secondary or uninformative.

More than a century ago, the archaeologist Flinders Petrie argued that an object’s value lies not in its beauty but in the information it carries. An unremarkable fragment with a known history, he believed, could be more important than a finely made object without one. Today, digital tools are giving archaeologists new ways to put that idea into practice.

Turning objects into data that can be compared

One of those tools is 3D scanning. Using portable scanners, it is now possible to capture the full surface geometry of an object with high precision, without touching or damaging it. Every curve, contour and variation in thickness can be recorded digitally.

Once scanned, an artifact becomes more than an image. It becomes data: a detailed digital model that can be rotated, measured, compared and analyzed. Importantly, this process is noninvasive. Fragile objects do not need to be moved, dismantled or physically tested.

For archaeologists and museum curators, this process opens up new possibilities. Objects held in different institutions, or fragments stored in excavation archives, can be compared digitally, even if the originals never leave their locations.

Scanning is only the first step. The real challenge lies in comparison. Rather than asking whether two pieces look similar, computational shape analysis allows researchers to ask a more precise question: How similar are their shapes?

In simple terms, the computer compares the geometry of two surfaces. It looks at curvature, thickness and spatial relationships, measuring how closely one surface matches another. It’s like comparing a kind of geometric fingerprint.

This approach doesn’t replace expert judgment. Instead, it supports it by providing measurable evidence that can confirm, refine or challenge visual impressions. It allows archaeologists to move from intuition to testing.

When a fragment meets a museum object

In a recent study published in the journal Heritage Science, I applied these methods to Graeco-Roman Egyptian funerary artifacts made of cartonnage, a composite material of linen, plaster and paint.

I created high-resolution 3D scans of excavated cartonnage fragments and compared them with an intact funerary mask held in a museum collection. The goal was not to reconstruct the object physically but to test whether their shapes were compatible in meaningful ways.

The comparison focused on three-dimensional geometry rather than decoration. This matters because cartonnage masks were often shaped in molds: If two objects were formed in the same mold, they can share highly consistent curvature and thickness patterns even when their painted surfaces differ.

I used a distance-mapping approach called deviation mapping. After aligning the 3D model of an excavated fragment to the corresponding region of the intact museum object, the algorithm calculates the distances between the two surfaces at thousands of points. Areas where the distances were consistently small are geometrically very similar. Areas with consistently larger distances indicate that the fragment’s shape diverges from the reference surface.

In this case, the surfaces corresponded closely, with differences generally of less than a millimeter – a level of agreement consistent with production in the same mold rather than a coincidental visual resemblance.

What mattered most was not a single “match” but the ability to evaluate relationships transparently and reproducibly, using shared digital evidence.

One of the most powerful aspects of this approach is that it works across distance. Researchers can easily share digital models, allowing them to compare fragments and objects held in different institutions, without transporting fragile artifacts. Excavation archives, museum collections and research institutions can begin to speak the same digital language, reconnecting evidence that has long been separated by geography and history.

Digital tools are reshaping collections research

The work I describe here, part of my recent CRAFT Project, does not use artificial intelligence or machine learning. It relies on computer-based shape comparison and careful interpretation of metrological results. But it sits within a broader movement in heritage research.

Across the world, researchers and institutions are beginning to combine 3D scanning with machine learning to explore collections in different ways. For example, the EU-funded RePAIR project uses AI and robotics to help reassemble fragmented archaeological artifacts, while major institutions such as the Smithsonian are experimenting with AI-driven analysis of large 3D collections.

Together, these projects point to a future in which digital tools play an increasingly active role in how museums and archaeologists understand the past.

Digital archaeology is sometimes associated with flashy reconstructions or virtual displays. But its deeper value lies elsewhere. By giving fragments a new analytical role, digital methods allow archaeologists to recover relationships that were long thought irretrievably lost.

New digital methodologies are breathing new life into a long-standing archaeological principle: Modest fragments can carry outsized significance when they clarify an object’s origins and its lost context, finally allowing it to find its way back home.

