Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By George C. Homsy, Director of Environmental Studies, Associate Professor of Public Administration and Policy, Binghamton University, State University of New York

Rising energy costs consume a bigger and bigger chunk of family budgets in the United States. Our research has found that for many African American families, those costs take an extra big bite out of their incomes. This bite, the percentage of a household’s income used to pay energy bills, is called a household’s “energy burden.”

Households with high energy burdens struggle to adapt to rising prices. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that more than 12 million households keep their homes either colder or hotter than is actually comfortable, specifically in an effort to keep control of energy costs. And 24 million households report having had to forgo food or medicine at least once in the past year to pay utility bills.

Also, studies indicate that people facing high energy burdens often turn to unsafe heating sources, such as space heaters, stoves or fireplaces, and are at higher risk of asthma, depression, premature mortality and poor self-reported health. Our recent study of 2019 data found that those burdens are not spread evenly across the country or across society.

Specifically, families living in majority-Black census tracts spent 5.1% of their income on energy – significantly higher than the 3.2% share spent by average American households. Census tracts dominated by other racial groups in our study – whites, Latinos and Asian Americans – were much closer to the overall average.

Energy injustice

Often, disparities like this are attributed to income, which is indeed a factor given that Black households have a median income of $53,444, while the overall median in the U.S. is $78,538. However, our study found that even when a majority-white and a majority-Black census tract had the same median household income, the average share of household income spent on energy was higher in the majority-Black census tract.

We found two possible reasons for this difference, both rooted in race and housing situations.

First, our analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data finds that African American-majority census tracts have older homes on average than other census tracts. Older homes often have lower energy efficiency due to less insulation, single-pane windows, and gaps and cracks in the building’s structure, especially around windows, doors and chimneys. So even if a Black family earns the same income as another family, the Black family might live in an older house, requiring them to use more energy to warm or cool their homes, cook food, heat water and so on.

Also, we found that Black families are more likely to live in rental properties, where they cannot easily make energy-efficiency upgrades – such as installing new windows, insulation or appliances. At the same time, most landlords do not have an incentive to spend money to improve building efficiency because tenants usually pay utility bills. In the United States, 9 in 10 rental households pay for all or some of their energy bills and therefore face this split-incentive problem.

Many of these challenges can be attributed to the structural racism inherent in redlining. This early 20th century practice made it harder for prospective homeowners to get mortgages to buy homes in neighborhoods with high concentrations of Black people, immigrants or other minorities. That left more of the homes in those communities owned by landlords and occupied by tenants.

Even though redlining was banned in 1968, it left a legacy of underinvestment in properties, decreased property values and worse health outcomes.

Intersecting inequities

Other factors also likely intersect to impose a higher energy burden on Black families. Many of these were beyond the scope of our study but are well documented. For example, energy support programs are notoriously underfunded and often hard to access, especially for families without the time or connections to know about them or understand application requirements.

These are just some possible factors that increase the energy burden for Black families. The main lesson for policymakers is that communities are complicated. Energy efficiency upgrade programs that also seek to alleviate high energy burdens cannot be one-size-fits-all. A program for middle-class families in one neighborhood may not work in another community with older housing stock or large numbers of rental units.

To be successful, local officials designing programs that are aimed at families’ energy burdens will have to learn about the different challenges facing each distinct community – whether it’s leaky older homes, outdated water heaters, low incomes or rental split incentives. Reducing energy burdens for Black families will take more than technical fixes; it will take policies based in community engagement to build a deeper understanding of place.

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. Black families pay more to keep their houses warm than average American families – https://theconversation.com/black-families-pay-more-to-keep-their-houses-warm-than-average-american-families-269047

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Genevieve Hofmann, Assistant Professor of Nursing and Women’s Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

For more than 20 years, hormone therapy for menopause has carried a warning label from the Food and Drug Administration describing the medication’s risk of serious harms – namely, cancer, cardiovascular disease and possibly dementia.

On Nov. 10, 2025, the FDA announced that drugmakers should remove these “black box” safety warnings.

