Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Candice Maenza, Research Project Manager, Associate Director of the Center for Translational Neuromechanics in Rehabilitation, Penn State

Stroke survivors often face substantial and long-lasting problems with their arms. Both arms often decline together: When one arm is more severely affected by the stroke, the other becomes more difficult to use as well. Compared with a healthy person’s dominant hand, a stroke survivor may take up to three times longer to complete everyday tasks using their less-impaired arm.

This creates a frustrating reality. People with severe impairment in one arm must rely almost entirely on their other arm for daily activities, such as eating, dressing and household tasks. When that “good” arm works slowly or awkwardly, even simple activities become tiring and discouraging, and some people may begin to avoid them altogether.

But that good arm can be strengthened. In our newly published research in the journal JAMA Neurology, we found that training the less-impaired arm in people living with chronic stroke can improve everyday hand function, in some cases even better than focusing only on the most impaired arm.

What is a stroke?

A stroke occurs when the flow of oxygen-carrying blood to part of the brain is interrupted by a blockage in a blood vessel or by bleeding. Without oxygen, brain cells begin to die.

Because each side of the brain mainly controls the opposite side of the body, a stroke often causes movement problems on the side of the body opposite the brain injury. For this reason, stroke rehabilitation has traditionally focused on restoring movement in the most impaired arm.

However, research over the past few decades has shown that both sides of the brain contribute to controlling movements for both arms, although they play different roles. As a result, damage to one side of the brain can affect movement on both sides of the body.

As expected, the arm opposite the brain injury often has major problems with weakness, stiffness and voluntary control, limiting its use for reaching, grasping and manipulating objects. But the other arm, usually thought to be unaffected from the stroke, is frequently not normal either. Many stroke survivors experience reduced strength, slower movements and poorer coordination in the less-impaired arm.

Training the less-impaired arm

As neuroscientists who study how the brain controls movement after stroke, these findings led us to a simple question: Could training the less-impaired arm help it work better?

In a clinical trial of over 50 patients, we studied people living with chronic stroke who had severe impairments in one arm, making it unusable for everyday tasks. These individuals depended almost entirely on their less-impaired arm to manage daily life.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two rehabilitation groups: one that trained their most-impaired arm, and one that trained their less-impaired arm. Both received five weeks of therapy that involved challenging, goal-directed hand movements, including virtual reality tasks designed to improve coordination and timing.

Compared to those who trained their most-impaired arm, we found that participants who conditioned their less-impaired arm became faster and more efficient at everyday hand tasks, such as picking up small objects or lifting a cup. These improvements remained six months after training ended.

We believe the lasting benefit of training the less-impaired arm may come from a simple feedback loop: When their arm works better, people naturally use it more, and that extra practice in daily life helps lock in those gains.

Strengthening what remains

Stroke rehabilitation has long focused on the arm that is most visibly impaired. But for many people, full function in that arm never returns. They adapt and rely on their less-impaired arm to get through the day.

“Less-impaired,” however, does not mean unaffected. When this arm becomes the sole tool for daily activities, even mild problems can have major consequences for independence and quality of life. Improving how well this arm works could make everyday tasks faster, easier and less exhausting, even years after a stroke.

Future work will focus on how best to combine training of the less-impaired arm with standard therapy for the more-impaired arm, and how these approaches translate into everyday life at home.

For many survivors, recovery may not mean restoring what was lost but strengthening what remains.

Candice Maenza received salary support from a National Institutes of Health grant.

Robert Sainburg receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Development, National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense.

– ref. Stroke survivors can counterintuitively improve recovery by strengthening their stronger arm – new research – https://theconversation.com/stroke-survivors-can-counterintuitively-improve-recovery-by-strengthening-their-stronger-arm-new-research-274404

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Sothy Eng, Associate Professor of of Family and Consumer Sciences, University of Hawaii

The U.S. Department of State has announced that starting on Jan. 21, 2026, it has indefinitely stopped issuing immigrant visas for people from 75 countries, claiming concerns that some immigrants may rely on public benefits once they get to the United States.

While applications may still be processed, no immigrant visas will be issued during the pause, including family-based visas for U.S. citizens to sponsor their parents.

