Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Beth Gazley, Professor of Nonprofit Management and Policy, Indiana University

Following the Sept. 10, 2025, death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in Utah, the Trump administration signaled that it intends to expand investigations into “leftist groups” for possible links to the suspect.

Kirk, who was 31 when he died, founded and led Turning Point USA, a conservative nonprofit that counted hundreds of thousands of young Americans among its members. Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old Utah man, is accused of killing Kirk with a single bullet at a crowded outdoor debate. He was, according to many accounts, raised by Republican parents in a conservative community. Although Robinson reportedly had recently adopted different political views, his precise motives remain unclear.

The Conversation U.S. asked Beth Gazley, an Indiana University scholar of nonprofits, local governance and civil society, to explain the significance of the Trump administration’s response to Kirk’s death in terms of free speech and nonprofit norms.

What are the Trump administration’s allegations?

High-ranking members of the Trump administration, including Vice President JD Vance and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, are accusing certain progressive organizations of encouraging violence against right-wing public figures and suggesting they played a role in Kirk’s death.

Miller, for example, has likened those groups to “a vast domestic terror movement.”

Vance has said the government will “go after the NGO network that foments, facilitates and engages in violence,” in a reference to nonprofits he alleges are supporting illegal activities.

President Donald Trump has blamed Kirk’s death on “a radical left group of lunatics” that doesn’t “play fair.” He has stated that they are “already under major investigation,” although no such probe has been disclosed to date.

Trump has raised the possibility of criminal charges under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as the
RICO statute, which is typically used to prosecute gangs and organized crime rings.

But, to be clear, the Trump administration has not yet produced evidence to support any of its allegations of wrongdoing by nonprofits and their funders.

What organizations are being targeted?

Some conservative media outlets and Trump administration members have singled out specific nonprofits and funders.

Their targets include billionaire George Soros, whose Open Society Foundations are among the country’s largest philanthropies, and the Ford Foundation, another of the nation’s top grantmakers. The outlets and officials claim that both foundations allegedly provided money to as-of-yet unnamed groups that “radicalized” Tyler Robinson and led to what the White House has called “organized agitation.”

Another target is the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization that regularly reported comments Kirk made disparaging Black, LGBTQ and other people.

The Ford Foundation is among more than 100 funders that signed onto an open letter posted to the Medium platform on Sept. 17, in which they objected to these Trump administration’s attacks. Open Society Foundations also signed the letter, and, in a post on the X platform, it denied the specific allegations directed at it by the Trump administration. The Southern Poverty Law Center has posted its own denial on Facebook.

Most but not all of the organizations Trump and his officials have accused of wrongdoing are charitable nonprofits and foundations. These organizations operate in accordance with the rules spelled out in Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. tax code.

What can count as a charitable activity is defined very broadly due to the language that Congress approved over a century ago. It includes public policy advocacy, a limited amount of direct lobbying, social services and a broad range of other activities that include running nonprofit hospitals, theaters and universities. Churches and other houses of worship count as U.S. charities too.

The rights of nonprofits are also protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which entitles them to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the right to assemble and “petition the government for a redress of grievances” – which cements their right to participate in public policy advocacy.

Obviously, institutions – including nonprofits – and the people who lead them can’t promote criminal activity or incite political violence without breaking the law. U.S. Supreme Court precedents have set the bar very high on what counts as an incitement to violence.

Are there any precedents for this?

The Republican Party has previously attempted, and failed, several times in the past few years to expand the executive branch’s power to deregister charities for partisan purposes.

Most recently, GOP House members drafted an amendment that was cut from the final version of the big tax-and-spending bill Trump signed on July 4.

But many nonprofit advocates remain concerned about the possibility of the Trump administration using other means to limit nonprofit political rights.

Are there precedents for the repression of US nonprofits and their funders?

Under the Bill of Rights, the U.S. has strong protections in place that shield nonprofits from partisan attacks. Still, there are some precedents for attempts to repress them.

The Johnson Amendment to a tax bill passed in 1954 is a well-known example. This law ended the ability of 501(c)(3) charities, private foundations and religious organizations to interfere in political campaigns.

Despite strong support from the public and the nonprofit sector for keeping it in place, the Trump administration has attempted to repeal the Johnson Amendment. What is largely forgotten is that Lyndon B. Johnson, then a member of Congress, introduced the measure to silence two conservative charities in his Texas district that supported his political opponent.

The Republican Party has also claimed in recent years that conservatives have been victims of efforts to suppress their freedom to establish and operate charitable nonprofits. A notable case was the GOP’s accusation during the Obama administration that the Internal Revenue Service was unfairly targeting Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny. Following years of outrage over that alleged partisanship, however, it later turned out that the IRS had applied extra scrutiny to progressive groups as well.