The Conversation U.S. asked Genevieve Hofmann, a women’s health nurse practitioner at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, to explain how the decision will affect health care for people going through menopause or postmenopause.

How did the FDA’s decision come about?

When people think of hormone therapy for menopause, they generally think of systemic estrogen and progestogens – for example, pills or patches that deliver hormones throughout the body.

Health care providers prescribed hormone therapy to manage symptoms of menopause such as hot flashes, night sweats and brain fog much more widely in the 1980s and 1990s than they do today. That’s because in the early 2000s, researchers analyzed data from a study called the Women’s Health Initiative and reported that hormone therapy increased the risk of breast cancer, heart disease, blood clots and stroke, as well as cognitive decline after menopause.

After this research was first published in 2002, the use of hormone therapy fell by 46% within six months – both because clinicians were reluctant to prescribe it and patients were fearful of taking it. In 2003, the FDA added black box warnings – the most serious warnings, indicating a risk of serious harm or death – to all estrogen-containing hormone products for menopause.

But researchers soon pointed out methodological flaws in the analysis. And over the past two decades, careful reanalyses of data from that study, as well as newer studies, have shown that systemic hormone therapy is very safe for most women, though there are nuances surrounding its use.

Meanwhile, women’s health experts have been increasingly vocal in the past five years in calling to remove the black box warnings from a form of hormone menopause therapy that’s applied locally, not systemically. Topical localized estrogen is applied directly to the vagina and surrounding areas, usually in the form of a cream or vaginal insert. It’s used to treat the genitourinary syndrome of menopause, which manifests as genital and urinary symptoms.

Even though topical estrogen products are extremely safe and were not evaluated in the Women’s Health Initiative study, the FDA warnings were added to them, too.

In July 2025, the FDA held an expert panel to discuss what’s currently known about the risks and benefits of hormone therapy for menopause. At the meeting, most experts urged the agency to remove the warning labels on topical vaginal estrogen products.

The Nov. 10 announcement was the outcome of that discussion, and it included both systemic and topical hormone therapy.

Why is systemic estrogen no longer considered unsafe?

Researchers are now finding that the balance of risks and benefits of systemic hormone therapy for menopause seems to depend strongly on when someone starts hormones, as well as the type, dose and length of use.

For women under 60 or within 10 years of their final period, the therapy is much safer than it is for older women. A 2017 follow-up of Women’s Health Initiative participants showed that overall deaths from any causes actually decreased in this younger cohort of menopausal women taking hormones.

For women who are more than 10 years from their final menstrual period, starting hormone therapy may increase their risk of cardiovascular disease. Researchers now refer to this as the timing hypothesis. Newer studies also support this idea.

Also, some ways of delivering hormones to the body turned out to be safer than others. Taking estrogen orally, as pills or tablets, carries a higher risk of blood clots. Those risks go away when it’s delivered through the skin using a patch, gel or spray. Many more options for hormone therapy exist today than in the early 2000s.

Additionally, it’s well established that hormone therapy improves bone health by preventing bone loss. Some studies suggest that in younger menopausal women, it may actually protect against cardiovascular disease, though this link is not yet proven and needs more study.

Unfortunately, many people missed out on the timing window. In my practice, I see patients who went through menopause 10 or 15 years ago and either didn’t get hormone therapy at the time or stopped taking it when the initial Women’s Health Initiative results came out. Now, they are hearing about the benefits, and many want to try it. But their higher cardiovascular risk may overshadow the benefit.

What about topical estrogen?

Genitourinary syndrome of menopause is ubiquitous – it affects every person with ovaries who goes through menopause, and the symptoms tend to worsen with age.

They include vaginal dryness, painful sex and urinary issues such as an increase in urgency or frequency, along with incontinence. Urinary tract infections often tend to get more frequent with menopause, particularly in older women. Treating them can require multiple courses of antibiotics.

Tissues in the genitourinary area are loaded with estrogen receptors – proteins in cells that bind the hormone. So adding some estrogen back to these areas can help restore the quality and thickness of these tissues, and possibly even promote the growth of healthy bacteria around the vagina and the urinary tract. The treatment can greatly improve quality of life and promote better health and longevity.