This focus leaves little room for recognizing the unpaid caregiving and everyday family support provided by immigrant parents already living in the U.S., support that allows others, including their U.S. citizen children, to remain employed and households to stay stable.

Family-based immigration, particularly visas that allow U.S. citizens to sponsor their parents, strengthens social capital: the networks of care and shared responsibility that allow people to work, stay healthy and raise children who become productive members of society. Weakening these networks risks undermining the social foundations of long-term economic growth.

As a scholar who studies family relationship dynamics and social capital, I have observed how these family ties are not simply private family matters but a public good that sustains community well-being. When parents are present, families are better able to share child care, navigate illness and remain economically active.

Family reunification as social infrastructure

The United States offers no national paid family leave, unlike countries such as Finland and Hungary, which guarantee paid time off to care for children, aging parents or ill family members. Instead, the U.S. provides only unpaid leave under federal law.

Consequently, many families rely on informal caregiving to balance work and care. Research shows that when adequate support is unavailable, workers, especially parents, are more likely to reduce hours or leave the labor force altogether.

This strain is widespread across the U.S.: Roughly 63 million Americans, nearly 1 in 4 adults, provide unpaid care for a family member with a serious health condition or disability, in addition to unpaid child care.

Sponsored immigrant parents often become part of this informal care system. They provide child care, prepare meals and supervise children.

In many U.S. states, the cost of child care now exceeds in-state college tuition, pushing families to reduce formal care or rely on relatives.

Family reunification, therefore, functions as social infrastructure, filling gaps that markets and public systems do not, a role family scholars have emphasized.

Decades of research illustrates this dynamic. In their book “Immigrant America,” sociologists Alejandro Portes and Rubén G. Rumbaut show that immigrant families often rely on close family ties when government support is limited.

Families also pool resources by living together and combining time, skills and income to cover basic needs. These arrangements help households cope with job instability, illness and long work hours. They also reduce reliance on formal child care and paid domestic labor.

Economic development does not happen in isolation from family life. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s framework on measuring well-being emphasizes that economic performance, health, social connections and family support are interconnected rather than separate policy domains. When people are supported and less stressed, they are healthier and more productive.

Sociologist James Coleman similarly has noted that children raised in stable, supportive households are more likely to succeed in school and contribute meaningfully as adults. Family reunification, therefore, is an investment in the social relationships that underpin economic prosperity.

Social capital and child development

Immigrant grandparents and extended kin often play an active role in children’s lives. They help with learning, language development and daily routines.

This kind of family involvement also helps explain what scholars call the “immigrant paradox,” in which many immigrant children achieve better-than-expected academic and emotional results despite socioeconomic challenges.

As of 2023, about 19 million U.S. children, roughly 1 in 4, have at least one parent who is an immigrant. Therefore, policies that restrict family reunification shape the everyday environments in which millions of children grow up. This influences the support they receive at home and the workforce they will help build as adults.

Social capital is not public dependency

Concerns raised by federal policymakers that immigrants will become a “burden on taxpayers” shape restrictions on family-based immigration. These concerns are reflected in federal policy through the Department of Homeland Security’s public charge rule, which allows immigration officials to assess whether applicants are likely to rely primarily on government assistance such as cash welfare or long-term public support for basic needs.

However, analyses of 2022 U.S. Census data show that immigrants overall use public assistance at lower rates than native-born Americans.

In practice, family reunification is less about public dependency and more about sustaining the relationships that allow families and the economy to function.

The question for policymakers is not whether the U.S. can afford to support family reunification, but whether it can afford not to. In a country facing caregiver shortages, rising parental stress and limited public care infrastructure, investing in social capital through family reunification may be one of the most effective and overlooked ways to support long-term economic growth.

Sothy Eng 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. Suspending family-based immigrant visas weakens US families and the economy – https://theconversation.com/suspending-family-based-immigrant-visas-weakens-us-families-and-the-economy-273665

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Gary W. Yohe, Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University

In 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally declared that greenhouse gas emissions, including from vehicles and fossil fuel power plants, endanger public health and welfare. The decision, known as the endangerment finding, was based on years of evidence, and it has underpinned EPA actions on climate change ever since.