Some political observers have suggested that the Trump administration’s inspiration for targeting certain nonprofits and their funders comes from what’s going on in other countries. Hungary, Russia, Turkey and other countries have punished the activities of their political opponents and nongovernmental organizations as crimes.

What do you think could ultimately be at stake?

The economic and political freedoms that are the bedrock of a true democracy rely on a diversity of ideas. The mechanism for implementing that ideal in the U.S. relies heavily on a long-standing Supreme Court doctrine that extends constitutional rights to individuals and organizations alike. Nonprofits, in other words, have constitutional rights.

What this means for American society is a much greater proliferation of nonprofit activity than you see in many other countries, with the inevitable result that many organizations espouse unpopular opinions or views that clash with public opinion or the goals of a major political party.

That situation does not make their activities illegal.

Even Americans who disagree with the missions of Turning Point USA or the Southern Poverty Law Center should be able to agree that both institutions contribute to what Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas once called the “market place of ideas” necessary for an open democracy.

Is it easy to see what donors fund and what nonprofits do with their money?

This situation leaves open the question of whether the public has a right to know who is bankrolling a nonprofit’s activity.

Following the money can be frustrating. Federal law is somewhat contradictory in how far it will go to apply democratic ideals of openness and transparency to nonprofit activity. A key example is the long-standing protection of donor privacy in U.S. law, a principle that conservatives generally favor.

The courts have established that making a charitable gift is a protected free speech activity that entitles donors to certain privacy rights. In fact, the most recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling related to charitable giving, handed down in 2021, upheld a conservative nonprofit’s right to strip donors’ names from reporting documents.

This privacy right extends to foundations: They can decide whether to disclose the names of their grant recipients. Still, all nonprofits except churches need to make some disclosures regarding their finances on a mandatory form filed annually.

Looking forward, organizations that advocate for the charitable sector as a whole, such as the National Council of Nonprofits, are closely following the efforts of the Trump administration. Their role is to remind the public that nonprofits on both the right and left side of the political spectrum have strong advocacy rights that don’t disappear when bad things happen.

Beth Gazley 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 administration is threatening liberal foundations and nonprofits after Kirk’s death – but proving wrongdoing by any of them would be very hard – https://theconversation.com/trump-administration-is-threatening-liberal-foundations-and-nonprofits-after-kirks-death-but-proving-wrongdoing-by-any-of-them-would-be-very-hard-265445

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Anindya Kundu, Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership, Florida International University

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced a plan in early September 2025 that he intends to make Florida the first state to end vaccine mandates across all schools and in other state-run institutions such as nursing homes.

His proposal would dismantle Florida Statute 1003.22, which requires that all schools, including public and private schools, collect proof of students’ immunization for a range of communicable diseases when they enroll.

In 2025, approximately 88.7% of Florida kindergartners are vaccinated, which is almost 5% lower than the national average. Florida’s rate of vaccination for kindergarten students has steadily declined over the past eight years – and dropped from 93.5% in 2020 to 89.9% in 2024.

If Florida state legislators approve DeSantis’ plan when they convene in January 2026, the state would sweepingly eliminate long-standing obligations for schools and other places to require a standard set of immunizations for enrollment. Florida nursing homes currently assess whether residents should receive pneumococcal and flu vaccines.

As a sociologist, I study how education policy shapes democracy, social cohesion and inequality. I am also a professor of educational policy studies.

DeSantis’ plan is indicative of Florida’s general approach to approve education policy that is aligned with conservative priorities on “woke politics” and culture war issues, such as book bans.

Other Republican-led states, such as Alabama, Arkansas and Iowa, are typically quick to follow Florida’s lead and implement their own versions of Florida’s educational and social policies.

Florida setting examples

Well before DeSantis, Florida has tried to be a national leader of educational reform and has tightened state control over schools by reshaping standards on testing, school curricula and guidance on what can and cannot be taught in public schools.

Florida’s former Gov. Jeb Bush, who served from 1999 through 2007, helped lead this educational reform work. He was steadfast in increasing top-down accountability for educators, closely monitoring their performance by increasing high-stakes testing and tying teachers’ compensation to test results.

Bush also widely promoted policies to expand school choice for parents or policies that often allow any parent – regardless of income – to apply for state grants that use public money to pay for their children’s private school education.

Public school enrollment has steadily declined in Florida over the past two decades. While 86% of Florida students attended a traditional public school in 2001-2002, just 51% of Florida children went to a public school in 2024.