Despite topical estrogen’s safety and effectiveness, the FDA did not distinguish between it and systemic estrogen when adding the black box warnings in 2003. For this reason, many providers whose patients have symptoms relating to the genitourinary syndrome of menopause have been reluctant to prescribe it. Often, providers simply don’t know that it has a different safety profile than systemic estrogen.

How will removing the black box warnings affect patients?

Overall, I see this as a big win for women and their ability to manage the symptoms of menopause. I think this will make clinicians and patients far less anxious about prescribing and taking this medication.

Clinicians like me who specialize in women’s health and menopause – and who have been following the research – have been safely prescribing hormone therapy all along. But many general practitioners who often lacked either menopause-specific training or the time and resources to stay on top of the latest findings have been more reluctant to do so.

Safety concerns that led to the black box warnings, especially in regard to local vaginal estrogen, have turned out to be overblown. While clinicians still need to consider who is a good candidate for systemic hormone use, the evidence shows that for most people, it is a safe option.

Even more important, patients who were previously convinced that hormone therapy was unsafe may feel more comfortable discussing it with their provider and considering it. And if they do receive a prescription for hormone therapy, I hope that the likelihood of them starting this effective treatment is no longer hindered by reading a scary package insert that was based on outdated evidence.

While this medication is not a silver bullet that reverses aging, starting hormones at the right time can safely improve symptoms that diminish people’s quality of life. So if you’re having symptoms that are bothersome, consider asking your provider about menopause hormone therapy to help manage them.

Genevieve Hofmann has participated in advisory boards with Astellis Pharma and Mayne Pharma. She is President-elect of the Board of Directors of National Association of Nurse Practitioner’s in Women Health Board.

– ref. I treat menopause and its symptoms, and hormone replacement therapy can help – here’s the science behind the FDA’s decision to remove warnings – https://theconversation.com/i-treat-menopause-and-its-symptoms-and-hormone-replacement-therapy-can-help-heres-the-science-behind-the-fdas-decision-to-remove-warnings-269773

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Kahli Zietlow, Physician and Clinical Associate Professor of Geriatrics & Internal Medicine, University of Michigan

Hollywood legend Gene Hackman and his wife, Betsy Arakawa, were found dead in their home in February 2025. Hackman had been living with Alzheimer’s and depended on Arakawa as his full-time caregiver.

Disturbingly, postmortem data suggests that Arakawa died of complications from pulmonary Hantavirus several days before her husband passed. The discordant times of death point to a grim scenario: Hackman was left alone and helpless, trapped in his home after his wife’s death.

The couple’s story, while shocking, is not unique. It serves as a warning for our rapidly aging society. The U.S. population is aging, but most Americans are not adequately planning to meet the needs of older adulthood.

As a geriatric physician and medical educator, I care for older adults in both inpatient and outpatient settings. My research and clinical work focus on dementia and surrogate decision-making.

In my experience, regardless of race, education or socioeconomic status, there are some universal challenges that all people face with aging and there are steps everyone can take to prepare.

Aging is inevitable but unpredictable

Aging is an unpredictable, highly individualized process that varies depending on a person’s genetics, medical history, cognitive status and socioeconomic factors.

The majority of older Americans report a strong sense of purpose and self-worth. Many maintain a positive view of their overall health well into their 70s and 80s.

But at some point, the body starts to slow down. Older adults experience gradual sensory impairment, loss of muscle mass and changes in their memory. Chronic diseases are more likely with advancing age.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 46% of adults over age 75 live with at least one physical disability, and this proportion grows with age. Even those without major health issues may find that routine tasks like yard work, housekeeping and home repairs become insurmountable as they enter their 80s and 90s.

Some may find that subtle changes in memory make it difficult to manage household finances or keep track of their medications. Others may find that vision loss and slowed reaction time make it harder to safely drive. Still others may struggle with basic activities needed to live independently, such as bathing or using a toilet. All of these changes threaten older adults’ ability to remain independent.

The costs of aging

Nearly 70% of older Americans will require long-term care in their lifetime, whether through paid, in-home help or residence in an assisted living facility or nursing home.