The Trump administration now wants to tear up that finding as it tries to roll back climate regulations on everything from vehicles to industries.

But the move might not be as simple as the administration hopes.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin sent a proposed rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget in early January 2026 to rescind the endangerment finding. Now, a Washington Post report suggests, action on it may be delayed over concerns that the move wouldn’t withstand legal challenges.

Cracks in the administration’s plan are already evident. On Jan. 30, a federal judge ruled that the Department of Energy violated the law when it handpicked five researchers to write the climate science review that the EPA is using to defend its plan. The ruling doesn’t necessarily stop the EPA, but it raises questions.

There’s no question that if the EPA does rescind the endangerment finding that the move would be challenged in court. The world just lived through the three hottest years on record, evidence of worsening climate change is stronger now than ever before, and people across the U.S. are increasingly experiencing the harm firsthand.

Several legal issues have the potential to stop the EPA’s effort. They include emails submitted in a court case that suggest political appointees sought to direct the scientific review.

To understand how we got here, it helps to look at history for some context.

The Supreme Court started it

The endangerment finding stemmed from a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA.

The court found that various greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, were “pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act,” and it gave the EPA an explicit set of instructions.

The court wrote that the “EPA must determine whether or not emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

But the Supreme Court did not order the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Only if the EPA found that emissions were harmful would the agency be required, by law, “to establish national ambient air quality standards for certain common and widespread pollutants based on the latest science” – meaning greenhouse gases.

The EPA was required to follow formal procedures – including reviewing the scientific research, assessing the risks and taking public comment – and then determine whether the observed and projected harms were sufficient to justify publishing an “endangerment finding.”

That process took two years. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced on Dec. 7, 2009, that the then-current and projected concentrations of six key greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – threatened the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

Challenges to the finding erupted immediately.

Jackson denied 10 petitions received in 2009-2010 that called on the administration to reconsider the finding.

On June 26, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the endangerment finding and regulations that the EPA had issued under the Clean Air Act for passenger vehicles and permitting procedures for stationary sources, such as power plants.

This latest challenge is different.

It came directly from the Trump administration without going through normal channels. It was, though, entirely consistent with both the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan for the Trump administration and President Donald Trump’s dismissive perspective on climate risk.

Trump’s burden of proof

To legally reverse the 2009 finding, the agency must go through the same evaluation process as before. According to conditions outlined in the Clean Air Act, the reversal of the 2009 finding must be justified by a thorough and complete review of the current science and not just be political posturing.

That’s a tough task.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has talked publicly about how he handpicked the five researchers who wrote the scientific research review. A judge has now found that the effort violated the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that agency-chosen panels providing policy advice to the government conduct their work in public.

All five members of the committee had been outspoken critics of mainstream climate science. Their report, released in summer 2025, was widely criticized for inaccuracies in what they referenced and its failure to represent the current science.

Scientific research available today clearly shows that greenhouse gas emissions harm public health and welfare. Importantly, evidence collected since 2009 is even stronger now than it was when the first endangerment finding was written, approved and implemented.

For example, a 2025 review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine determined that the evidence supporting the endangerment finding is even stronger today than it was in 2009. A 2019 peer-reviewed assessment of the evidence related to greenhouse gas emissions’ role in climate change came to the same conclusion.

The Sixth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a report produced by hundreds of scientists from around the world, found in 2023 that “adverse impacts of human-caused climate change will continue to intensify.”

In other words, greenhouse gas emissions were causing harm in 2009, and the harm is worse now and will be even worse in the future without steps to reduce emissions.

In public comments on the Department of Energy’s problematic 2025 review, a group of climate experts from around the world reached the same conclusion, adding that the Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group review “fails to adequately represent this reality.”

What happens if EPA does drop the endangerment finding

As an economist who has studied the effects of climate change for over 40 years, I am concerned that the EPA rescinding the endangerment finding on the basis of faulty scientific assessment would lead to faster efforts to roll back U.S. climate regulations meant to slow climate change.

It would also give the administration cover for further actions that would defund more science programs, stop the collection of valuable data, freeze hiring and discourage a generation of emerging science talent.

Cases typically take years to wind through the courts. Unless a judge issued an injunction, I would expect to see a continuing retreat from efforts to reduce climate change while the court process plays out.