In 2022, Arizona became the first state to adopt a universal voucher system.

Florida then expanded its school voucher program in 2023 – allowing all parents, regardless of income, to use state taxpayer-funded scholarships to help pay for their children’s private school or home school experience. More than 500,000 Florida students received these vouchers in 2025.

Since 2024, 10 states plus Washington D.C. have adopted voucher programs.

Critical race theory on the front line

Since taking office in 2018, DeSantis has also set his sights squarely upon other hot-button issues, including by banning critical race theory from public schools in 2021.

Critical race theory, or CRT, is an academic framework that looks at how different forms of marginalization, such as gender or race, overlap, as well as how racism is embedded within American institutional and legal structures. DeSantis has said that CRT amounts to “state-sanctioned racism” that teaches “kids to hate our country or to hate each other.”

I and other experts on education considered this ban on CRT largely symbolic. The likelihood that K-12 educators are trained in CRT to then teach it to students seemed remote.

That same year, Florida rejected 54 math textbooks that officials felt contained CRT-related subject matter.

In 2023, DeSantis also cited CRT when he blocked Florida from offering the nonprofit College Board’s newly developed AP African American Studies course from public schools.

These actions made Florida one of the first states to place formal policy restrictions on CRT, effectively prohibiting discussions around race and inequality in public schools.

Since 2021, 44 other states have introduced similar bills. Approximately 28 states, including Texas, Idaho, Tennessee and Montana, have adopted at least one law limiting educators’ discussions of racism and sexism.

Anti-LGBTQ+ measures

In 2022, Florida also became the first state to prohibit classroom instruction on sexuality or gender identity topics from kindergarten through third grade. This law – formally called the Parental Rights in Education Act but often referred to as “Don’t Say Gay” – also restricts discussion on these topics in higher grades.

Though the law restricts formal classroom discussion or curriculum on sexuality and gender identity, teachers are allowed to discuss these topics in informal settings, such as student gay and straight alliance clubs.

By 2024, a growing list of at least 20 states, including Alabama and Indiana, followed Florida and introduced similar laws to “Don’t Say Gay.”

Book bans

Book bans are another prominent front where DeSantis has influenced how education looks in Florida – and in other states.

Book bans refer to schools and libraries removing books that are deemed controversial or inappropriate for students, often flagged for content related to race, sexuality or gender.

In 2023, Florida passed a law called HB 1069, which, among other things, banned books primarily flagged by parents or education officials for discussing or mentioning sexual topics.

One of these banned books was “Arthur’s Birthday,” a children’s picture book based on the animated PBS children’s series about an aardvark. The book was banned for including a reference to the game “spin the bottle.”

Florida’s schools banned approximately 4,500 books in the 2023-2024 school year, more than any other state.

A federal judge overruled a large portion of HB 1069 in August 2025, calling the categorization overly broad and unconstitutional.

Following Florida’s example, 33 other states passed laws about book bans in the 2022-2023 school year.

Overall, there has been a 200% increase in book bans nationwide from 2022 to 2024.

Beyond Florida

If Florida lifts its vaccine mandate, the decision would also affect other groups in Florida, including young children in day care centers and elderly residents living in nursing homes, which would also no longer require vaccines.

Private schools and universities would retain the ability to impose their own stances and vaccine requirements. However, private educational institutions in Florida often preemptively align themselves with state guidance.

Idaho loosened its vaccination rules in the summer of 2025, prohibiting schools from denying admission to a person who has not received vaccines. Louisiana has also said it will stop promoting mass vaccine campaigns.

As recent education policy history shows, Florida’s potential decision to end vaccine mandates in schools and other places would immediately have ripple effects across the nation. It is likely that if Florida strikes down its school vaccine requirements, this move will catalyze a rapid unraveling of similar public health protections across other states.

Anindya Kundu 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. Why Florida’s plan to end vaccine mandates will likely spread to other conservative states – https://theconversation.com/why-floridas-plan-to-end-vaccine-mandates-will-likely-spread-to-other-conservative-states-264734

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Marcelo Bigliassi, Assistant Professor, Florida International University

When you lift weights, walk up a steep hill or ride a bike, your body is continuously sending sensory signals to your brain. These signals paint a picture of the physical sensation of what you’re doing. Your brain then takes these signals and filters them through your past experience, goals, expectations and current emotional state.

It turns out that the way your brain uses all that context to interpret this sensory information significantly influences whether you perceive something physically strenuous, such as a bike ride, as difficult and threatening or as rewarding and pleasant.