But long-term care is expensive. In 2021, the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program reported that the average hourly rate for in-home care was US$27. An assisted living apartment averaged $4,800 per month, and a nursing home bed cost nearly double that, at a rate of $276 per day.

Many Americans may be shocked to discover that these costs are not covered by Medicare or other traditional medical insurance. Long-term care insurance covers the cost of long-term care, such as in-home care or nursing home placement. However, what is covered varies from plan to plan. Currently, only a small minority of Americans have long-term care insurance due to high premiums and complex activation rules.

I am not aware of any high-quality, peer-reviewed studies that have demonstrated the cost effectiveness of long-term care insurance. Yet, for many Americans, paying for care out of pocket is simply not an option.

Medicaid can provide financial support for long-term care but only for older adults with very low income and minimal assets – criteria most Americans don’t meet until they have nearly exhausted their savings.

Those receiving Medicaid to cover the costs of long-term care have essentially no funds for anything other than medical care, room and board. And proposed federal financial cuts may further erode the limited support services available. In Michigan, for example, Medicaid-covered nursing home residents keep only $60 per month for personal needs. If individuals receive monthly income greater than $60 – for instance, from Social Security or a pension – the extra money would go toward the cost of nursing home care.

Those who don’t qualify for Medicaid or cannot afford private care often rely on family and friends for unpaid assistance, but not everyone has such support systems.

Planning for the care you want

Beyond financial planning, older adults can make an advance directive. This is a set of legal documents that outlines preferences for medical care and asset management if a person becomes incapacitated. However, only about 25% of Americans over 50 have completed such documentation.

Without medical and financial powers of attorney in place, state laws determine who makes critical decisions, which may or may not align with a person’s wishes. For instance, an estranged child may have more legal authority over an incapacitated parent than their long-term but unmarried partner. Seniors without clear advocates risk being placed under court-appointed guardianship – a restrictive and often irreversible process.

In addition to completing advance directives, it is important that older adults talk about their wishes with their loved ones. Conversations about disability, serious illness and loss of independence can be difficult, but these discussions allow your loved ones to advocate for you in the event of a health crisis.

Who’s going to care for you?

Finding a caregiver is an important step in making arrangements for aging. If you are planning to rely on family or friends for some care, it helps to discuss this with them ahead of time and to have contingency plans in place. As the Hackman case demonstrates, if a caregiver is suddenly incapacitated, the older adult may be left in immediate danger.

Caregivers experience higher rates of stress, depression and physical illness compared with their peers. This is often exacerbated by financial strain and a lack of support. It helps if the people you will be relying on have expectations in place about their role.

For instance, some people may prefer placement in a facility rather than relying on a loved one if they can no longer use the bathroom independently. Others may wish to remain in their homes as long as this is a feasible option.

Connecting with available resources

There are local and federal initiatives designed to help aging adults find and get the help they need. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently launched the GUIDE Model to improve care and quality of life for both those suffering from dementia and their caregivers.

This program connects caregivers with local resources and provides a 24-hour support line for crises. While GUIDE, which stands for Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience, is currently in the pilot stage, it is slowly expanding, and I am hopeful that it will eventually expand to provide enhanced coverage for those suffering from dementia nationwide.

The Program for All-Inclusive Care of the Elderly helps dual-eligible Medicare and Medicaid recipients remain at home as they age. This program provides comprehensive services including medical care, a day center and home health services.

Area agencies on aging are regionally located and can connect older adults with local resources, based on availability and income, such as meals, transportation and home modifications that help maintain independence.

Unfortunately, all of these programs and others that support older adults are threatened by recent federal budget cuts. The tax breaks and spending cuts bill, which was signed into law in July 2025, will result in progressive reductions to Medicaid funding over the next 10 years. These cuts will decrease the number of individuals eligible for Medicaid and negatively affect how nursing homes are reimbursed.

The government funding bill passed on Nov. 13 extends current Medicare funding through Jan. 30, 2026, at which point Medicare funding may be reduced.