The CRAFT Project (www.craft-project.net), led by Dr. Carlo Rindi Nuzzolo from 2022 to 2025, received research funding from the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Scheme.

– ref. 3D scanning and shape analysis help archaeologists connect objects across space and time to recover their lost histories – https://theconversation.com/3d-scanning-and-shape-analysis-help-archaeologists-connect-objects-across-space-and-time-to-recover-their-lost-histories-273077

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Emily Hemendinger, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

Olympians – athletes at the top of their sport and in prime health – are idolized and often viewed as superhuman. These athletes spend their lives focusing on building physical strength through rigorous training and diets that are honed to provide the nutrients necessary to excel at their sport.

However, athletes are at considerable risk for eating disorders and having an unhealthy relationship with food and their bodies.

The distinctive lifestyle of elite athletes can create a hotbed for eating disorders and disordered eating, meaning restrictive, compulsive, irregular or inflexible eating patterns, all of which can occur on a spectrum.

In 2019, 19% of male and 45% of female athletes worldwide experienced disordered eating behaviors, according to the International Olympic Committee. For perspective, in the general population, about 9% to 10% of Americans will have an eating disorder in their lifetime.

Several Winter Olympians, including cross-country skier Jessie Diggins, Alpine skier Alice Merryweather and figure skaters Gracie Gold, Adam Rippon and Yulia Lipnitskaya, have spoken about their experience with an eating disorder and disordered eating. Lipnitskaya, one of the youngest Winter Olympic gold medalists, retired at age 19 due to her battle with anorexia, a few short years after winning her 2014 team gold medal in Sochi, Russia.

As a specialist in eating disorders and anxiety, I regularly work with athletes and clients who experience eating disorders and disordered relationships with food and exercise. Based on my clinical and personal experience, I believe that the public can learn to better support athletes with eating disorders by considering the unique risk factors they face.

How perfectionism makes athletes vulnerable

One contributing factor for disordered eating is an athlete’s temperament, since certain traits also show up as risk factors for eating disorders.

For example, an athlete’s constant desire to improve and their intense attention to detail can border on perfectionism and obsessiveness. An unrelenting focus on achievement and competitiveness are all associated with heightened risks of developing an eating disorder. Personality traits such as mental toughness, discipline, high pain tolerance and persistence may also lead to worsened eating disorder risk and behaviors in athletes.

These traits are also common risk factors for nonathletes but are often viewed as positive traits in athletes since they lead to high achievement and attainment. For instance, an athlete might restrict food intake to find focus, or delay eating to achieve a specific goal that day. Or they might engage in compulsive exercise regardless of hunger or injury, chalking it up to discipline.

What’s more, in athletes, typical signs of an eating disorder, such as training for long hours without appropriate breaks for meals or obsessing about only consuming certain healthy foods, can be overlooked due to the normalization of these behaviors in high-level sports.

An emphasis on leanness and muscular prowess

The primary sports where eating disorders traditionally surface are gymnastics, wrestling, dancing, bodybuilding and figure skating, since these are sports where weight and body image often come into play.

About 46% of athletes in so-called “leanness” sports have an eating disorder, compared with almost 20% of athletes in sports that are not weight-focused. That’s because athletes in weight-sensitive sports experience far more emphasis and demand on having a thin and muscular body, which often involves weight monitoring as part of their training or competition.

Athletes in these sports also experience high demands of constant competition, rigidity around their dieting and exercise schedule, high energy output and an incredibly high mental and physical strain on their bodies.

External factors can also put an athlete at risk for an eating disorder. For instance, in various sports like running, rock climbing and figure skating, there is a long-running belief that being at a lower weight will improve an athlete’s performance. This can lead to disordered behavior that may initially feel beneficial to performance; however, it can negatively affect performance and health over the long run. External pressure, such as weight stigma and pressure from coaches and family, media and societal standards of fitness and team culture around dieting and weight, also place athletes at high risk for eating disorders.