Many people who are new to exercise often quit because they interpret physical discomfort as a warning sign instead of a challenge that can be overcome. But in recent years, scientists have shown that by changing your emotional state, you can also change how you interpret physical sensations.

We are two neuroscientists who study how the brain and body respond to stress and how those reactions shape perception. Research has shown that small, well-timed challenges can help the body and mind grow more resilient, while too much stress, or stress at the wrong time, can slow recovery and sap motivation.

In a recent experiment, we wanted to see whether it is possible, in a sense, to recalibrate how the brain interprets difficult tasks using a tiny, safe dose of physical discomfort. We found that physical stress in manageable doses – in this case, dunking your hand in ice-cold water – can make a later effort feel more doable, particularly for people who are not yet accustomed to strenuous exercise.

Cold first, bike second

In order to evaluate the concept of stress calibration, we assembled a group of 31 adult volunteers with limited prior engagement in physical activity. Our physical fitness task involved volunteers riding a stationary bike for six minutes, with the effort increasing in short stages from easy to tough.

On one visit, before getting on the bike, participants put one hand into a bucket of ice-cold water and kept it there for as long as they could – between one and three minutes. We hypothesized this physical stress would trigger a slight change in how their brains would interpret physical sensations and change their ability to tolerate physical discomfort; this was the recalibration step.

On the other visit they just got on the bike without doing a cold-water hand dunk. To help control for variables, we mixed up the order so that some people did the cold-water dunk on the first day and others did it on the second.

While riding the test bike, participants reported on a number of variables using rating scales, including how much pain they felt, how pleasant or unpleasant the effort seemed, how much energy they had, and whether they felt in control or overwhelmed. These measures allowed us to track how the volunteers were experiencing the exercise at different levels of intensity, both with and without the cold-water hand dunk.

What we found

When we first saw the results, we were amazed by how much a short stress induction could affect people’s perceptual responses during exercise. During the hardest two minutes of the cycling task, the participants who had lasted longer in the cold-water dunk actually reported less pain and more pleasure. Additionally, the participants who said they had a high tolerance for pain experienced a slightly greater sense of dominance compared to other participants as the biking intensity peaked.

We believe three effects may help explain why our participants felt the toughest minutes on the bike were less painful and more enjoyable after the cold-water challenge.

The first effect is similar to a quick biological reset. Ice water jolts the nervous system. In response, the brain switches on its built-in pain-dimming system and sends “turn it down” signals down the spinal cord. For a short window, incoming pain messages are muted, so discomfort feels less intense, helping participants tolerate more pain during cycling right after the hand dunk.

The second effect is a short stress surge. When the body feels stress, your heart rate and blood pressure jump, stress chemicals rise, and the brain may turn pain down for a moment. That bump can make the first minutes of exercise feel less abrupt, almost as if you did a quick psychological warmup. As the surge fades, your system settles, allowing you to find your rhythm without the start feeling so shocking.

The third mechanism works through the brain’s interpretation of the sensations. Getting through the short burst of discomfort from the ice dunk seemed to give participants an instant sense of “I can handle this” and a feeling of accomplishment. We think this boost recalibrates how their brains interpret stress and discomfort.

From lab insight to everyday training

At its core, this study shows that how your brain perceives physical sensations is adjustable. A short, well-timed challenge, such as an ice-cold hand dunk, can act as a calibration mechanism, tilting the toughest moments of exercise away from pain and toward enjoyment.

You don’t need an ice bucket to apply this principle to your life. The challenge could be a short uphill push before a longer run, a quick set of jump squats before starting a workout, or a short jog before a more challenging activity. These brief contrasts can prime the body and mind so the main effort feels less like a threat and more like progress. The key is to keep the challenge short, safe and within your limits, especially on days when life is already stressful.

This finding fascinates us because it shows that neither your brain nor your body is just a passive passenger during effort. They constantly recalibrate what “hard” feels like. The effect of overcoming one small challenge can ripple forward, making the next challenge feel more doable and even rewarding.

Over time, those small wins become reference points, proof that effort leads to recovery and growth. Layered into everyday training, they turn workouts into opportunities to practice composure, restore a sense of control and build lasting resilience.

Marcelo Bigliassi is an Assistant Professor of Psychophysiology and Neuroscience at Florida International University. He receives funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), serves on the advisory board of the Antifragile Academy, and works as the Chief Scientist at NeuroMotor Training and NeuroSmart.

Dayanne Antonio is a Ph.D. student at Florida International University and serves as a Teaching Assistant in the undergraduate Kinesiology program. She reports no conflicts of interest.