Even as the future of these programs remains uncertain, it’s important for older adults and their caregivers to be intentional in making plans and to familiarize themselves with the resources available to them.

Kahli Zietlow receives funding from Health Resources and Services Administration via grant 1 K01HP49055‐01‐00

– ref. Americans are unprepared for the expensive and complex process of aging – a geriatrician explains how they can start planning – https://theconversation.com/americans-are-unprepared-for-the-expensive-and-complex-process-of-aging-a-geriatrician-explains-how-they-can-start-planning-259237

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Volha Chykina, Assistant Professor of Leadership Studies, University of Richmond

Since President Donald Trump took office for the second time, many researchers across academic disciplines have had their funding cut because of their purported ideological bias. These funding cuts were further exacerbated by the extensive 2025 government shutdown.

As a team of sociologists studying universities, higher education policy and administration, academic freedom and science production, we recognized these cuts as part of a recent global trend of weakened academic freedom. Since the mid-2000s, political attacks on higher education have increased in many countries. Consequently, academic freedom has declined in countries as different as India, Israel, Nicaragua and the United Kingdom, among others.

For example, for years Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán accused the internationally respected Central European University of “liberal bias.” By 2019, he had effectively forced the university and its faculty into exile in Vienna, Austria. Since Argentinian President Javier Milei came to power in 2023, he has made repeated claims that academics are corrupt elites. He used this narrative to restrict universities’ autonomy and funding of their research programs.

Today, most research is done collaboratively. But research finds that when individual scholars have less academic freedom and universities’ autonomy declines, global research collaborations are also threatened.

The prevalence and complexity of those collaborations that optimize human and material resources has grown, with substantial impact on scientific productivity — what we call the global “collaboration dividend.” Collaborations foster solutions to complex problems, from vaccine development to renewable energy. Diminishing academic freedom erodes these collaboration dividends, which then reduces the quantity and quality of scientific discovery worldwide.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization recommendation concerning the status of higher education teaching personnel builds on Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and urges governments to protect academics from political surveillance and interference on two levels.

First, UNESCO affirms the right of individual faculty to teach, research, share findings and express their expert opinions independently. Second, UNESCO recognizes the right of universities to autonomously make decisions about facilitating research, hiring and promoting faculty, and developing curricula without state interference.

Academic freedom and global collaborations

Data from the Varieties of Democracy, or V-DEM, project demonstrate international trends in academic freedom. V-DEM is a large, widely used international dataset based on experts evaluating political developments. It tracks infringements and protections of these rights in every country over the past hundred years. The index we used measures dimensions of academic freedom.

Suppressed in the 1930s by global economic depression, rising fascism and military conflict, academic freedom reached a low point during World War II. It then rebounded and grew strongly.

More countries began recognizing the benefits of free inquiry and guaranteed independent science, especially from 1980 to the mid-2000s. Nations everywhere expanded the capacity of their universities to undertake scientific research and collaborate across boundaries. A new global model of the research university fostered the exponential growth of scientific knowledge.

Also, in part as a defense against totalitarianism, many countries signed on to international agreements upholding academic freedom, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This agreement declares that the basic human right to an education “can only be enjoyed if accompanied by the academic freedom of staff and students.”

The strengthening of academic freedom paralleled the largest historical expansion of the world’s capacity to undertake research on science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine, or STEMM. But over the past decade, freedoms of faculty members and universities began to weaken in many countries, including in the United States.

Today, university-based scientists co-author 85% to 90% of the several million STEMM research papers produced annually. Large, complex collaborations are increasingly a driving force in discovery. The global expansion of academic freedom enables universities and their scientists to participate in this intensifying collaboration dividend through joint research with colleagues elsewhere.

In studies published between 2024 and 2025, we presented troubling trends about declining academic freedom, collaborations and scientific research at universities in countries across the world.

First, we analyzed individual academic freedom and STEMM production in 17 research productive countries from 1981 to 2007. We found that academic freedom protections raise the quantity and quality of research, while infringements on these safeguards lower them.