‘No pain, no gain’ culture

Another serious factor regarding eating disorders in high-level athletes is that a very small percentage of them seek treatment. A 2021 study found that among U.S. athletes who experienced disordered eating or had an official diagnosis, more than 95% were not in treatment and 75% had no intention of seeking it. For perspective, the help-seeking rate for those with disordered eating or eating disorders in the general population is between 32% and 40%., compared with around 5.4% in athletes.

In competitive sports, a “no pain, no gain” mentality can often directly and indirectly reward athletes who push themselves to the extreme. As a result, athletes may be less likely to seek treatment and to come forward with their issues for fear of not wanting to have restrictions on their practice and competition put in place, of being ostracized from their teammates or of losing sponsorship or scholarship opportunities.

Along with this comes a lack of awareness about eating disorders, stigma and unhealthy attitudes and assumptions toward mental health from coaches and other athletic personnel, all of which can impede an athlete’s likelihood of seeking care. Ultimately, seeking and receiving treatment can be difficult for athletes because athletes face sacrificing time away from their sport, which is often their livelihood.

Protective factors

Despite the stacked risk factors, athletes also have some protective factors against eating disorders working in their favor. For instance, exercising regularly and noncompulsively is associated with improved mental health. And participating in sports that emphasize body functionality over physical appearance can have a positive effect on athletes’ overall well-being.

Strong relationships between athletes and coaches who focus on creating a safe and supportive environment that prioritizes mental health – along with person-oriented coaching styles, rather than negative, performance-oriented coaching – can also be protective against disordered eating.

One preventive strategy that the International Olympic Committee has been working on is focusing on improving pre-competition assessment of health. This assessment will focus on an athlete’s body composition and other determinants of health, such as vital signs, to determine if they are fit to perform in the upcoming qualifiers and Olympic games. These guidelines may allow athletes to get much-needed help and support.

Athletes are not superhuman

Despite the perception of superhuman qualities, athletes who experience eating disorders experience all of the same consequences of eating disorders as the general population. But athletes also have higher risk of injury, decreased strength and endurance, and worsened athletic performance over time due to low energy availability and fatigue, and are more likely to experience anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation in their lifetime.

Research shows that early detection of disordered behaviors, awareness of eating disorders in athletics, and education for athletes, families and coaches are all strong prevention strategies.

Athletes often require a multi-disciplinary team to support them. This may include a therapist, psychiatrist, sports psychologist, registered dietitian, medical doctor, physical therapist, occupational therapist or any combination of these. This team can assist the athlete in stabilizing medications, improving nutritional intake and recognizing differences between athletic dedication and disordered behavior.

It is also critically important for family to be involved and that the athletes’ entire support system – as well as the public – remember that athletes are humans, with real emotions and struggles, just like the rest of us.

Emily Hemendinger 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. The intensity and perfectionism that drive Olympic athletes also put them at high risk for eating disorders – https://theconversation.com/the-intensity-and-perfectionism-that-drive-olympic-athletes-also-put-them-at-high-risk-for-eating-disorders-273430

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Christopher Lieu, Professor of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

An increasing number of people are dying of colorectal cancer at a young age, including those as young as 20. Actor James Van Der Beek, who was diagnosed with colorectal cancer in 2023, died at age 48 on Feb. 11, 2026, bringing the disease back into the limelight.

The Conversation U.S. asked gastrointestinal oncologist Christopher Lieu and cancer researcher Andrea Dwyer to explain what’s known about early-onset colon cancer and what young people can do to protect themselves.

Why are more young people getting colorectal cancer?

Researchers have identified a number of factors associated with increasing numbers of young people developing colorectal cancer, but there is no one clear answer that explains this trend.

Lifestyle factors like ultra-processed foods and alcohol, as well as lack of exercise, have been linked to early-onset colorectal cancer. However, these are correlations that aren’t proven to be the cause of colorectal cancer in young adults.

Many researchers are focusing on the gut microbiome, which is an ecosystem of microorganisms in your gut that helps your body digest food and carry out other important functions. When the microbes in the gut are out of balance – a condition called dysbiosis – this causes a disruption that allows for inflammation and negative health effects, including increased cancer risk.