– ref. A cold shock to ease the burn − how brief stress can help your brain reframe a tough workout – https://theconversation.com/a-cold-shock-to-ease-the-burn-how-brief-stress-can-help-your-brain-reframe-a-tough-workout-258552

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Rahul Telang, Professor of Information Systems, Carnegie Mellon University

Scams are nothing new – fraud has existed as long as human greed. What changes are the tools.

Scammers thrive on exploiting vulnerable, uninformed users, and they adapt to whatever technologies or trends dominate the moment. In 2025, that means AI, cryptocurrencies and stolen personal data are their weapons of choice.

And, as always, the duty, fear and hope of their targets provide openings. Today, duty often means following instructions from bosses or co-workers, who scammers can impersonate. Fear is that a loved one, who scammers also can impersonate, is in danger. And hope is often for an investment scheme or job opportunity to pay off.

AI-powered scams and deepfakes

Artificial intelligence is no longer niche – it’s cheap, accessible and effective. While businesses use AI for advertising and customer support, scammers exploit the same tools to mimic reality, with disturbing precision.

Criminals are using AI-generated audio or video to impersonate CEOs, managers or even family members in distress. Employees have been tricked into transferring money or leaking sensitive data. Over 105,000 such deepfake attacks were recorded in the U.S. in 2024, costing more than US$200 million in the first quarter of 2025 alone. Victims often cannot distinguish synthetic voices or faces from real ones.

Fraudsters are also using emotional manipulation. The scammers make phone calls or send convincing AI-written texts posing as relatives or friends in distress. Elderly victims in particular fall prey when they believe a grandchild or other family member is in urgent trouble. The Federal Trade Commission has outlined how scammers use fake emergencies to pose as relatives.

Cryptocurrency scams

Crypto remains the Wild West of finance — fast, unregulated and ripe for exploitation.

Pump-and-dump scammers artificially inflate the price of a cryptocurrency through hype on social media to lure investors with promises of huge returns – the pump – and then sell off their holdings – the dump – leaving victims with worthless tokens.

Pig butchering is a hybrid of romance scams and crypto fraud. Scammers build trust over weeks or months before persuading victims to invest in fake crypto platforms. Once the scammers have extracted enough money from the victim, they vanish.

Scammers also use cryptocurrencies as a means of extracting money from people in impersonation scams and other forms of fraud. For example, scammers direct victims to bitcoin ATMs to deposit large sums of cash and convert it to the untraceable cryptocurrency as payment for fictitious fines.

Phishing, smishing, tech support and jobs

Old scams don’t die; they evolve.

Phishing and smishing have been around for years. Victims are tricked into clicking links in emails or text messages, leading to malware downloads, credential theft or ransomware attacks. AI has made these lures eerily realistic, mimicking corporate tone, grammar and even video content.

Tech support scams often start with pop-ups on computer screens that warn of viruses or identity theft, urging users to call a number. Sometimes they begin with a direct cold call to the victim. Once the victim is on a call with the fake tech support, the scammers convince victims to grant remote access to their supposedly compromised computers. Once inside, scammers install malware, steal data, demand payment or all three.

Fake websites and listings are another current type of scam. Fraudulent sites impersonating universities or ticket sellers trick victims into paying for fake admissions, concerts or goods.

One example is when a website for “Southeastern Michigan University” came online and started offering details about admission. There is no such university. Eastern Michigan University filed a complaint that Southeastern Michigan University was copying its website and defrauding unsuspecting victims.

The rise of remote and gig work has opened new fraud avenues.

Victims are offered fake jobs with promises of high pay and flexible hours. In reality, scammers extract “placement fees” or harvest sensitive personal data such as Social Security numbers and bank details, which are later used for identity theft.

How you can protect yourself

Technology has changed, but the basic principles remain the same: Never click on suspicious links or download attachments from unknown senders, and enter personal information only if you are sure that the website is legitimate. Avoid using third-party apps or links. Legitimate businesses have apps or real websites of their own.

Enable two-factor authentication wherever possible. It provides security against stolen passwords. Keep software updated to patch security holes. Most software allows for automatic update or warns about applying a patch.

Remember that a legitimate business will never ask for personal information or a money transfer. Such requests are a red flag.

Relationships are a trickier matter. The state of California provides details on how people can avoid being victims of pig butchering.

Technology has supercharged age-old fraud. AI makes deception virtually indistinguishable from reality, crypto enables anonymous theft, and the remote-work era expands opportunities to trick people. The constant: Scammers prey on trust, urgency and ignorance. Awareness and skepticism remain your best defense.