Second, we found that safeguarding universities’ organizational autonomy also increases the volume and excellence of a country’s STEMM research output. Both associations are independent of other influential factors behind countries’ scientific productivity, such as governmental research spending, a country’s wealth or university enrollments.

Third, a related study by others finds that restricting academic freedom reduces scientists’ and universities’ ability to effectively participate in international research collaborations.

Diminishing the collaboration dividend

Together, these findings underscore that academic freedom allows researchers to participate in complex collaborations, which in turn increases research production. Most of these collaborations aren’t just facilitated by individual scientists, however. Global collaborations are made up of networks of universities, and declining academic freedom can threaten the ties between these institutions and their scientists’ projects.

The popular image of the solitary genius making isolated breakthroughs is largely a myth. Research teams have steadily increased in size, and “super-collaborative” groups of hundreds or even thousands of scientists now work together on complex projects. Together, they produce ever greater amounts of knowledge. Because individual researchers’ output is fairly steady over their careers, real productivity gains in science now depend on global collaboration and shared resources. This is true even as the number of scientists grows.

In the early 1980s, three geographical superhubs of robust, primarily university-based collaborative research emerged. One is Europe, another is North America. The third, East Asia, is growing rapidly.

By 1980, universities in the European and North American hubs collaborated on publications with scientists in 100 other countries. This number grew to 193 countries by 2010. Currently, over a fourth of the millions of annual STEMM papers are the result of international collaborations. This process is heavily dependent on universities and their freedom to pursue science.

Moreover, superhubs can accelerate international collaboration for scientists in other countries not originally in these hubs. Such collaborations enable their universities to leapfrog into new superhub status. South Korean universities have been an example of this process over the past several decades.

This collaborative capacity has enabled the production of millions of co-authored papers and scientific advances. For instance, these collaborations allowed for the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines.

Collaborative networks depend on university support, not just individual scientists. This is why our research suggests declining academic freedom at the university level makes them vulnerable. A troubling three-quarters of U.S.-based scientists have considered leaving the country in response to threats against academic freedom in the U.S. since early 2025.

This research suggests that at stake here is not only the freedom of scholars and academic institutions, but also the future of discovery itself. Academic freedom is essential for scientists around the world to collaborate, enabling the scientific discoveries necessary for technological innovation, medical breakthroughs, and social and environmental problem-solving.

Volha Chykina has received funding from Mellon Foundation / Scholars at Risk to support her research on academic freedom.

David P. Baker has received funding for research on higher education and science from Luxembourg’s FNR, and Qatar’s QNRF

Frank Fernandez has received funding from Mellon Foundation/Scholars at Risk to support his research on academic freedom.

Justin Powell has received funding for research on higher education and science from Germany’s BMBF, DFG, and VolkswagenStiftung; Qatar’s QNRF; and Luxembourg’s FNR.

– ref. Research breakthroughs often come through collaborations − attacks on academic freedom threaten this vital work – https://theconversation.com/research-breakthroughs-often-come-through-collaborations-attacks-on-academic-freedom-threaten-this-vital-work-266644

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ambuj Tewari, Professor of Statistics, University of Michigan

You’ve just finished a strenuous hike to the top of a mountain. You’re exhausted but elated. The view of the city below is gorgeous, and you want to capture the moment on camera. But it’s already quite dark, and you’re not sure you’ll get a good shot. Fortunately, your phone has an AI-powered night mode that can take stunning photos even after sunset.

Here’s something you might not know: That night mode may have been trained on synthetic nighttime images, computer-generated scenes that were never actually photographed.

As artificial intelligence researchers exhaust the supply of real data on the web and in digitized archives, they are increasingly turning to synthetic data, artificially generated examples that mimic real ones. But that creates a paradox. In science, making up data is a cardinal sin. Fake data and misinformation are already undermining trust in information online. So how can synthetic data possibly be good? Is it just a polite euphemism for deception?

As a machine learning researcher, I think the answer lies in intent and transparency. Synthetic data is generally not created to manipulate results or mislead people. In fact, ethics may require AI companies to use synthetic data: Releasing real human face images, for example, can violate privacy, whereas synthetic faces can offer similar benefit with formal privacy guarantees.