What increases your risk of developing colorectal cancer?

Beyond genetics, several lifestyle factors can increase your risk of developing colorectal cancer.

For example, someone’s diet plays a role in cancer risk. Eating a lot of red meat and processed foods and not enough dietary fiber can increase your risk of colorectal cancer. Alcohol also causes cancer – even having less than one drink a day can increase your cancer risk.

Smoking, obesity and lack of exercise are other factors that increase cancer risk.

What’s the survival rate for young people with colon cancer?

There is a lot of debate among researchers on whether there are differences in survival rates between those with early-onset colorectal cancer survival and those who develop the disease after age 50.

Finding cancer at an early stage can lead to five-year survival rates as high as 80% to 90%. When cancer is detected at an advanced stage where it has spread to other parts of the body, survival rates are closer to 10% to 15%.

One study found that young patients with metastatic colon cancer had a slightly lower survival rate compared with those age 50 or older.

What are early symptoms of colorectal cancer?

The most common signs and symptoms for early-onset colorectal cancer are blood in the stool, abdominal pain and a change in bowel habits, or any combination of these conditions. Unexplained anemia, or low red blood cell levels, is another potential symptom. These are warning signs that people should not ignore.

Having these symptoms does not necessarily mean you have colorectal cancer, but they are worth discussing with a physician. In some cases, your doctor may request a colonoscopy for further evaluation.

How does colon cancer screening work?

The first step is to have a conversation with your health care team about which test is right for you. Understanding what your risk category is helps guide screening, prevention and lifestyle changes to reduce your likelihood of colorectal cancer.

People with an average risk for colorectal cancer typically have no personal or significant family history of colorectal cancer, hereditary cancer, precancerous polyps or inflammatory bowel disease. They have several options for screening, including stool tests that check for blood and abnormal cells, as well as imaging scans to visualize the colon and rectum. Screening is recommended to begin at age 45 and should continue at regular intervals until age 75.

People with a high risk of colon cancer typically have a personal or family history of colorectal cancer, hereditary cancer or inflammatory bowel disease. They may also have several lifestyle risk factors. Colonoscopy is the only recommended screening test for those with high risk, and earlier and more frequent screening may be necessary.

How can you reduce your risk of colon cancer?

Communication and action are key. Talk to your health care team about your personal risk based on your age, family history and any signs and symptoms to ensure you’re matched with the screening exam and test best for you.

Take charge of your health. There are lifestyle factors you can control to reduce your personal risk of colorectal cancer. These include regular physical activity; a diet high in fruit, vegetables and fiber, and low in processed meats; and maintaining a healthy weight. Moderating or eliminating alcohol and tobacco use can also reduce your colorectal cancer risk.

Share information with loved ones and your health care team. Knowing your personal and family history of polyps or colorectal cancer and communicating it with your doctor can help ensure you get the right test at the right time. Sharing your personal history could save the lives of your children, siblings and parents.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Colorectal cancer is increasing among young people, as James Van Der Beek’s death reminds us – cancer experts explain ways to decrease your risk – https://theconversation.com/colorectal-cancer-is-increasing-among-young-people-as-james-van-der-beeks-death-reminds-us-cancer-experts-explain-ways-to-decrease-your-risk-275886

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Alnoor Ebrahim, Professor of International Business, The Fletcher School & Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts University

OpenAI, the maker of the most popular AI chatbot, used to say it aimed to build artificial intelligence that “safely benefits humanity, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return,” mission statement. But the ChatGPT maker seems to no longer have the same emphasis on doing so “safely.”

While reviewing its latest IRS disclosure form, which was released in November 2025 and covers 2024, I noticed OpenAI had removed “safely” from its mission statement, among other changes. That change in wording coincided with its transformation from a nonprofit organization into a business increasingly focused on profits.

OpenAI currently faces several lawsuits related to its products’ safety, making this change newsworthy. Many of the plaintiffs suing the AI company allege psychological manipulation, wrongful death and assisted suicide, while others have filed negligence claims.