Rahul Telang 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. Scams and frauds: Here are the tactics criminals use on you in the age of AI and cryptocurrencies – https://theconversation.com/scams-and-frauds-here-are-the-tactics-criminals-use-on-you-in-the-age-of-ai-and-cryptocurrencies-264867

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Joan Strassmann, Professor of Biology, Washington University in St. Louis

As I walked along Bolivar Flats, just across from Galveston Island in Texas, I watched flocks of sanderlings forage along the frothy wavefront as it surged and retreated. Nearby, Caspian terns, American avocets, and black skimmers rested on the beach, each in its own group.

The birds rose simultaneously as I drew near, and then settled farther down the beach, clearly fearing me.

As an evolutionary biologist and author of the new book “The Social Lives of Birds,” I’m fascinated by how social behavior has evolved in birds. Why is it ever worth being with others that not only compete for food but may pass on diseases or even mate with your partner?

Safety in numbers

The late Oxford University biologist William D. Hamilton discussed the advantages of flocking with his landmark 1971 paper “Geometry for the Selfish Herd.” He theorized that individuals in a flock stay because each benefits from the shelter of the group. At the time, a prevailing belief was that animals moved in groups for the benefit of the group, not the individual.

Groups provide some safety because they’re harder to attack, they’re more likely to provide warnings of approaching danger, and they have an ability to respond together if threatened.

But everyone in the group does not necessarily benefit equally.

The best position is one that puts another bird between oneself and a predator, making your neighbor the more likely target. This keeps birds in a group close together as each tries for living shelter. It is a kind of movement you’ll also see in schools of fish or great herds of ungulates in Africa, like wildebeests.

The peril of being the lone bird

Shorebirds, similar to those I saw in Texas, might be the easiest to study, particularly where the predator can come from a forest that borders the shore.

One of the best-studied flocking shorebirds is the common redshank, Tringa tetanus, often seen feeding on mudflats and saltmarshes in Britain. Redshanks are sandpipers very closely related to the greater and lesser yellowlegs I see in Texas, but with red legs rather than yellow.

The predator that redshanks have most reason to fear is the Eurasian sparrowhawk, which watches foraging redshanks from the trees bordering the saltmarsh. When a sparrowhawk picks its prey, it flies fast and hard toward a single predetermined target, grabbing the hapless redshank with its talons.

Evolutionary biologist Will Cresswell studied the redshank’s flocking behavior on the chilly Tyninghame Estuary and found that sparrowhawks were most successful in catching lone birds and those in smaller flocks.

The closer a bird was to a neighbor, the less likely it was to be targeted and caught. That reminds me of that old trope about how fast you have to run from a lion: just faster than your neighbor.

Large flocks have downsides, too

One downside to being in a large redshank flock is that these birds have to take more steps to get food because they have more competition.

With other flock members probing the sand, and the sand shrimp and other invertebrates fleeing this probing, the redshanks spend more time foraging when they are in larger flocks.

Canadian ornithologist Guy Beauchamp compared closely related species on islands where there were fewer predators with those on the mainland where predators were common. Flocks were smaller on islands, allowing the birds to forage with less competition.

Fantastic flying flocks

Flying in flocks can also help birds avoid predators.

Evolutionary biologist Daniel Sankey and his colleagues separated the behavior of predator and prey by using an artificial predator, the ingeniously engineered flying robot falcon. Its behavior could be mechanically controlled as it approached a flock of homing pigeons, all labeled with GPS tags that allowed precise measurements of how the birds’ positions changed.

The team compared pigeon flight with and without attacks by the robot falcon and found that when the pigeons noticed the robot falcon, they turned sharply away from it, following the direction their nearest neighbor was turning and did not cluster more tightly.

More spectacular but harder to study are the mesmerizing flocks of European starlings as they circle and swerve, avoiding predators before settling for the night. These flocks of thousands are called murmurations and are fantastic to watch, and likely frustrating for predators that would struggle to grab a single bird from the swirling scene.

Italian physicist Michele Ballerini figured out that this magnificent visual concert was the result of birds simply keeping track of six nearest neighbors, turning and moving when they did.

Beyond flocks: Roosts and supersociality

Birds are social in other ways, too.

Some sleep together in roosts, nest near each other in colonies, or show off together, carrying out mating dances in what is known as lekking to attract females. They may actively help each other in rearing the young, typically if they are related to the breeders, or anticipate inheriting the breeding position or territory.

Take time to watch the behavior of the birds around you, and you’ll start to notice social behaviors everywhere, from the ducks in a city pond to the chickadees hunting for insects deep in winter. I hope you’ll watch them with more understanding of their social lives, and with a little bit more wonder.

I wrote a book, The Social Lives of Birds, and this piece might increase sales of this book since it is about the same topic and is cited. Not sure if this is a necessary disclosure or not.