There are other reasons that help explain the growing use of synthetic data in training AI models. Some things are so scarce or rare that they are barely represented in real data. Rather than letting these gaps become an Achilles’ heel, researchers can simulate those situations instead.

Another motivation is that collecting real data can be costly or even risky. Imagine collecting data for a self-driving car during storms or on unpaved roads. It is often much more efficient, and far safer, to generate such data virtually.

How synthetic data is made

Training an AI model requires large amounts of data. Like students and athletes, the more an AI is trained, the better its performance tends to be. Researchers have known for a long time that if data is in short supply, they can use a technique known as data augmentation. For example, a given image can be rotated or scaled to yield additional training data. Synthetic data is data augmentation on steroids. Instead of making small alterations to existing images, researchers create entirely new ones.

But how do researchers create synthetic data? There are two main approaches. The first approach relies on rule-based or physics-based models. For example, the laws of optics can be used to simulate how a scene would appear given the positions and orientations of objects within it.

The second approach uses generative AI to produce data. Modern generative models are trained on vast amounts of data and can now create remarkably realistic text, audio, images and videos. Generative AI offers a flexible way to produce large and diverse datasets.

Both approaches share a common principle: If data does not come directly from the real world, it must come from a realistic model of the world.

Downsides and dangers

It is also important to remember that while synthetic data can be useful, it is not a panacea. Synthetic data is only as reliable as the models of reality it comes from, and even the best scientific or generative models have weaknesses.

Researchers have to be careful about potential biases and inaccuracies in the data they produce. For example, researchers may simulate the home-insurance ecosystem to help detect fraud, but those simulations could embed unfair assumptions about neighborhoods or property types. The benefits of such data must be weighed against risks to fairness and equity.

It’s also important to maintain a clear distinction between models and simulations on one hand and the real world on the other. Synthetic data is invaluable for training and testing AI systems, but when an AI model is deployed in the real world, its performance and safety should be proved with real, not simulated, data for both technical and ethical reasons.

Future research on synthetic data in AI is likely to face many challenges. Some are ethical, some are scientific, and others are engineering problems. As synthetic data becomes more realistic, it will be more useful for training AI, but it will also be easier to misuse. For example, increasingly realistic synthetic images can be used to create convincing deepfake videos.

I believe that researchers and AI companies should keep clear records to show which data is synthetic and why it was created. Clearly disclosing which parts of the training data are real and which are synthetic is a key aspect of responsibly producing AI models. California’s law, “Generative artificial intelligence: training data transparency,” set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2026, requires AI developers to disclose if they used synthetic data in training their models.

Researchers should also study how mistakes in simulations or models can lead to bad data. Careful work will help keep synthetic data transparent, trustworthy and reliable.

Keeping it real

Most AI systems learn by finding patterns in data. Researchers can improve their ability to do this by adding synthetic data. But AI has no sense of what is real or true. The desire to stay in touch with reality and to seek truth belongs to people, not machines. Human judgment and oversight in the use of synthetic data will remain essential for the future.

The next time you use a cool AI feature on your smartphone, think about whether synthetic data might have played a role. Our AIs may learn from synthetic data, but reality remains the ultimate source of our knowledge and the final judge of our creations.

Ambuj Tewari receives funding from NSF and NIH.

– ref. When fake data is a good thing – how synthetic data trains AI to solve real problems – https://theconversation.com/when-fake-data-is-a-good-thing-how-synthetic-data-trains-ai-to-solve-real-problems-265180

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Antar A. Tichavakunda, Associate Professor of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara

Black student unions have been a vital part of many Black college students’ lives for more than 60 years. But since 2024, Black student unions have lost their institutional support, campus space and funding with the rise of anti-diversity, equity and inclusion laws in Utah and Alabama.

Black student unions now face a new wave of pressure, as more than 400 colleges and universities under the Trump administration have rebranded or eliminated programs and centers that promote diversity, equity and inclusion.

Amy Lieberman, education editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Antar A. Tichavakunda, a scholar of race and higher education, to better understand what Black student unions are and how they influence Black students’ experiences in higher education.