As a scholar of nonprofit accountability and the governance of social enterprises, I see the deletion of the word “safely” from its mission statement as a significant shift that has largely gone unreported – outside highly specialized outlets.

And I believe OpenAI’s makeover is a test case for how we, as a society, oversee the work of organizations that have the potential to both provide enormous benefits and do catastrophic harm.

Tracing OpenAI’s origins

OpenAI, which also makes the Sora video artificial intelligence app, was founded as a nonprofit scientific research lab in 2015. Its original purpose was to benefit society by making its findings public and royalty-free rather than to make money.

To raise the money that developing its AI models would require, OpenAI, under the leadership of CEO Sam Altman, created a for-profit subsidiary in 2019. Microsoft initially invested US$1 billion in this venture; by 2024 that sum had topped $13 billion.

In exchange, Microsoft was promised a portion of future profits, capped at 100 times its initial investment. But the software giant didn’t get a seat on OpenAI’s nonprofit board – meaning it lacked the power to help steer the AI venture it was funding.

A subsequent round of funding in late 2024, which raised $6.6 billion from multiple investors, came with a catch: that the funding would become debt unless OpenAI converted to a more traditional for-profit business in which investors could own shares, without any caps on profits, and possibly occupy board seats.

Establishing a new structure

In October 2025, OpenAI reached an agreement with the attorneys general of California and Delaware to become a more traditional for-profit company.

Under the new arrangement, OpenAI was split into two entities: a nonprofit foundation and a for-profit business.

The restructured nonprofit, the OpenAI Foundation, owns about one-fourth of the stock in a new for-profit public benefit corporation, the OpenAI Group. Both are headquartered in California but incorporated in Delaware.

A public benefit corporation is a business that must consider interests beyond shareholders, such as those of society and the environment, and it must issue an annual benefit report to its shareholders and the public. However, it is up to the board to decide how to weigh those interests and what to report in terms of the benefits and harms caused by the company.

The new structure is described in a signed in October 2025 by OpenAI and the California attorney general, and endorsed by the Delaware attorney general.

Many business media outlets heralded the move, predicting that it would usher in more investment. Two months later, SoftBank, a Japanese conglomerate, finalized a $41 billion investment in OpenAI.

Changing its mission statement

Most charities must file forms annually with the Internal Revenue Service with details about their missions, activities and financial status to show that they qualify for tax-exempt status. Because the IRS makes the forms public, they have become a way for nonprofits to signal their missions to the world.

In its forms for 2022, , OpenAI said its mission was “to build general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) that safely benefits humanity, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return.”

That mission statement has changed, as of – which the company filed with the IRS in late 2025. It became “to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.”

OpenAI had dropped its commitment to safety from its mission statement – along with a commitment to being “unconstrained” by a need to make money for investors. According to Platformer, a tech media outlet, it has also disbanded its “mission alignment” team.

In my view, these changes explicitly signal that OpenAI is making its profits a higher priority than the safety of its products.

To be sure, OpenAI continues to mention safety when it discusses its mission. “We view this mission as the most important challenge of our time,” it states on its website. “It requires simultaneously advancing AI’s capability, safety, and positive impact in the world.”

Revising its legal governance structure

Nonprofit boards are responsible for key decisions and upholding their organization’s mission.

Unlike private companies, board members of tax-exempt charitable nonprofits cannot personally enrich themselves by taking a share of earnings. In cases where a nonprofit owns a for-profit business, as OpenAI did with its previous structure, investors can take a cut of profits – but they typically do not get a seat on the board or have an opportunity to elect board members, because that would be seen as a conflict of interest.

The OpenAI Foundation now has a 26% stake in OpenAI Group. In effect, that means that the nonprofit board has given up nearly three-quarters of its control over the company. Software giant Microsoft owns a slightly larger stake – 27% of OpenAI’s stock – due to its $13.8 billion investment in the AI company to date. OpenAI’s employees and its other investors own the rest of the shares.