– ref. For birds, flocks promise safety – especially if you’re faster than your neighbor – https://theconversation.com/for-birds-flocks-promise-safety-especially-if-youre-faster-than-your-neighbor-264674

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jo Mackiewicz, Professor of Rhetoric and Professional Communication, Iowa State University

A few years ago, while working as a professor and as a welder at a small repair and fabrication shop, I went looking for books about women in the skilled trades. In the few I found, one stood out in how it made way for tradeswomen’s voices: political scientist Jean Reith Schroedel’s 1985 classic “Alone in a Crowd: Women in the Trades Tell Their Stories.”

Her first book after earning her Ph.D., “Alone in a Crowd” drew on Schroedel’s own experience working blue-collar jobs. She interviewed 25 women – machinists, truck drivers, electricians and more – whose stories revealed the exhaustion, danger, harassment and pride that shaped their working lives.

In her introduction, Schroedel noted that American women’s work opportunities have expanded and contracted in step with their rights as citizens. During World War II, for example, women entered the industrial trades in large numbers, only to be forced out when the war ended. They began to find their way back to such work after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which barred discrimination based on sex.

The women who entered skilled trades after 1964 made up just a small share of the workforce, and they faced a wide range of challenges, including sexual harassment. Schroedel’s interviewees talked at length about being harassed and threatened by co-workers and being retaliated against for reporting sexism, racism and bullying.

So what, if anything, has changed, and what’s stayed the same?

Women hold just 5% of jobs in the trades

For one thing, it’s still rare for women to work in the skilled trades. Around 95% of the trades workforce is male, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. Discrimination remains a barrier to entry: A 2020 research review published by sociologist Donna Bridges and her colleagues found that sexual harassment, stereotyping, ostracization and surveillance kept women from entering and staying in construction trades.

According to a 2023 analysis of 25 studies by Kimberly Riddle and Karen Heaton, sexual harassment of tradeswomen becomes more likely when male workers view women as outsiders, when women have less seniority and when jobs are physically demanding. These issues were common in 1985, and they remain so today.

In addition to these meta-analyses – or studies of studies – new research has revealed other similarities between 1985 and now. In a study published in 2022, sociologist Elizabeth Wulff and her colleagues interviewed 15 tradeswomen and found that types of social and cultural capital, such as growing up in a family of tradespeople and being physically strong, led them to be more successful.

Meraiah Foley, a researcher who studies workplace gender equity, and her co-researchers focused on how tradeswomen experience gender harassment – harassment not sexual in nature but focused on gender characteristics. Studying women in aviation and automotive repair in 2019, they found women experience “jokes, jibes, and belittling comments” and bosses who allow such behavior. These behaviors reinforce the view that women are outsiders, making it harder for them to succeed.

Steps forward: Respect, research and cultural shifts

So, has anything improved for women in trades since 1985? While the research clearly shows that problems such as stereotyping, disrespect, scrutiny and harassment haven’t gone away, it would be wrong to say that nothing’s changed.

In Chapter 10 of my 2025 book “Learning Skilled Trades in the Workplace,” I discuss some of the challenges that I’ve encountered as a woman in a welding shop. But I also highlight the ways that my boss and my co-workers have respected my ideas and input, have encouraged me when I’ve made mistakes, have praised my successes, and have generously shared their knowledge.

It’s possible to see change in apprenticeship programs aimed at girls and women, scholarships for women studying trades, professional organizations to support tradeswomen, and, perhaps most important, growing numbers of women in apprenticeships and skilled-trades work. While the problems that tradeswomen encounter in 2025 haven’t changed in nature since 1985, it seems these problems are more readily acknowledged and less ubiquitous.

Also, the body of research on tradeswomen is growing, which can lead to new solutions to old problems. In 2021, for example, Bridges and her co-researchers looked to scholarship on resilience to understand how male-dominated industries might better support tradeswomen. They found that mentoring, role models and networking opportunities, as well as formal health and safety rules and policies such as flexible schedules, help tradeswomen thrive.

Similarly, while most research on women in skilled trades has historically focused on tradeswomen in the U.S., Australia, New Zealand and other Western countries, new scholarship is providing insight into the experiences of tradeswomen elsewhere.

For example, education researchers Joyceline Alla-Mensah and Simon McGrath published an article in March 2025 about barriers to Ghanaian women’s participation in skilled trades. Their interviews brought to light new findings – for example, the importance of land ownership to Ghanaian tradeswomen. Researchers are just now beginning to understand the experiences of women in trades all around the world.