Why are Black student unions important, particularly for Black students?

Aside from Black fraternities and sororities, Black student unions were among the first ethnic student organizations at colleges to be established. A group of students started the first Black student union in 1968 at San Francisco State University. This happened during the Black Campus Movement, when Black college students advocated for themselves, making demands for resources, respect, spaces and programs to support Black student life. At the time, Mariana Waddy, a student at San Francisco State University and the first president of a Black student union, said, “This college had done little for Black students except try to whitewash them.”

Black students wanted to make the school more engaging and responsive to their needs.

Today, these student unions are essential for Black student life on college campuses. They offer a place of belonging, where Black students can figuratively exhale from a predominately white campus or student environment. Black student life on campus isn’t a given – just because there are Black students, it doesn’t mean there is a Black student community. These unions allow Black students to come together as a community.

What do these unions look like and do, day to day?

Black student unions largely operate independently. They have various events, like cookouts and parties. If a campus is dealing with an issue or some kind of racist occurrence, for example, Black student union leaders will come to the forefront to be an advocate for Black students. They try to engage with students and university leaders on whatever is happening.

How are political pressure and policy shifts influencing these unions?

The University of Utah and the University of Alabama announced in 2024 that they would no longer fund or support their schools’ Black student unions. Universities typically give these unions a certain amount of money, as they do with other student-led groups. With this funding pulled, it is going to make it harder for Black student unions to exist. Where are they going to meet? Will they have to pay for a place to meet off campus?

And if you want to encourage students to come to Black student events, you will likely want to have food for them. If you want to arrange a trip to a conference or host a movie night, those things cost money and require space.

These cuts have drained time, energy and resources from Black student unions.

Now, Black student leaders are filling gaps where funding, staff, spaces and infrastructure used to exist to support and meet the needs of Black student life.

The Trump administration’s attempts to remove funding from and shut down diversity, equity and inclusion programs could lead Black student union leaders to act as unpaid diversity workers if and when these positions at universities are eliminated.

This work also involves organizing social events and support services for Black students. It means continuing to creatively advocate for Black student needs.

Full-time students leading Black student unions now find themselves doing unpaid labor that helps sustain Black communities and the universities that profit from them.

How exactly are universities profiting from Black student unions’ work?

Here’s one example: I observed a university tapping student leaders from a Black engineering group to represent the university’s school of engineering at public events. These leaders might have had to skip class or lose study time to be available for this event. But the university wanted other people, including prospective Black students, to know that there were already Black students at this school.

Black students in these positions have mentioned to me that sometimes administrators will pressure them to show up for panels and other events as a form of marketing. I think most of these requests are well-meaning. But I also know that Black student representatives and leaders place pressure on themselves to also show up for their community and school.

Their presence and visibility help universities have a more welcoming environment. They have an active, vibrant community because of Black student unions and leaders. Organizations like this create community and lead to more positive experiences for students. This joy can lead to more students staying in school.

If I am a Black parent touring a college with my child and don’t see any Black students participating in the tour or on campus, that sends a message to a prospective Black student – will I, or my child, belong here?

What message are Black student unions receiving with these policy shifts?

I think the message to Black student unions is that you all have to fend for yourselves. That is what inequality is all about, having different expectations for different students.

Cuts to diversity, equity and inclusion work signals to Black students that they are not valued and that, if they want to have meaningful experiences as a Black student community, they will have to do this work themselves. You can discern an institution’s values in their budget priorities. If there is nothing being materially invested in Black students, how can you say you support them?

My research shows that Black students act independently to achieve their goals. They create places of joy and belonging for themselves and others, navigating institutions to create full, dynamic lives.

Black students have historically played the cards they were dealt, even if they were inequitable. They have worked to create traditions and lives within and outside of higher education’s campus walls. Some Black student unions may look different going forward, but I have full faith they will continue.

Antar A. Tichavakunda 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 student unions are under pressure – here’s what they do and how they help Black students find community – https://theconversation.com/black-student-unions-are-under-pressure-heres-what-they-do-and-how-they-help-black-students-find-community-268754