Seeking more investment

The main goal of OpenAI’s restructuring, which it called a “recapitalization,” was to attract more private investment in the race for AI dominance.

It has already succeeded on that front.

As of early February 2026, the company was in talks with SoftBank for an additional $30 billion and stands to get up to a total of $60 billion from Amazon, Nvidia and Microsoft combined.

OpenAI is now valued at over $500 billion, up from $300 billion in March 2025. The new structure also paves the way for an eventual initial public offering, which, if it happens, would not only help the company raise more capital through stock markets but would also increase the pressure to make money for its shareholders.

OpenAI says the foundation’s endowment is worth about $130 billion.

Those numbers are only estimates because OpenAI is a privately held company without publicly traded shares. That means these figures are based on market value estimates rather than any objective evidence, such as market capitalization.

When he announced the new structure, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said, “We secured concessions that ensure charitable assets are used for their intended purpose.” He also predicted that “safety will be prioritized” and said the “top priority is, and always will be, protecting our kids.”

Steps that might help keep people safe

At the same time, several conditions in the OpenAI restructuring memo are designed to promote safety, including:

1. A safety and security committee on the OpenAI Foundation board has the authority to that could potentially include the halting of a release of new OpenAI products based on assessments of their risks.

2. The for-profit OpenAI Group has its own board, which must consider only OpenAI’s mission – rather than financial issues – regarding safety and security issues.

3. The OpenAI Foundation’s nonprofit board gets to appoint all members of the OpenAI Group’s for-profit board.

But given that neither the mission of the foundation nor of the OpenAI group explicitly alludes to safety, it will be hard to hold their boards accountable for it.

Furthermore, since all but one board member currently serve on both boards, it is hard to see how they might oversee themselves. And doesn’t indicate whether he was aware of the removal of any reference to safety from the mission statement.

Identifying other paths OpenAI could have taken

There are alternative models that I believe would serve the public interest better than this one.

When Health Net, a California nonprofit health maintenance organization, converted to a for-profit insurance company in 1992, regulators required that 80% of its equity be transferred to another nonprofit health foundation. Unlike with OpenAI, the foundation had majority control after the transformation.

A coalition of California nonprofits has argued that the attorney general should require OpenAI to transfer all of its assets to an independent nonprofit.

Another example is The Philadelphia Inquirer. The Pennsylvania newspaper became a for-profit public benefit corporation in 2016. It belongs to the Lenfest Institute, a nonprofit.

This structure allows Philadelphia’s biggest newspaper to attract investment without compromising its purpose – journalism serving the needs of its local communities. It’s become a model for potentially transforming the local news industry.

At this point, I believe that the public bears the burden of two governance failures. One is that OpenAI’s board has apparently abandoned its mission of safety. And the other is that the attorneys general of California and Delaware have let that happen.

Alnoor Ebrahim 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. OpenAI has deleted the word ‘safely’ from its mission – and its new structure is a test for whether AI serves society or shareholders – https://theconversation.com/openai-has-deleted-the-word-safely-from-its-mission-and-its-new-structure-is-a-test-for-whether-ai-serves-society-or-shareholders-274467

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Stephen J. Smulowitz, Assistant Professor of Strategic Management, Wake Forest University

Do women board members make a company more innovative or risk averse? The answer is both, according to our recent study. It all depends on how the company performs relative to its goals.

Professors Małgorzata Smulowitz, Didier Cossin and I examined 524 S&P 1500 companies from 1999 to 2016, measuring innovation through patent activity. Patents reflect both creative output and risk-taking. They require significant investment in novel ideas that might fail, disclosure of proprietary information and substantial legal costs. In short, patents represent genuine bets on the future.

Our findings revealed a striking pattern. When companies performed poorly in relation to their goals, they produced fewer patents after more women joined their boards.

However, companies exceeding their performance targets saw increased patent output as their number of women directors grew. Similarly, when companies were financially flush, there were more patents generated when their boards had more women.

The situation changed when we examined radical innovations, those patents in the top 10% of citations. For these high-risk, high-reward innovations, the risk-averse effect of women board members dominated.