I see no scenario in which a legal challenge doesn’t end up before the Supreme Court. I would hope that both the enormous amount of scientific evidence and the words in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution would have some significant sway in the court’s considerations. It starts, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,” and includes in its list of principles, “promote the general Welfare.”

Gary W. Yohe 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. Trump’s climate policy rollback plan relies on EPA rescinding its 2009 endangerment finding – but will courts allow it? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-climate-policy-rollback-plan-relies-on-epa-rescinding-its-2009-endangerment-finding-but-will-courts-allow-it-274194

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Alexandra Killewald, Professor of Sociology, University of Michigan

For many women in the U.S. and around the world, motherhood comes with career costs.

Raising children tends to lead to lower wages and fewer work hours for mothers – but not fathers – in the United States and around the world.

As a sociologist, I study how family relationships can shape your economic circumstances. In the past, I’ve studied how motherhood tends to depress women’s wages, something social scientists call the “motherhood penalty.”

I wondered: Can government programs that provide financial support to parents offset the motherhood penalty in earnings?

A ‘motherhood penalty’

I set out with Therese Christensen, a Danish sociologist, to answer this question for moms in Denmark – a Scandinavian country with one of the world’s strongest safety nets.

Several Danish policies are intended to help mothers stay employed.

For example, subsidized child care is available for all children from 6 months of age until they can attend elementary school. Parents pay no more than 25% of its cost.

But even Danish moms see their earnings fall precipitously, partly because they work fewer hours.

Losing $9,000 in the first year

In an article to be published in an upcoming issue of European Sociological Review, Christensen and I showed that mothers’ increased income from the state – such as from child benefits and paid parental leave – offset about 80% of Danish moms’ average earnings losses.

Using administrative data from Statistics Denmark, a government agency that collects and compiles national statistics, we studied the long-term effects of motherhood on income for 104,361 Danish women. They were born in the early 1960s and became mothers for the first time when they were 20-35 years old.

They all became mothers by 2000, making it possible to observe how their earnings unfolded for decades after their first child was born. While the Danish government’s policies changed over those years, paid parental leave and child allowances and other benefits were in place throughout. The women were, on average, age 26 when they became mothers for the first time, and 85% had more than one child.

We estimated that motherhood led to a loss of about the equivalent of US$9,000 in women’s earnings – which we measured in inflation-adjusted 2022 U.S. dollars – in the year they gave birth to or adopted their first child, compared with what we would expect if they had remained childless. While the motherhood penalty got smaller as their children got older, it was long-lasting.

The penalty only fully disappeared 19 years after the women became moms. Motherhood also led to a long-term decrease in the number of the hours they worked.

Studying whether government can fix it

These annual penalties add up.

We estimated that motherhood cost the average Danish woman a total of about $120,000 in earnings over the first 20 years after they first had children – about 12% of the money they would have earned over those two decades had they remained childless.

Most of the mothers in our study who were employed before giving birth were eligible for four weeks of paid leave before giving birth and 24 weeks afterward. They could share up to 10 weeks of their paid leave with the baby’s father. The length and size of this benefit has changed over the years.

The Danish government also offers child benefits – payments made to parents of children under 18. These benefits are sometimes called a “child allowance.”

Denmark has other policies, like housing allowances, that are available to all Danes, but are more generous for parents with children living at home.

Using the same data, Christensen and I next estimated how motherhood affects how much money Danish moms receive from the government. We wanted to know whether they get enough income from the government to compensate for their loss of income from their paid work.

In the graphic head, put a comma after “Denmark”; in the footnote, fix the spelling of “adusted” to “adjusted”

We found that motherhood leads to immediate increases in Danish moms’ government benefits. In the year they first gave birth to or adopted a child, women received over $7,000 more from the government than if they had remained childless. That money didn’t fully offset their lost earnings, but it made a substantial dent.

The gap between the money that mothers received from the government, compared with what they would have received if they remained childless, faded in the years following their first birth or adoption. But we detected a long-term bump in income from government benefits for mothers – even 20 years after they first become mothers.