Back in 1985, Schroedel wrote that she had three goals for “Alone in a Crowd”: to let women doing nontraditional work know that they’re not alone, to shed light on their work situations, and to tell the largely overlooked stories of working-class women.

While the outlook for tradeswomen is brighter than it was back in 1985, it would nevertheless be possible to begin a 2025 sequel to “Alone in a Crowd” with the same three goals. And that says something about how far the U.S. has yet to go.

I work for Howe’s Welding and Metal Fabrication.

– ref. 4 decades after the landmark book ‘Alone in a Crowd,’ women in the trades still battle bias – a professor-turned-welder reflects – https://theconversation.com/4-decades-after-the-landmark-book-alone-in-a-crowd-women-in-the-trades-still-battle-bias-a-professor-turned-welder-reflects-262307

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Laurie Archbald-Pannone, Associate Professor of Medicine and Geriatrics, University of Virginia

Autumn brings a chill in the air – and the start of another season of respiratory illnesses, which can be especially hard for older adults.

Although vaccine recommendations have been in flux, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations on respiratory vaccines for older adults remain robust.

As a geriatrician treating primarily patients age 65 and older, I’ve found that my patients are often unsure which of the various types of pneumonia vaccines is the best option for them.

Until recently, the CDC recommended that everyone age 65 and older get a pneumonia vaccine. A year ago, in October 2024, the CDC lowered the recommended age from 65 to 50 due to a growing recognition that pneumonia can cause serious illness in people ages 50-65 – especially people who have other conditions that make them particularly vulnerable.

Pneumonia basics

Pneumonia most commonly occurs when a bacterium called Streptococcus pneumoniae infects the lungs. The infection can spur an outsize immune response and damage cells.

The first vaccine for pneumonia was developed more than 100 years ago, at the request of the South African mining industry, which was losing a startling 5% to 10% of workers to the disease each year.

For decades the most widely used pneumonia vaccine for adults was the so-called 23-valent vaccine, or PPSV23, which was approved in 1983 and protected against 23 strains of pneumococcal bacteria. In 2014, the PCV13 vaccine, which protected against 13 types of these bacteria, became the first pneumonia vaccine to be routinely recommended for adults age 65 and older. This vaccine was made using a newer technology that is thought to be more effective.

Since then, three other pneumonia vaccines for adults, also made using the newer technology, have been licensed and added to the list of those recommended for older adults. The most recent of these is PCV21, which was approved in 2024 and specifically targets strains that usually affect adults rather than children.

Which specific pneumonia vaccine you get will depend on your medical conditions and other health factors. Your health care provider will determine the most appropriate option, but you can learn more about pneumonia vaccines on the CDC’s website and bring specific questions to your next health care visit.

Why did the guidelines change?

As the population of older adults rises, research suggests that without intervention, the number of people hospitalized with pneumococcal pneumonia could nearly double by 2040. About 150,000 Americans are hospitalized with pneumococcal pneumonia each year.

Although the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the independent body that advises the CDC on vaccines, had previously considered lowering the recommended age to receive the vaccine from 65 to 50, the approval of PCV21 provided a push. Because the rate of pneumococcal pneumonia was so high in this age group, they moved to adopt the recommendation.

The pneumonia vaccine boosts the immune system’s ability to fight off this bacterium and lowers the likelihood of getting pneumonia – and of getting seriously ill, getting hospitalized, being put on a breathing machine or dying from a pneumonia infection.

According to the CDC, the old vaccine, PPSV23, is 60% to 70% effective in preventing invasive pneumonia, the more serious version of the disease in which pneumococcal bacteria infect the major organs and the blood. Althoughtis new, its mechanism and the strains it covers suggest it is even more effective, especially for people living in nursing homes or other long-term care facilities.

Who should get the vaccine?

Older age is the clearest risk factor for getting sick from pneumonia. So, if you’re like me and you are planning for an upcoming 50th birthday – and have never gotten the pneumonia vaccine before – make sure to put “get the pneumonia vaccine” on your birthday list.

If you’re an adult under 50 years old with a high risk condition, such as chronic liver disease or diabetes, the CDC also recommends you get vaccinated for pneumonia.

And make sure to talk with your health care provider to see that you’re also up to date on all recommended vaccines, which could include shingles, flu, RSV and COVID-19.

Laurie Archbald-Pannone receives funding from USDA and Prime, Inc

– ref. Pneumonia vaccines for adults are now recommended starting at age 50 – a geriatrician explains the change – https://theconversation.com/pneumonia-vaccines-for-adults-are-now-recommended-starting-at-age-50-a-geriatrician-explains-the-change-262009