When a company’s performance fell below aspirations, there were fewer radical innovations as its board gained female members. We found no corresponding increase in radical innovations when performance exceeded goals.

One finding surprised us. We predicted that boards with more women would reduce innovation when companies approached bankruptcy. Instead, it was the opposite: Boards with more women actually increased patent output as bankruptcy loomed. This suggests that women directors may fight harder for a company’s survival through innovation when facing existential threats.

Why it matters

Between 2000 and 2024, the number of women on S&P 500 boards increased from 27% to 34%. But previous research has painted conflicting pictures on the effect that women board members may have. Some studies showed that women reduce corporate risk-taking, while others demonstrated they increase innovation and creativity. Our work suggests both perspectives are correct under different circumstances.

For companies and regulators pushing for greater board gender diversity, this research provides practical guidance. Companies performing well can expect increased innovation by adding women to their boards. These directors can bring diverse perspectives, improved decision-making and better resource allocation that translate into more patents.

Conversely, poorly performing companies can expect boards with more women to focus on stability over risky innovation. This isn’t necessarily negative.

Research shows that banks led by women were less likely to fail during the financial crisis, and companies with more women directors experience less financial distress. Reduced innovation during tough times may reflect prudent risk management rather than risk aversion.

Traditional theories predict that poor performance triggers risky searches for solutions. But boards with more women appear to prioritize organizational survival over uncertain innovation when performance suffers. They may assess that failed innovation attempts could worsen an already precarious situation.

This research also speaks to the “glass cliff” phenomenon, where women often join boards during crisis periods. Our findings suggest these directors may bring exactly what struggling companies need: careful risk assessment and focus on survival rather than potentially wasteful innovation spending.

What still isn’t known

We measured innovation through patents, but many innovations never become patents. How women directors affect other forms of innovation – such as copyrights, trade secrets and first-mover advantage – remains unclear.

What are the mechanisms driving the differences? Do women directors actively advocate for different innovation strategies? Do they change board discussion dynamics? Do they influence CEO and management team decisions indirectly? Future research needs to open the “black box” of boardroom decision-making.

Finally, the long-term consequences need examination. We measured patent output, but not whether the patents translated into commercial success or competitive advantage. Understanding whether the innovation patterns we documented ultimately benefit company performance would provide crucial insights for decision-makers.

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

Stephen J. Smulowitz 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. Are women board members risk averse or agents of innovation? It’s complicated, new research shows – https://theconversation.com/are-women-board-members-risk-averse-or-agents-of-innovation-its-complicated-new-research-shows-269331

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Charlie Hunt, Associate Professor of Political Science, Boise State University

On Feb. 7, 2026, Chasity Verret Martinez won a special election to fill a vacant seat in the Louisiana House. That’s an outcome that might not mean very much to people outside of the state or even outside her Baton Rouge-area district.

But Martinez is a Democrat who took 62% of the vote in a district that had given Donald Trump a 13-percentage-point victory in the 2024 presidential race. And her win came a week after Democrats seized a Texas Senate district that had supported Trump even more strongly – a result that immediately triggered concern in Republican circles.

Because fewer people turn out for special elections, they’re considered an early predictor of partisan enthusiasm heading into regularly scheduled elections. And with the 2026 midterm elections less than nine months away, analysts are already scrambling for indications of the likely outcome.

As a political scientist who studies congressional elections, I’m interested in the question of whether special elections can really tell us which way the political winds are currently blowing.

Democrats, of course, are hoping for a “blue wave” like they rode in 2018, when they picked up 40 House seats and won a majority in that chamber, while Republicans want to hang on to the very slim margins they have in both the House and Senate.

In the 2026 election cycle, as in previous ones, prognosticators and political professionals are looking to the outcomes of these intermittent races at various levels of government as a gauge of how voters are feeling about the two parties. And the results from the first 15 months of the second Trump administration appear to spell very bad news for the Republicans.