Cumulatively, we determined that the Danish government offset about 80% of the motherhood earnings penalty for the women we studied. While mothers lost about $120,000 in earnings compared with childless women over the two decades after becoming a mother, they gained about $100,000 in government benefits, so their total income loss was only about $20,000.

Benefits for parents of older kids

Our findings show that government benefits do not fully offset earnings losses for Danish moms. But they help a lot.

Because most countries provide less generous parental benefits, Denmark is not a representative case. It is instead a test case that shows what’s possible when governments make financially supporting parents a high priority.

That is, strong financial support for mothers from the government can make motherhood more affordable and promote gender equality in economic resources.

Because the motherhood penalty is largest at the beginning, government benefits targeted to moms with infants, such as paid parental leave, may be especially valuable.

Child care subsidies can also help mothers return to work faster.

The motherhood penalty’s long-term nature, however, indicates that these short-term benefits are not enough to get rid of it altogether. Benefits that are available to all mothers of children under 18, such as child allowances, can help offset the long-term motherhood penalty for mothers of older children.

Alexandra Killewald 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. Denmark’s generous child care and parental leave policies erase 80% of the ‘motherhood penalty’ for working moms – https://theconversation.com/denmarks-generous-child-care-and-parental-leave-policies-erase-80-of-the-motherhood-penalty-for-working-moms-273186

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By C. Clare Strange, Assistant Research Professor of Criminology and Justice Studies, Drexel University

“The Real Housewives” reality TV series, which showcases the lives of a rotating cast of wealthy women in 11 cities in the U.S. and places in several other countries, is famous for its characters’ over-the-top drama and messy personal antics.

But there are also useful lessons that the characters’ lives and frequent run-ins with the law offer to casual observers and criminology students alike.

I developed the idea for The Real Housewives of Criminology course when I heard a story on NPR in 2023 about how the Bravo Network franchise was becoming more like a true-crime TV series.

Jen Shah, a cast member from “The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City,” had recently been sentenced to six years in federal prison for her role in a nationwide telemarketing scheme – but she wasn’t the only one on the show who met such a fate.

Many people who appear on “Housewives” share a real-life penchant for crime – from driving-under-the-influence charges and theft to fraud and assault.

During any given episode, viewers may find “Housewives” stars and their families navigating the fallout – from court dates to public shaming.

I realized that these scenes illustrate core concepts from criminal justice theory and practice as well as any textbook.

A window into the course

The course examines the criminal cases of the “Housewives” and compares them to those of the general public.

Students discuss how factors such as social class, age and race can impact people’s experiences with the justice system. At the same time, they come to understand that factors such as how serious a crime is, a person’s criminal history and the harm done to victims tend to drive case outcomes more than any other factor.

I believe that this course is especially relevant now, because it is increasingly common for undergraduate students to consume news about crime and punishment from streaming platforms and social media.

It seems there is a new “Housewife” arrest every several months, which brings with it new circumstances and a new case study to dissect.

Critical lessons

One key takeaway from the course is that there are many meaningful differences – and similarities – between the criminal cases shown in “Housewives” and those of most people.

While money and power can often go a long way in fighting a criminal conviction, sometimes they fall short when the harm to victims or society is too great, or the pattern of behavior is too obvious.

Many “Housewives” stars and their families have learned this lesson the hard way.

Read along

This course requires students to view footage from “The Real Housewives,” read peer-reviewed criminological research, and listen to podcast episodes from “The Bravo Docket.”

We even read book chapters straight from some of the Housewives’ memoirs. All of this culminates in a “Final Reunion,” meaning a final verbal exam for students, in which they embody one of the “Housewives” cast members and answer questions from me – dressed as host Andy Cohen – about their criminal cases.

Real takeaways

While the court of public opinion tends to quickly draw conclusions from limited information, my honors students learn that there is more than meets the eye when it comes to the U.S. justice system.

The Real Housewives of Criminology helps them to navigate the nuance beneath the headlines about popular crime news stories, in and beyond the “Bravosphere.”

C. Clare Strange 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. Life isn’t all diamonds – money and fame don’t shield the many ‘Real Housewives’ facing criminal charges – https://theconversation.com/life-isnt-all-diamonds-money-and-fame-dont-shield-the-many-real-housewives-facing-criminal-charges-272762