Setting a baseline

Since Election Day 2024, 88 special elections featuring candidates from both major parties have taken place for institutions including state legislatures and the U.S. House.

When analyzing the results of these races, it’s important to have figures to compare them to. After all, a Democrat just barely squeaking by in a state legislative race may not look very impressive on its face – but if that race took place in the rural heart of a red state, it could raise hackles among Republicans.

Most political analysts agree that the best available comparison point for special elections are the results for the most recent presidential election in that same district. There are a few reasons for this.

The nationalization of party politics means there are few members of Congress representing states or districts that voted for the other party for president. So the best comparison is to the only truly national election in the U.S.

Second, using presidential results creates the same baseline for all races. By comparing special election results to the prior election environment, all the special election results get compared to the same standard.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, recent midterm elections have typically served as a referendum on the party in power, particularly the president. In trying to measure how voters are reacting to Trump’s second term, it makes sense to measure their behavior against the last time Trump was on the ballot.

Are special elections predictive?

With this baseline in mind, it’s easy to compare the results of special elections in particular districts to the results of the last presidential election in that same district.

In the 2022 cycle, for example, Democrats running in special elections underperformed President Joe Biden’s 2020 results in their districts by about 4 percentage points on average, which translated into a 3-percentage-point loss nationwide in U.S. House races in the November 2022 midterms and the loss of their majority in the chamber.

Conversely, in 2018 – like this year, a midterm following a Trump election – Democrats bested Republicans by 8 percentage points in November, after overperforming Hillary Clinton’s 2016 margins in special elections throughout the previous two years by 9 percentage points on average.

The 2024 cycle is a clear exception to this pattern of regular elections closely following special election results: Prior to the presidential election, Democrats outperformed in special elections by an average of 4 percentage points but ended up losing nationally by 3 percentage points in November.

Like special elections, midterm contests tend to turn out fewer but more engaged voters than presidential years. Therefore, it may be that special elections are more predictive of midterm results than presidential cycles. At any rate, if previous midterm outcomes are any guide, the numbers being posted by Democrats in special elections so far in the 2026 cycle are impossible to ignore.

On average, they’re running ahead of Harris’s 2024 margins by a whopping 13 percentage points. That’s better than they did in 2018, when they ultimately picked up 40 seats in the House and seven governorships across the country.

What’s different about specials?

Democrats, however, may not want to pop the champagne corks just yet. Many roadblocks remain in their quest to take back control of Congress. For one thing, the U.S. Senate map remains a difficult one for Democrats. Even if they end up creating a 2018-like election environment with an unpopular president, many Senate contests are taking place in solidly red states.

It’s also always worth bearing in mind that there’s no telling how the events of the next nine months might reshape public opinion.

And special elections, while useful metrics, are far from perfect barometers of public opinion. They take place at different times, and could be just as reflective of hyperlocal factors, such as flawed candidates, as they are of nationalized partisan conditions.

Special elections tend to have far lower turnout than regular midterm or presidential contests. It’s also difficult to tell whether overperformance is due to highly motivated partisans or persuasion of independents and voters from the other party.

Using all the tools available

Still, special elections do have key advantages over traditional polling. Although polls do their best to approximate voters’ political attitudes, elections reveal these attitudes through voters’ actual, observed behavior – exactly the type of behavior that analysts are trying to predict in November.

Generally, this is preferable to asking a hypothetical in opinion polls, which are getting more difficult than ever to do well.

In the end, special elections are just one piece of the prediction puzzle. But the other puzzle pieces are also spelling out potential bad news for the GOP.

The generic ballot, a standard polling question that asks voters’ intent to vote for one party or the other in November without naming specific candidates, has the GOP about 6 percentage points behind the Democrats. Trump’s approval rating, meanwhile, continues to hover below 40%.

There’s no telling for sure whether these indicators will turn out to be truly predictive until November. But all of them should be sounding alarm bells for Republicans.

Charlie Hunt 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. Do special election results spell doom for Republicans in 2026? – https://theconversation.com/do-special-election-results-spell-doom-for-republicans-in-2026-274912